THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 9, 2019 at 7:48 pm
Paul Plante says :
And to give us all a better feel for what is really going on here with respect to Nancy Pelosi and the so-called Paris Agreement and the IPCC, since most of it occurs behind closed doors so we do not have knowledge of what is being done, even though it directly impacts on our lives and our well-being, let us go to a NOAA puff piece entitled “Talking with IPCC Vice-chair Ko Barrett: On climate change and consensus building” by author Tom Di Liberto on November 6, 2018, to wit:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
This report investigates the impact that 1.5°C of global warming will have on the people, plants and animals that call Earth home and the pathways to limiting warming.
The report was a request in the Paris Agreement, driven by the concerns of many countries, especially in the Pacific Ocean, who could feel disproportionate impacts from warming below the 2°C threshold the climate negotiations have established as a target.
end quotes
Now, focus in on these words, people, because they are important to understanding that anything coming to us from the IPCC or Paris Agreement crowd, and this most definitely includes Democrat Nancy Pelosi, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, is based on contrived “science” to suit the needs of the politicians of the Paris Agreement crowd, which would include Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats she took with her to Madrid to surrender the United States to the IPCC.
And then we come to this in that NOAA puff-piece, to wit:
Additionally, the IPCC found that limiting warming to 1.5°C can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.
end quotes
Other world goals, people, like eradicating poverty, and since the Democrats back in 1964 launched a WAR ON POVERTY in this country that they still have not won, and since it was estimated in 2015 that 13.5% of Americans (43.1 million) lived in poverty, with other scholars underscoring the number of people in the United States living in “near-poverty,” putting the number at around 100 million, or nearly a third of the U.S. population, it seems to me that instead of flying off to Madrid, where she had no business being, to join the Paris Agreement to eradicate world poverty, Nancy should be ending poverty here first.
Getting back to that NOAA puff-piece:
To learn more about this report and the process that created it, I talked with Ko Barrett, a Vice Chair of the IPCC, based in the U.S.
Ms. Barrett, who is also Deputy Director of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office, has been working on climate for over two decades, representing the United States as a climate negotiator, including almost a decade as the lead U.S. negotiator on adaptation.
Now in her capacity as Vice Chair of the IPCC, she has helped bring this report together, convening groups to bring about consensus.
end quotes
Elsewhere, I have stated my opinion that this Ko Barrett has a serious conflict of interest here, trying to serve her political masters at the IPCC, versus maintaining the integrity of science at NOAA which has become a laughing stock after Sharpie-Gate, and thus, she should not be in charge of research at NOAA, which takes us to that interview, as follows:.
Q: Thank you for joining me.
You are currently the vice chair of the IPCC.
How did you come into that role and what does it mean?
Barrett: Thank you for your interest.
Since 2001, I had been a U.S. delegate to the IPCC as part of the U.S. government delegation.
In 2015, elections were being held for the new leadership team of IPCC.
The U.S. had always had a spot on the leadership team, so they put me forward for vice chair, and I was elected by acclamation.
end quotes
Who are the “they” who put this Ko Barrett forward for vice chair of the IPCC?
Does anyone have a clue?
Getting back to the interview and her further answer, we have:
There are 12 people who compromise the IPCC leadership team.
A chair, three vice chairs and two co-chairs for each of the four working groups or task forces.
The chair is the main representative for the organization.
The co-chairs produce the reports and do the bulk of the assessment work.
The three vice chairs sit in-between those two levels.
We assist with representational activities and work, especially during approval sessions, to convene groups to reach consensus on language.
end quotes
Focus on that statement “convene groups to reach consensus on language.”
In other words, to contrive the “science” that the political IPCC has need of at the moment, as we will see by returning to that interview, as follows:
Q: And what exactly does the IPCC do?
Barrett: The IPCC was formed in 1988 when the issue of climate change was just emerging as a possible challenge.
It is unique in that it is a scientific assessment body that is intergovernmental in nature.
It is sponsored by two organizations in the United Nations (UN) system: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Program.
So the way it functions is like nothing else.
We produce periodic assessments of the state of climate or special topics of interest to policy makers.
At various stages of production of the report, we put it out for expert and government review.
But the summary for policymakers is negotiated line by line and approved by governments.
This is a way to give the governments a chance to weigh in on the report, both generally and specifically.
The summary for policymakers is a discrete enough piece of the report to actually negotiate with governments, without having to put the whole thing up for negotiation.
It [the IPCC] is this incredible handshake between scientists and decision makers that makes it an authoritative perspective on climate science like no other.
end quotes
And it is that handshake between scientists and decision makers that makes it anything it produces highly suspect as politically-contrived “science,” so that it is not an authoritative perspective on climate science, at all – to the contrary, it is perverting climate science for political reasons.
So why are Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for that?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207231
ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 9, 2019 at 7:11 pm
Paul Plante says :
With respect to tokenny’s liberals, to make things incandescently clear here with regard to the “consensus” horse****, anyone calling themselves a “scientist” who is supporting NOAA chief scientist Ko Barrett and the IPCC global climate crowd are supporting someone who has openly put forth a hysterical and sensationalist position about “dire consequences” from climate change that are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, so that by making such wild and unsupported claims in the mainstream media, NOAA chief scientist Ko Barrett engaged in fraud and deception and by doing so, engaged in dishonest conduct, period.
So if anyone is for Ko Barrett and the IPCC, including tokenny’s liberals, that is what they are for – fraud, dishonesty, and deception and contrived science, also known as data manipulation, which is the process in which scientific data is either forged, or in this case, blatantly presented in an unprofessional way to sow panic in the public.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... l-warming/
Paul Plante says :
With respect to tokenny’s liberals, to make things incandescently clear here with regard to the “consensus” horse****, anyone calling themselves a “scientist” who is supporting NOAA chief scientist Ko Barrett and the IPCC global climate crowd are supporting someone who has openly put forth a hysterical and sensationalist position about “dire consequences” from climate change that are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, so that by making such wild and unsupported claims in the mainstream media, NOAA chief scientist Ko Barrett engaged in fraud and deception and by doing so, engaged in dishonest conduct, period.
So if anyone is for Ko Barrett and the IPCC, including tokenny’s liberals, that is what they are for – fraud, dishonesty, and deception and contrived science, also known as data manipulation, which is the process in which scientific data is either forged, or in this case, blatantly presented in an unprofessional way to sow panic in the public.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... l-warming/
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 10, 2019 at 10:40 am
Paul Plante says :
So that we have some type of rational basis in here for considering what these various “scientists” are either for or against in here with respect to this IPCC climate crisis crowd and its “findings,” which are political in nature, not scientific, these are the highlights from the latest IPCC horse**** report, courtesy of this Ko Barrett and NOAA from the NOAA puff-piece or propaganda piece entitled “Talking with IPCC Vice-chair Ko Barrett: On climate change and consensus building” by Tom Di Liberto on November 6, 2018, to wit:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
This report investigates the impact that 1.5°C of global warming will have on the people, plants and animals that call Earth home and the pathways to limiting warming.
The report was a request in the Paris Agreement, driven by the concerns of many countries, especially in the Pacific Ocean, who could feel disproportionate impacts from warming below the 2°C threshold the climate negotiations have established as a target.
In the report, the IPCC concluded that Earth has already warmed approximately 1°C compared to pre-industrial times, and if warming continues at its current pace, we will reach 1.5°C of warming within 1-3 decades (2030-2052).
Limiting warming to 1.5°C is not impossible but would require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
Additionally, the IPCC found that limiting warming to 1.5°C can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.
To learn more about this report and the process that created it, I talked with Ko Barrett, a Vice Chair of the IPCC, based in the U.S.
Ms. Barrett, who is also Deputy Director of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office, has been working on climate for over two decades, representing the United States as a climate negotiator, including almost a decade as the lead U.S. negotiator on adaptation.
Now in her capacity as Vice Chair of the IPCC, she has helped bring this report together, convening groups to bring about consensus.
Highlights:
• If warming continues at its current pace, we will reach 1.5°C of global warming within 1-3 decades.
• Limiting warming to 1.5°C is not impossible but would require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
• Limiting warming can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like eradicating poverty.
end quotes
I’d like to request that Mr. tokenny have his liberal friends bring their liberal scientists who are staunch supporters of this IPCC horse**** above here into this discussion to explain to us the “science” that supports the IPCC finding that “limiting warming can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like eradicating poverty.”
Can the scientists of Mr. tokenny’s friends support that assertion with even a shred of evidence?
There is my essential existential question of the morning to get this new day off to a roll.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... l-warming/
Paul Plante says :
So that we have some type of rational basis in here for considering what these various “scientists” are either for or against in here with respect to this IPCC climate crisis crowd and its “findings,” which are political in nature, not scientific, these are the highlights from the latest IPCC horse**** report, courtesy of this Ko Barrett and NOAA from the NOAA puff-piece or propaganda piece entitled “Talking with IPCC Vice-chair Ko Barrett: On climate change and consensus building” by Tom Di Liberto on November 6, 2018, to wit:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
This report investigates the impact that 1.5°C of global warming will have on the people, plants and animals that call Earth home and the pathways to limiting warming.
The report was a request in the Paris Agreement, driven by the concerns of many countries, especially in the Pacific Ocean, who could feel disproportionate impacts from warming below the 2°C threshold the climate negotiations have established as a target.
In the report, the IPCC concluded that Earth has already warmed approximately 1°C compared to pre-industrial times, and if warming continues at its current pace, we will reach 1.5°C of warming within 1-3 decades (2030-2052).
Limiting warming to 1.5°C is not impossible but would require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
Additionally, the IPCC found that limiting warming to 1.5°C can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.
To learn more about this report and the process that created it, I talked with Ko Barrett, a Vice Chair of the IPCC, based in the U.S.
Ms. Barrett, who is also Deputy Director of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office, has been working on climate for over two decades, representing the United States as a climate negotiator, including almost a decade as the lead U.S. negotiator on adaptation.
Now in her capacity as Vice Chair of the IPCC, she has helped bring this report together, convening groups to bring about consensus.
Highlights:
• If warming continues at its current pace, we will reach 1.5°C of global warming within 1-3 decades.
• Limiting warming to 1.5°C is not impossible but would require unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society.
• Limiting warming can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like eradicating poverty.
end quotes
I’d like to request that Mr. tokenny have his liberal friends bring their liberal scientists who are staunch supporters of this IPCC horse**** above here into this discussion to explain to us the “science” that supports the IPCC finding that “limiting warming can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like eradicating poverty.”
Can the scientists of Mr. tokenny’s friends support that assertion with even a shred of evidence?
There is my essential existential question of the morning to get this new day off to a roll.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... l-warming/
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
ASSOCIATED PRESS
"Longest UN climate talks end with no deal on carbon markets"
By FRANK JORDANS and ARITZ PARRA, Associated Press
15 DECEMBER 2019
MADRID (AP) — Marathon international climate talks ended Sunday with major polluters resisting calls to ramp up efforts to keep global warming at bay and negotiators postponing the regulation of global carbon markets until next year.
Those failures came even after organizers added two more days to the 12 days of scheduled talks in Madrid.
In the end, delegates from almost 200 nations endorsed a declaration to help poor countries that are suffering the effects of climate change, although they didn't allocate any new funds to do so.
The final declaration called on the “urgent need” to cut planet-heating greenhouse gases in line with the goals of the landmark 2015 Paris climate change accord.
That fell far short of promising to enhance countries' pledges to cut planet-heating greenhouse gases next year, which developing countries and environmentalists had lobbied the delegates to achieve.
The Paris accord established the common goal of avoiding a temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.
So far, the world is on course for a 3- to 4-degree Celsius rise, with potentially dramatic consequences for many countries, including rising sea levels and fiercer storms.
Negotiators in Madrid left some of the thorniest issues for the next climate summit in Glasgow in a year, including the liability for damages caused by rising temperatures that developing countries were insisting on.
That demand was resisted mainly by the United States.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “disappointed” by the meeting's outcome.
“The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis,” he said.
"We must not give up and I will not give up.”
“It's sad that we couldn't reach a final agreement" on carbon markets, admitted the climate summit's chair, Carolina Schmidt, Chile's environment minister.
“We were on the verge," she said, adding that the goal was to establish markets that are “robust and environmentally sustainable.”
Economists say putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, would allow countries or companies to trade emissions permits that can be steadily reduced — encouraging businesses to transition to low-emission technologies.
The carbon-market failure did not upset everyone.
Countries in Europe and elsewhere had said that no deal on how to govern the exchange of carbon credits was better than a weak one that could undermine a dozen or so existing regional carbon mechanisms.
“Thankfully, the weak rules on a market based mechanism, promoted by Brazil and Australia, that would have undermined efforts to reduce emissions has been shelved," said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, a campaign group.
Helen Mountford, from the environmental think-tank World Resources Institute, said that “given the high risks of loopholes discussed in Madrid, it was better to delay than accept rules that would have compromised the integrity of the Paris Agreement."
The climate talks have been accompanied at times by protests from indigenous people and environmental groups that reflected the growing frustration, particularly among young people, at the slow pace of governments' efforts to curb climate change.
"The Paris Agreement may have been the victim of a hit-and-run by a handful of powerful carbon economies, but they are on the wrong side of this struggle, the wrong side of history," said Jennifer Morgan, Greenpeace International's executive director.
"Climate blockers like Brazil and Saudi Arabia, enabled by an irresponsibly weak Chilean leadership, peddled carbon deals and steamrolled scientists and civil society," Morgan added.
Chile chaired the talks, which had to be quickly moved to Madrid amid violent anti-government protests back home.
But despite being under pressure to deliver a positive outcome, the Chilean government of President Sebastián Piñera supported holding onto coal-fired power plants until 2040.
Meanwhile, countries agreed to designate funds for the most vulnerable countries to compensate them for the effects of extreme weather, one of the most pressing issues for small island states, despite the U.S. resistance to the liability issue.
Still the delegates didn't clarify how to mobilize a $100 billion per year in climate financing by 2020, as it had been agreed to in Paris.
The European Union and Canada have been one of the few large emitters to show ambition by adopting plans to become carbon neutral by mid-century, but activists said that their leadership failed to resonate among others.
About 80 countries, less than half of those taking part in the talks and accounting altogether only for about one-tenth of global emissions, have expressed intentions to upgrade their pledges next year for net zero emissions targets by 2050.
Nearly 400 cities, over 780 businesses and 16 investors with over $4 trillion in assets have also committed to similar goals.
Still, observers said big emissions emitters like China, the United States and India need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
“Regressive governments put profit over the planetary crisis and the future of generations to come,” the conservation group WWF said in a statement.
Mountford said the talks this year “reflect how disconnected country leaders are from the urgency of the science and the demands of their citizens in the streets.”
“They need to wake up in 2020," she added.
___
Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://www.apnews.com/Climate
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lon ... id=HPDHP17
"Longest UN climate talks end with no deal on carbon markets"
By FRANK JORDANS and ARITZ PARRA, Associated Press
15 DECEMBER 2019
MADRID (AP) — Marathon international climate talks ended Sunday with major polluters resisting calls to ramp up efforts to keep global warming at bay and negotiators postponing the regulation of global carbon markets until next year.
Those failures came even after organizers added two more days to the 12 days of scheduled talks in Madrid.
In the end, delegates from almost 200 nations endorsed a declaration to help poor countries that are suffering the effects of climate change, although they didn't allocate any new funds to do so.
The final declaration called on the “urgent need” to cut planet-heating greenhouse gases in line with the goals of the landmark 2015 Paris climate change accord.
That fell far short of promising to enhance countries' pledges to cut planet-heating greenhouse gases next year, which developing countries and environmentalists had lobbied the delegates to achieve.
The Paris accord established the common goal of avoiding a temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.
So far, the world is on course for a 3- to 4-degree Celsius rise, with potentially dramatic consequences for many countries, including rising sea levels and fiercer storms.
Negotiators in Madrid left some of the thorniest issues for the next climate summit in Glasgow in a year, including the liability for damages caused by rising temperatures that developing countries were insisting on.
That demand was resisted mainly by the United States.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “disappointed” by the meeting's outcome.
“The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis,” he said.
"We must not give up and I will not give up.”
“It's sad that we couldn't reach a final agreement" on carbon markets, admitted the climate summit's chair, Carolina Schmidt, Chile's environment minister.
“We were on the verge," she said, adding that the goal was to establish markets that are “robust and environmentally sustainable.”
Economists say putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, would allow countries or companies to trade emissions permits that can be steadily reduced — encouraging businesses to transition to low-emission technologies.
The carbon-market failure did not upset everyone.
Countries in Europe and elsewhere had said that no deal on how to govern the exchange of carbon credits was better than a weak one that could undermine a dozen or so existing regional carbon mechanisms.
“Thankfully, the weak rules on a market based mechanism, promoted by Brazil and Australia, that would have undermined efforts to reduce emissions has been shelved," said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, a campaign group.
Helen Mountford, from the environmental think-tank World Resources Institute, said that “given the high risks of loopholes discussed in Madrid, it was better to delay than accept rules that would have compromised the integrity of the Paris Agreement."
The climate talks have been accompanied at times by protests from indigenous people and environmental groups that reflected the growing frustration, particularly among young people, at the slow pace of governments' efforts to curb climate change.
"The Paris Agreement may have been the victim of a hit-and-run by a handful of powerful carbon economies, but they are on the wrong side of this struggle, the wrong side of history," said Jennifer Morgan, Greenpeace International's executive director.
"Climate blockers like Brazil and Saudi Arabia, enabled by an irresponsibly weak Chilean leadership, peddled carbon deals and steamrolled scientists and civil society," Morgan added.
Chile chaired the talks, which had to be quickly moved to Madrid amid violent anti-government protests back home.
But despite being under pressure to deliver a positive outcome, the Chilean government of President Sebastián Piñera supported holding onto coal-fired power plants until 2040.
Meanwhile, countries agreed to designate funds for the most vulnerable countries to compensate them for the effects of extreme weather, one of the most pressing issues for small island states, despite the U.S. resistance to the liability issue.
Still the delegates didn't clarify how to mobilize a $100 billion per year in climate financing by 2020, as it had been agreed to in Paris.
The European Union and Canada have been one of the few large emitters to show ambition by adopting plans to become carbon neutral by mid-century, but activists said that their leadership failed to resonate among others.
About 80 countries, less than half of those taking part in the talks and accounting altogether only for about one-tenth of global emissions, have expressed intentions to upgrade their pledges next year for net zero emissions targets by 2050.
Nearly 400 cities, over 780 businesses and 16 investors with over $4 trillion in assets have also committed to similar goals.
Still, observers said big emissions emitters like China, the United States and India need to stop shirking their responsibilities.
“Regressive governments put profit over the planetary crisis and the future of generations to come,” the conservation group WWF said in a statement.
Mountford said the talks this year “reflect how disconnected country leaders are from the urgency of the science and the demands of their citizens in the streets.”
“They need to wake up in 2020," she added.
___
Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://www.apnews.com/Climate
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/lon ... id=HPDHP17
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE NATIONAL REVIEW
"Greta Thunberg Is the Perfect Hero for an Unserious Time"
By David Harsanyi
December 11, 2019 2:35 PM
Histrionic, beset by apocalyptic fantasies, and easily exploitable!
Who better than a finger-wagging teen bereft of accomplishment, or any comprehension of basic economics or history, to be Time magazine’s Person of the Year in 2019? Greta Thunberg’s canonization is a perfect expression of media activism in a deeply unserious time.
Has there ever been a less consequential person picked to be Person of the Year?
I doubt it.
I mean, Wallis Simpson, 1936’s Person of the Year, got King Edward VIII to abdicate the throne.
Thunberg can’t even get you to abdicate your air-conditioning.
These days we celebrate vacuous fire and brimstone.
“Greta Thunberg” — the idea, not the girl — is concoction of activists who have increasingly taken to using children as a shield from critical analysis or debate.
She’s the vessel of the environmentalist’s fraudulent apocalypticism-as-argument.
Her style is emotion and indignation, histrionics and fantasy.
She is a teenager, after all.
How dare you attack a poor defenseless child who suffers from Asperger syndrome!
You’ll notice that, on one hand, Thunberg’s champions demand that the world take her Malthusian crusade seriously, and on the other, they feign indignation when you actually do.
The argument that young people, because they will inherit the future, are also best equipped to comprehend it is as puerile as any of Greta’s positions.
Perhaps a better question is, What kind of parents, editors, producers, or U.N. officials would thrust a vulnerable child with Asperger, no less, into a complex and contentious debate?
I have great sympathy for her.
It’s her ideological handlers who have stolen her childhood.
Surely we should be allowed to consider the positions of Time magazine’s 2019 Person of the Year?
Because the problem with Greta Thunberg — the idea, not the girl — is that she proposes not only that the people of her native Sweden abandon modernity but that billions of people in Asia and Africa remain in destitution as well.
Greta, unlike many of her ideological allies, does not hide the truth of modern environmentalism.
She believes that wealth and economic growth — modernity — are the problem.
Shamefully, radical environmentalists have convinced Greta and millions of others that the world is on the precipice of “mass extinction.”
Even poor Prince Harry struggles to get out his Kensington Palace bed and start the day, so crushed is he by the weight of “eco-anxiety.”
(You know, I have some ideas on how he might may be able to lower his carbon footprint.)
Like Joan of Arc, as Greta’s mother tells it, she experienced her first vision in her early teens, going months without eating properly.
Greta, her heart rate and blood pressure indicating starvation, stopped talking to anyone but her parents and younger sister.
Rather than helping Greta overcome this irrational dread, her parents sacrificed her childhood to Gaia.
Now, Greta is a child warrior, unrestrained by fact or reason, the human embodiment of years of fearmongering — in our schools, in culture, in our news — over progress, technology, and wealth.
Greta is merely repeating “unassailable science,” Time claims.
“Oceans will rise."
"Cities will flood."
"Millions of people will suffer.”
The unassailable truth is that climate deaths have plummeted dramatically and billions of people have been lifted from abject poverty by the system that Greta assails.
There is no “unassailable science” that tells us how the future looks: what technologies humans will devise, how they will adapt.
One imagines a magazine such as Time, which once published pieces about now-discredited predictions of a “population bomb” and global cooling, might understand that the future is always more complicated than we imagine.
And, as I’ve noted elsewhere, the reality is that Thunberg was bequeathed the healthiest, wealthiest, safest, and most peaceful world that humans have ever known.
She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived.
And unlike most of her ancestors, she can continue to be a professional activist her entire life, thanks to market economies and emerging technological advances.
In a just world, she would be sailing her high-tech multimillion-dollar ocean-racing yacht and crew to the United Nations to thank the United States for helping to create this uniquely wonderful circumstance.
In just world, she would be in school with her friends and teachers.
It’s been years, of course, since Time, or the magazine’s Person of the Year, mattered very much.
The truth, though, is that Time did an admirable job of mapping out consequential people of the 20th century.
Looking back now, I see a list populated by the men and women, nefarious and heroic, who helped shape the modern world.
Sadly, Time has come a long way from “The Hungarian Freedom Fighter,” its choice for Man of the Year in 1957.
If we Americans lived in a more serious time, the Hong Kong freedom fighter, the men and women who risk their lives for liberty, would be Time’s Person of the Year.
We don’t.
David Harsanyi is a senior writer for National Review and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun. @davidharsanyi
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/ ... ious-time/
"Greta Thunberg Is the Perfect Hero for an Unserious Time"
By David Harsanyi
December 11, 2019 2:35 PM
Histrionic, beset by apocalyptic fantasies, and easily exploitable!
Who better than a finger-wagging teen bereft of accomplishment, or any comprehension of basic economics or history, to be Time magazine’s Person of the Year in 2019? Greta Thunberg’s canonization is a perfect expression of media activism in a deeply unserious time.
Has there ever been a less consequential person picked to be Person of the Year?
I doubt it.
I mean, Wallis Simpson, 1936’s Person of the Year, got King Edward VIII to abdicate the throne.
Thunberg can’t even get you to abdicate your air-conditioning.
These days we celebrate vacuous fire and brimstone.
“Greta Thunberg” — the idea, not the girl — is concoction of activists who have increasingly taken to using children as a shield from critical analysis or debate.
She’s the vessel of the environmentalist’s fraudulent apocalypticism-as-argument.
Her style is emotion and indignation, histrionics and fantasy.
She is a teenager, after all.
How dare you attack a poor defenseless child who suffers from Asperger syndrome!
You’ll notice that, on one hand, Thunberg’s champions demand that the world take her Malthusian crusade seriously, and on the other, they feign indignation when you actually do.
The argument that young people, because they will inherit the future, are also best equipped to comprehend it is as puerile as any of Greta’s positions.
Perhaps a better question is, What kind of parents, editors, producers, or U.N. officials would thrust a vulnerable child with Asperger, no less, into a complex and contentious debate?
I have great sympathy for her.
It’s her ideological handlers who have stolen her childhood.
Surely we should be allowed to consider the positions of Time magazine’s 2019 Person of the Year?
Because the problem with Greta Thunberg — the idea, not the girl — is that she proposes not only that the people of her native Sweden abandon modernity but that billions of people in Asia and Africa remain in destitution as well.
Greta, unlike many of her ideological allies, does not hide the truth of modern environmentalism.
She believes that wealth and economic growth — modernity — are the problem.
Shamefully, radical environmentalists have convinced Greta and millions of others that the world is on the precipice of “mass extinction.”
Even poor Prince Harry struggles to get out his Kensington Palace bed and start the day, so crushed is he by the weight of “eco-anxiety.”
(You know, I have some ideas on how he might may be able to lower his carbon footprint.)
Like Joan of Arc, as Greta’s mother tells it, she experienced her first vision in her early teens, going months without eating properly.
Greta, her heart rate and blood pressure indicating starvation, stopped talking to anyone but her parents and younger sister.
Rather than helping Greta overcome this irrational dread, her parents sacrificed her childhood to Gaia.
Now, Greta is a child warrior, unrestrained by fact or reason, the human embodiment of years of fearmongering — in our schools, in culture, in our news — over progress, technology, and wealth.
Greta is merely repeating “unassailable science,” Time claims.
“Oceans will rise."
"Cities will flood."
"Millions of people will suffer.”
The unassailable truth is that climate deaths have plummeted dramatically and billions of people have been lifted from abject poverty by the system that Greta assails.
There is no “unassailable science” that tells us how the future looks: what technologies humans will devise, how they will adapt.
One imagines a magazine such as Time, which once published pieces about now-discredited predictions of a “population bomb” and global cooling, might understand that the future is always more complicated than we imagine.
And, as I’ve noted elsewhere, the reality is that Thunberg was bequeathed the healthiest, wealthiest, safest, and most peaceful world that humans have ever known.
She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived.
And unlike most of her ancestors, she can continue to be a professional activist her entire life, thanks to market economies and emerging technological advances.
In a just world, she would be sailing her high-tech multimillion-dollar ocean-racing yacht and crew to the United Nations to thank the United States for helping to create this uniquely wonderful circumstance.
In just world, she would be in school with her friends and teachers.
It’s been years, of course, since Time, or the magazine’s Person of the Year, mattered very much.
The truth, though, is that Time did an admirable job of mapping out consequential people of the 20th century.
Looking back now, I see a list populated by the men and women, nefarious and heroic, who helped shape the modern world.
Sadly, Time has come a long way from “The Hungarian Freedom Fighter,” its choice for Man of the Year in 1957.
If we Americans lived in a more serious time, the Hong Kong freedom fighter, the men and women who risk their lives for liberty, would be Time’s Person of the Year.
We don’t.
David Harsanyi is a senior writer for National Review and the author of First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History with the Gun. @davidharsanyi
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/ ... ious-time/
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 23, 2019 at 8:07 pm
Paul Plante says :
I am one of those people, Mr. Otton, but that is now really beside the point, because we have a young generation who believe thusly, to wit:
“For way too long, the politicians and the people in power have gotten away with not doing anything to fight the climate crisis, but we will make sure that they will not get away with it any longer.”
“We are striking because we have done our homework and they have not.”
end quotes
That, of course, was “Teen climate activist” Greta Thunberg as quoted in The Guardian on 1 March 2019, and there, older Americans like ourselves stand condemned, and any “science” that we relied on, like Arrhenius and Lamb, has been denounced by the “Greta Crowd,” with little Greta stating to us on 23 April 2019:
“You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before.”
“Like now.”
“And those answers don’t exist any more.”
“Because you did not act in time.”
end quotes
The real reason ADULTS like myself don’t listen to the “science” of Greta Thunberg is because what she calls “science” is really a negation of all real science that does not support the premise of Greta and the faculty at the University of Virginia Global Development Studies program which is an undergraduate interdisciplinary program with a focus on social justice, sustainable economic development, public health, global interconnection, and public service that carbon dioxide is the only cause of the “global warming” they say is happening, because carbon dioxide is needed as the BOOGEY-MAN, so that there is then a need for “social justice,” which is defined as justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
Social Justice as a concept arose in the early 19th century during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions throughout Europe, which aimed to create more egalitarian societies and remedy capitalistic exploitation of human labor, and now, we have it here, thanks to the premise that “climate change caused by anthropocentric carbon dioxide pollution is going to cause severe impacts ranging from mass species extinction to dramatic sea-level rise to widespread food and water shortages which will disproportionately affect those who have done the least to create climate change, namely low-income people and people of color.”
We’re guilty of being bad people, Mr. Otton – we had our chance to do something about acid rain, global cooling, global warming, super hurricanes, tornado bombs, ozone depletion and on and on, and all we did instead was to steal Greta Thunberg’s childhood from her like a pack of thugs.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-211211
Paul Plante says :
I am one of those people, Mr. Otton, but that is now really beside the point, because we have a young generation who believe thusly, to wit:
“For way too long, the politicians and the people in power have gotten away with not doing anything to fight the climate crisis, but we will make sure that they will not get away with it any longer.”
“We are striking because we have done our homework and they have not.”
end quotes
That, of course, was “Teen climate activist” Greta Thunberg as quoted in The Guardian on 1 March 2019, and there, older Americans like ourselves stand condemned, and any “science” that we relied on, like Arrhenius and Lamb, has been denounced by the “Greta Crowd,” with little Greta stating to us on 23 April 2019:
“You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before.”
“Like now.”
“And those answers don’t exist any more.”
“Because you did not act in time.”
end quotes
The real reason ADULTS like myself don’t listen to the “science” of Greta Thunberg is because what she calls “science” is really a negation of all real science that does not support the premise of Greta and the faculty at the University of Virginia Global Development Studies program which is an undergraduate interdisciplinary program with a focus on social justice, sustainable economic development, public health, global interconnection, and public service that carbon dioxide is the only cause of the “global warming” they say is happening, because carbon dioxide is needed as the BOOGEY-MAN, so that there is then a need for “social justice,” which is defined as justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
Social Justice as a concept arose in the early 19th century during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions throughout Europe, which aimed to create more egalitarian societies and remedy capitalistic exploitation of human labor, and now, we have it here, thanks to the premise that “climate change caused by anthropocentric carbon dioxide pollution is going to cause severe impacts ranging from mass species extinction to dramatic sea-level rise to widespread food and water shortages which will disproportionately affect those who have done the least to create climate change, namely low-income people and people of color.”
We’re guilty of being bad people, Mr. Otton – we had our chance to do something about acid rain, global cooling, global warming, super hurricanes, tornado bombs, ozone depletion and on and on, and all we did instead was to steal Greta Thunberg’s childhood from her like a pack of thugs.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-211211
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 24, 2019 at 7:55 pm
Paul Plante says :
While we older Americans, who are freely accused in here with stealing the childhoods of Greta Thunberg and our own tokenny, have been living our lives, being responsible and productive citizens, in my case as a licensed professional engineer further qualified as an associate level public health engineer, and raising our families, we find in here today, thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror shining a light on this important subject of interest to us all, that being the HYSTERIA now associated with the fact that the earth’s climate has never been stable, and is always in a state of change, sometimes rapidly and quite violently, that we are being confronted with what is a whole new paradigm perhaps best expressed in an article on CLIMATE JUSTICE put out by the United Nations, as follows:
The impacts of climate change will not be borne equally or fairly, between rich and poor, women and men, and older and younger generations.
end quotes
Now, that is a dictate from the United Nations that is not up for debate, and that is a critical point we older Americans must needs come to understand – whether or not there is objective evidence to support that dictate has become immaterial, nor does it gain us anything to point out that such has always been the case, all over the world and in all times, as we see from the following:
Consequently, there has been a growing focus on climate justice, which looks at the climate crisis through a human rights lens and on the belief that by working together we can create a better future for present and future generations.
end quotes
Now, to me, an older American citizen, that phrase about the “growing focus” on so-called “climate justice” looking at the “climate crisis” through a “human rights lens” is something we should all be paying attention to here in the United States of America because of the implications of that phrase in terms of making us legally liable if somebody in some other country doesn’t like their weather, and chooses to blame it on us for causing them to have a cloudy sky or a windy day.
Climate justice “insists on a shift from a discourse on greenhouse gases and melting ice caps into a civil rights movement with the people and communities most vulnerable to climate impacts at its heart,” said Mary Robinson who is no stranger in the world of politics and human rights.
“Now, thanks to the recent marches, strikes and protests by hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren, we have begun to understand the intergenerational injustice of climate change,” she said, stressing the importance of intergenerational partnerships where young people are seen as “means of implementation” and “creators of opportunities” and not just beneficiaries.
end quotes
The “intergenerational injustice of climate change?”
Given that the climate of the earth is always changing, for natural reasons known to science and those who dare to actually read the science, where “science” is meant to mean the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, with the aim of science being to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works, what exactly is the “intergenerational injustice of climate change?”
Who determines it?
How is it adjudicated?
For those answers, we need to go to trusty Wikipedia for a first blush look at the subject of climate justice, to wit:
Climate justice is a term used for framing global warming as an ethical and political issue, rather than one that is purely environmental or physical in nature.
end quotes
Given that the earth’s climate has never been stationary, or unchanging, and given that prior to these times, it has been both warmer and colder, how is “global warming,” which is a concept, either an ethical or political issue, where “ethical” is taken to mean “relating to moral principles?”
How exactly are “moral principles” in any way connected with the fact that the earth we live on has an unstable climate that is always in a state of change?
Getting back to Wikipedia for some answers, we have:
This is done by relating the effects of climate change to concepts of justice, particularly environmental justice and social justice and by examining issues such as equality, human rights, collective rights, and the historical responsibilities for climate change.
end quotes
Historical responsibilities for climate change?
Why, that would have to be the earth itself, would it not?
So, are we going to hold the earth to account because the climate it offers us where we live isn’t what we want it to be?
And how exactly are we to do that?
Order the earth to be shackled and whipped the way Xerxes the Persian king had the Bosporus shackled and whipped when it actually dared to kick up some waves that wrecked his bridge of boats?
Getting back to Wikipedia:
A fundamental proposition of climate justice is that those who are least responsible for climate change suffer its gravest consequences.
end quotes
That should actually read that the proposition of climate justice being that those who are least responsible for climate change suffer its gravest consequences cannot in any way be challenged, and instead, regardless of a lack of supporting evidence, must be accepted at face value, which is a negation of science.
And here we come to the meat of the subject, which is OUR liability as a people and as a nation if other people in the world do not like the weather the earth is dealing them at any given moment in time, to wit:
The term climate justice is also used to mean actual legal action on climate change issues.
In 2017, a report of the United Nations Environment Programme identified 894 ongoing legal actions worldwide.
end quotes
Yes, indeed, people, a serious business, indeed, and we all owe the Cape Charles Mirror a debt of gratitude as citizens for hosting this series of discussions on the subject of the earth’s ever-changing climate.
And it is arrogant in the extreme for young people in this country to think that any politicians have it in their power to control the earth’s climate, and if in fact they did hold that power over us, how very dangerous they would in fact be!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-211555
Paul Plante says :
While we older Americans, who are freely accused in here with stealing the childhoods of Greta Thunberg and our own tokenny, have been living our lives, being responsible and productive citizens, in my case as a licensed professional engineer further qualified as an associate level public health engineer, and raising our families, we find in here today, thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror shining a light on this important subject of interest to us all, that being the HYSTERIA now associated with the fact that the earth’s climate has never been stable, and is always in a state of change, sometimes rapidly and quite violently, that we are being confronted with what is a whole new paradigm perhaps best expressed in an article on CLIMATE JUSTICE put out by the United Nations, as follows:
The impacts of climate change will not be borne equally or fairly, between rich and poor, women and men, and older and younger generations.
end quotes
Now, that is a dictate from the United Nations that is not up for debate, and that is a critical point we older Americans must needs come to understand – whether or not there is objective evidence to support that dictate has become immaterial, nor does it gain us anything to point out that such has always been the case, all over the world and in all times, as we see from the following:
Consequently, there has been a growing focus on climate justice, which looks at the climate crisis through a human rights lens and on the belief that by working together we can create a better future for present and future generations.
end quotes
Now, to me, an older American citizen, that phrase about the “growing focus” on so-called “climate justice” looking at the “climate crisis” through a “human rights lens” is something we should all be paying attention to here in the United States of America because of the implications of that phrase in terms of making us legally liable if somebody in some other country doesn’t like their weather, and chooses to blame it on us for causing them to have a cloudy sky or a windy day.
Climate justice “insists on a shift from a discourse on greenhouse gases and melting ice caps into a civil rights movement with the people and communities most vulnerable to climate impacts at its heart,” said Mary Robinson who is no stranger in the world of politics and human rights.
“Now, thanks to the recent marches, strikes and protests by hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren, we have begun to understand the intergenerational injustice of climate change,” she said, stressing the importance of intergenerational partnerships where young people are seen as “means of implementation” and “creators of opportunities” and not just beneficiaries.
end quotes
The “intergenerational injustice of climate change?”
Given that the climate of the earth is always changing, for natural reasons known to science and those who dare to actually read the science, where “science” is meant to mean the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, with the aim of science being to build true and accurate knowledge about how the world works, what exactly is the “intergenerational injustice of climate change?”
Who determines it?
How is it adjudicated?
For those answers, we need to go to trusty Wikipedia for a first blush look at the subject of climate justice, to wit:
Climate justice is a term used for framing global warming as an ethical and political issue, rather than one that is purely environmental or physical in nature.
end quotes
Given that the earth’s climate has never been stationary, or unchanging, and given that prior to these times, it has been both warmer and colder, how is “global warming,” which is a concept, either an ethical or political issue, where “ethical” is taken to mean “relating to moral principles?”
How exactly are “moral principles” in any way connected with the fact that the earth we live on has an unstable climate that is always in a state of change?
Getting back to Wikipedia for some answers, we have:
This is done by relating the effects of climate change to concepts of justice, particularly environmental justice and social justice and by examining issues such as equality, human rights, collective rights, and the historical responsibilities for climate change.
end quotes
Historical responsibilities for climate change?
Why, that would have to be the earth itself, would it not?
So, are we going to hold the earth to account because the climate it offers us where we live isn’t what we want it to be?
And how exactly are we to do that?
Order the earth to be shackled and whipped the way Xerxes the Persian king had the Bosporus shackled and whipped when it actually dared to kick up some waves that wrecked his bridge of boats?
Getting back to Wikipedia:
A fundamental proposition of climate justice is that those who are least responsible for climate change suffer its gravest consequences.
end quotes
That should actually read that the proposition of climate justice being that those who are least responsible for climate change suffer its gravest consequences cannot in any way be challenged, and instead, regardless of a lack of supporting evidence, must be accepted at face value, which is a negation of science.
And here we come to the meat of the subject, which is OUR liability as a people and as a nation if other people in the world do not like the weather the earth is dealing them at any given moment in time, to wit:
The term climate justice is also used to mean actual legal action on climate change issues.
In 2017, a report of the United Nations Environment Programme identified 894 ongoing legal actions worldwide.
end quotes
Yes, indeed, people, a serious business, indeed, and we all owe the Cape Charles Mirror a debt of gratitude as citizens for hosting this series of discussions on the subject of the earth’s ever-changing climate.
And it is arrogant in the extreme for young people in this country to think that any politicians have it in their power to control the earth’s climate, and if in fact they did hold that power over us, how very dangerous they would in fact be!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-211555
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 25, 2019 at 5:15 pm
Paul Plante says :
From my perspective as an American citizen, it is truly unfortunate that this subject of importance to each and every one of us has been made so dense and incomprehensible as to who these people are and what they are doing, or trying to do, and why they are having these meetings which essentially accomplish nothing, because world social democratic government, while in theory might be something to strive for, in reality is nothing more than a pipe dream and a joke.
As we were informed in the original post, the UN’s annual climate conference ended Monday with big decisions pushed off to 2020 and beyond, but what “big decisions?”
And for whom?
And the answer is, We, the American people, who are to be affected by those “big decisions,” have no clue as to what they are or might be, because those COP’s are not transparent, by design, as we see from the following RULES, to wit:
Categories for attendance at COP
1. State Party delegate with valid credentials
2. State non-Party delegate with valid credentials
3. IGO or NGO observer to COP with valid credentials
4. Member of the public or media
General information for Category 4
The COP has the authority to decide whether or not the session will be open to the public.
Limited public access will be allowed at the Conference’s plenary session and committee meetings if the COP does not decide otherwise in the course of the first plenary.
Applications for attendance are submitted on a daily basis at the Conference venue and are granted by the Secretariat on a first come, first served basis.
Media representatives must apply for accreditation before the start of the session, following the instructions on this website.
To be accredited, journalists should send a request to mediafctc@who.int along with: a letter signed by their editor-in-chief indicating the reason for accreditation and the dates for which accreditation is required; photocopies of media credentials, such as a press card; the completed media accreditation application form; a Declaration of Interests (DOI) form duly filled out; a copy of their passport along with a passport-style photograph.
Submission of these documents does not amount to acceptance.
The Secretariat will review all media applications and if successful, the applicant will be informed that they have received media accreditation for the session.
However, accredited journalists must abide by existing and subsequent decisions made by the Parties which may restrict access to meetings.
Under the current Rules of Procedure, the media falls under the category of public.
A future COP may make a decision whether to treat media as a separate category and give further guidance on media attendance at the COP.
end quotes
As to who these people are, we have this from the United Nations Climate Change website, to wit:
What is the COP?
The COP is the supreme decision-making body of the Convention.
end quotes
And this is what I am talking about when I say this subject gets denser and denser the deeper one tries to look into it.
So what then is the “Convention?”
When I try to find that answer at the UN site in the section Information on election and membership of the bodies of the Convention, I am rewarded with this warning, to wit: Access denied, You are not authorized to access this page.
State secrets, people – STAY OUT, YOUR KIND NOT WANTED IN HERE!
Coming at it from a different direction at the UN site, I found this, to wit:
How to engage without observer status
Who can attend UNFCCC conferences?
The secretariat would like to point out that in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 6 of the Convention, Parties to the Convention, United Nations and related organizations and agencies, media and already admitted non-profit observer organizations may attend the sessions of the Convention.
Consequently, conferences are not open to the public.
If your organization is not admitted, i.e. does not carry official observer status with the UNFCCC, and you have missed the deadline for admission or if your organization is not eligible for admission, the representatives of your organization might be nominated and confirmed to attend sessions by already-admitted observer organizations who agree for them to be part of their delegation.
Visibility on the list of participants will be given to the name of your organization if the nominating organization makes relevant entries in the online registration system when confirming your representatives.
Please note that observer organizations must nominate and confirm their representatives by the deadlines that are announced in the notification and/or information note for each conference.
List of all admitted observer organizations:
•Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
•Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)
For more information on how an organization can be granted observer status in the UNFCCC process, please click here.
end quotes
And here I must again thank the Cape Charles Mirror for hosting this series of articles on this issue of “climate change,” and “social justice,” and “climate justice,” because there is some real serious **** going down that is warping and twisting the minds of young people in America, and that is very much to our detriment as a nation and people.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-211849
Paul Plante says :
From my perspective as an American citizen, it is truly unfortunate that this subject of importance to each and every one of us has been made so dense and incomprehensible as to who these people are and what they are doing, or trying to do, and why they are having these meetings which essentially accomplish nothing, because world social democratic government, while in theory might be something to strive for, in reality is nothing more than a pipe dream and a joke.
As we were informed in the original post, the UN’s annual climate conference ended Monday with big decisions pushed off to 2020 and beyond, but what “big decisions?”
And for whom?
And the answer is, We, the American people, who are to be affected by those “big decisions,” have no clue as to what they are or might be, because those COP’s are not transparent, by design, as we see from the following RULES, to wit:
Categories for attendance at COP
1. State Party delegate with valid credentials
2. State non-Party delegate with valid credentials
3. IGO or NGO observer to COP with valid credentials
4. Member of the public or media
General information for Category 4
The COP has the authority to decide whether or not the session will be open to the public.
Limited public access will be allowed at the Conference’s plenary session and committee meetings if the COP does not decide otherwise in the course of the first plenary.
Applications for attendance are submitted on a daily basis at the Conference venue and are granted by the Secretariat on a first come, first served basis.
Media representatives must apply for accreditation before the start of the session, following the instructions on this website.
To be accredited, journalists should send a request to mediafctc@who.int along with: a letter signed by their editor-in-chief indicating the reason for accreditation and the dates for which accreditation is required; photocopies of media credentials, such as a press card; the completed media accreditation application form; a Declaration of Interests (DOI) form duly filled out; a copy of their passport along with a passport-style photograph.
Submission of these documents does not amount to acceptance.
The Secretariat will review all media applications and if successful, the applicant will be informed that they have received media accreditation for the session.
However, accredited journalists must abide by existing and subsequent decisions made by the Parties which may restrict access to meetings.
Under the current Rules of Procedure, the media falls under the category of public.
A future COP may make a decision whether to treat media as a separate category and give further guidance on media attendance at the COP.
end quotes
As to who these people are, we have this from the United Nations Climate Change website, to wit:
What is the COP?
The COP is the supreme decision-making body of the Convention.
end quotes
And this is what I am talking about when I say this subject gets denser and denser the deeper one tries to look into it.
So what then is the “Convention?”
When I try to find that answer at the UN site in the section Information on election and membership of the bodies of the Convention, I am rewarded with this warning, to wit: Access denied, You are not authorized to access this page.
State secrets, people – STAY OUT, YOUR KIND NOT WANTED IN HERE!
Coming at it from a different direction at the UN site, I found this, to wit:
How to engage without observer status
Who can attend UNFCCC conferences?
The secretariat would like to point out that in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 6 of the Convention, Parties to the Convention, United Nations and related organizations and agencies, media and already admitted non-profit observer organizations may attend the sessions of the Convention.
Consequently, conferences are not open to the public.
If your organization is not admitted, i.e. does not carry official observer status with the UNFCCC, and you have missed the deadline for admission or if your organization is not eligible for admission, the representatives of your organization might be nominated and confirmed to attend sessions by already-admitted observer organizations who agree for them to be part of their delegation.
Visibility on the list of participants will be given to the name of your organization if the nominating organization makes relevant entries in the online registration system when confirming your representatives.
Please note that observer organizations must nominate and confirm their representatives by the deadlines that are announced in the notification and/or information note for each conference.
List of all admitted observer organizations:
•Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
•Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)
For more information on how an organization can be granted observer status in the UNFCCC process, please click here.
end quotes
And here I must again thank the Cape Charles Mirror for hosting this series of articles on this issue of “climate change,” and “social justice,” and “climate justice,” because there is some real serious **** going down that is warping and twisting the minds of young people in America, and that is very much to our detriment as a nation and people.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-211849
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 27, 2019 at 11:06 am
Paul Plante says:
We older folks in here are like a bunch of Rip Van Winkles who went to sleep and slept through the end of the Holocene, to wake up finding ourselves instead firmly into the Anthropocene, where everything we once knew about science concerning the earth is no longer true, and according to District Judge Ann Aiken, nominated by Bill Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate on January 28, 1998, receiving her commission on February 4, 1998, “a climate system capable of sustaining human life” is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, so that if each of us now does not like the climate where we are, as long as we are children, we now have the right to sue the federal government for a new and far better climate which under our Constitution, the federal government has a duty to provide us.
If we are not children, then it is we older folks who are the ones being sued, since the United States Constitution begins with We, the People.
For those unfamiliar with the case, which is still pending in federal court, Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate justice-based lawsuit filed in 2015 that has been brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several of its executive branch positions and officers, also formerly including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump.
The plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children’s Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez’s organization Earth Guardians, and on behalf of future generations represented by climatologist James Hansen.
The lawsuit asserts that the government violated the youths’ rights by encouraging and allowing activities that significantly harmed their right to life and liberty, and sought the government to adopt methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Oregon non-profit organization, Our Children’s Trust, was created by attorney Julia Olson to help formulate legal cases that could be taken against states and the federal government that would charge them with mitigating climate change under the public trust doctrine.
Olson established the non-profit with advice and assistance from Mary Christina Wood, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Oregon, who had been studying the concept of the public trust doctrine and established the idea of “Atmospheric Trust Litigation” to take legal action to make governments responsible for actions related to climate change.
That case was filed in August 2015 with the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and was assigned to judge Ann Aiken, who was then the chief judge of the court.
The 21 youths, ranging from 8 to 19 at the time of filing, received pro bono representation from Our Children’s Trust, and had support of climatologist James Hansen, acting as a “guardian for future generations” in the case filings.
The youths were selected by Our Children’s Trust as they all were able to demonstrate immediate “concrete injury” due to climate change, such as having their homes wiped out by excessive flooding, rising sea levels, and desertification which were tied to climate change.
The case was filed against President Barack Obama and several agencies within the executive branch, and sought confirmation that their constitutional and public trust rights had been violated by the government’s actions, and sought an order to enjoin the defendants from continued violation of their rights and to develop a plan to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions.
Among their arguments, the youths’ attorneys asserted that the lack of governmental action on climate change discriminated against the youths’ generation, since they would be most impacted by climate change but have no voting rights to influence that.
So there we older folks who slept through the end of the Holocene only to wake up finding ourselves in the Anthropocene have it, and so it is no wonder, based on all of that, that “GRETA FEVER” is sweeping the nation as it is, now that having the climate where you live just the way you want it to be, 24/7/365, is a constitutional right, assuming you are under 18.
And if it were not for the continuing educational efforts of the Cape Charles Mirror with respect to this subject of our responsibility as adults to provide the children of America with a “GOOD ANTHROPOCENE,” which in turn requires a new politics with a new frame of world government in the form of universal social democracy based on the idea that the state should intervene in the economy to promote economic growth and technological progress, a goal of our Democrats and children that has been shared by a wide variety of economic theories and political ideologies to include European social democracies, third-world developmental states, and the East Asian “state developmentalist” models which are known as “state-led developmentalism,” so that we can achieve a “good Anthropocene,” which requires the globalization of modernity, liberal freedoms, material prosperity and the preservation of wild nature emphasizing gradual global improvements in life expectancy, gender equity and declining inter-state violence, we would remain totally ignorant of these important developments with respect to what our Constitution, formed during the Holocene, now means in the Anthropocene.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-212459
Paul Plante says:
We older folks in here are like a bunch of Rip Van Winkles who went to sleep and slept through the end of the Holocene, to wake up finding ourselves instead firmly into the Anthropocene, where everything we once knew about science concerning the earth is no longer true, and according to District Judge Ann Aiken, nominated by Bill Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate on January 28, 1998, receiving her commission on February 4, 1998, “a climate system capable of sustaining human life” is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, so that if each of us now does not like the climate where we are, as long as we are children, we now have the right to sue the federal government for a new and far better climate which under our Constitution, the federal government has a duty to provide us.
If we are not children, then it is we older folks who are the ones being sued, since the United States Constitution begins with We, the People.
For those unfamiliar with the case, which is still pending in federal court, Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate justice-based lawsuit filed in 2015 that has been brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several of its executive branch positions and officers, also formerly including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump.
The plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children’s Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez’s organization Earth Guardians, and on behalf of future generations represented by climatologist James Hansen.
The lawsuit asserts that the government violated the youths’ rights by encouraging and allowing activities that significantly harmed their right to life and liberty, and sought the government to adopt methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Oregon non-profit organization, Our Children’s Trust, was created by attorney Julia Olson to help formulate legal cases that could be taken against states and the federal government that would charge them with mitigating climate change under the public trust doctrine.
Olson established the non-profit with advice and assistance from Mary Christina Wood, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Oregon, who had been studying the concept of the public trust doctrine and established the idea of “Atmospheric Trust Litigation” to take legal action to make governments responsible for actions related to climate change.
That case was filed in August 2015 with the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and was assigned to judge Ann Aiken, who was then the chief judge of the court.
The 21 youths, ranging from 8 to 19 at the time of filing, received pro bono representation from Our Children’s Trust, and had support of climatologist James Hansen, acting as a “guardian for future generations” in the case filings.
The youths were selected by Our Children’s Trust as they all were able to demonstrate immediate “concrete injury” due to climate change, such as having their homes wiped out by excessive flooding, rising sea levels, and desertification which were tied to climate change.
The case was filed against President Barack Obama and several agencies within the executive branch, and sought confirmation that their constitutional and public trust rights had been violated by the government’s actions, and sought an order to enjoin the defendants from continued violation of their rights and to develop a plan to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions.
Among their arguments, the youths’ attorneys asserted that the lack of governmental action on climate change discriminated against the youths’ generation, since they would be most impacted by climate change but have no voting rights to influence that.
So there we older folks who slept through the end of the Holocene only to wake up finding ourselves in the Anthropocene have it, and so it is no wonder, based on all of that, that “GRETA FEVER” is sweeping the nation as it is, now that having the climate where you live just the way you want it to be, 24/7/365, is a constitutional right, assuming you are under 18.
And if it were not for the continuing educational efforts of the Cape Charles Mirror with respect to this subject of our responsibility as adults to provide the children of America with a “GOOD ANTHROPOCENE,” which in turn requires a new politics with a new frame of world government in the form of universal social democracy based on the idea that the state should intervene in the economy to promote economic growth and technological progress, a goal of our Democrats and children that has been shared by a wide variety of economic theories and political ideologies to include European social democracies, third-world developmental states, and the East Asian “state developmentalist” models which are known as “state-led developmentalism,” so that we can achieve a “good Anthropocene,” which requires the globalization of modernity, liberal freedoms, material prosperity and the preservation of wild nature emphasizing gradual global improvements in life expectancy, gender equity and declining inter-state violence, we would remain totally ignorant of these important developments with respect to what our Constitution, formed during the Holocene, now means in the Anthropocene.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-212459
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
Climate, History, and the Modern World, 2d Edition, by H.H. Lamb
POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY AND POLICY DECISIONS
Having thus completed our review of how far the present state of knowledge enables us to make useful statements about the current and future tendencies of the natural climate, we must consider how man's activities may modify the prospect.
Later in the twenty-first century, at some point which will depend on how much power is generated from nuclear or other fuels, the output of artificially produced heat may itself begin to have effects on a global scale.
This is certainly the major effect on climate to be expected from the large-scale use of nuclear energy.
In some ways it is analogous to the unsolved problem of disposal of the nuclear waste itself (a problem to which there may be no solution on an Earth where no part of the crust can be guaranteed earthquake-free over the periods of continuing dangerous radioactivity).
There may be climatic troubles arising from the emission of great quantities of heat whatever the locations chosen for electrical power generation.
Some studies have already been directed towards discovering what sort of effects on the world climate pattern might be expected to result from the disposal of the waste heat from nuclear power generation in various parts of the world's oceans.
LAKE ONTARIO IS WARMING BECAUSE OF THE NUCLEAR POWER GENERATING PLANTS DUMPING HEATED WATER INTO THE LAKE PRODUCING A WARM WATER PLUME THAT IS NOW WELL IN EXCESS OF 100 ACRES IN EXTENT …
AND THE ADIRONDACK MOUNTAINS IN NEW YORK ARE CONSIDERABLY COLDER THAN NEW YORK CITY BECAUSE THEY ARE MOUNTAINS FAR TO THE NORTH OF NEW YORK CITY, AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN THAT WAY …
USA TODAY
"The Northeast warms ahead of rest of USA: 'Our winters now are not like our winters before'"
Kyle Bagenstose, USA TODAY Network
26 DECEMBER 2019
For one scientist, climate change in the Northeast announces itself in the abnormal appearances of warm-water fish – an abundance of mahi-mahi and unprecedented sightings in January of Gulf Stream flounder and juvenile black sea bass in shallow waters off the New England coast.
“Nobody had ever seen that before,” said Glen Gawarkiewicz, an oceanographer from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
For another scientist, the phenomenon materializes in ocean temperatures, which have been rising for more than a generation, influencing coastal weather and pushing snowfall farther inland.
“Our winters now are not like our winters before,” said Lenny Giuliano, the state meteorologist in Rhode Island.
As water temperatures rise in the Atlantic Ocean and its connected gulfs and bays, the warmth may spread inland and generate temperature variations at the county level.
The water-to-land effect appears along the Great Lakes, which also are warming, said Mark Wysocki, New York state climatologist and a professor at Cornell University.
“There’s a very strong connection,” Wysocki said.
Warming air
Though the Southwest saw the greatest rise in average air temperatures during the past five decades, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows the Northeast warmed the most over both longer and shorter time spans.
Nowhere more so than Rhode Island: The state’s average temperature has increased 3.64 degrees compared with its 20th-century norm, according to NOAA records dating back to 1895.
Other states trail closely: New Jersey came in 3.49 degrees warmer; Connecticut, 3.22; Maine, 3.17; Massachusetts, 3.05; and New Hampshire, 2.93.
In the short term, Delaware and New Jersey were tied for the highest increase in average temperature among the lower 48 states, according to NOAA records for a five-year period ending in October.
Closely behind were Rhode Island and Connecticut, followed by Arizona, California and Florida.
States could be seeing a “troughing” effect, in which cold air drops from the north and draws warmer air up the coast, said David Robinson, the New Jersey state climatologist at Rutgers University.
Such an effect caused 50 mph wind gusts on Halloween night in New Jersey, Robinson said.
He linked it to a tornado in Morris County, about 25 miles west of New York City.
“Of course, we’re talking about a weather event ... but it may have a longer-term climate signature, too,” Robinson said, adding it “definitely needs some study.”
Wysocki points to a naturally occurring shift in an air pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation, which can play a role in air temperatures in the Northeast.
Many agree that water temperatures probably play a role.
“You see so much variability in temperature over land throughout the year,” said Ambarish Karmalkar, a climate researcher at the University of Massachusetts and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center.
“Variability over the ocean is much smaller."
"… It takes much longer to warm the ocean, and takes much longer to cool it.”
That means the ocean works like a thermos, providing a lasting heat source even as winter temperatures descend around it.
The effect always existed but is more pronounced.
Though researchers said the dynamic hasn’t fully been studied, NOAA data shows the effect down to the county level.
Over the past five years, the four Connecticut counties hugging the coastline averaged 2.9 degrees warmer than normal, compared with 2.6 degrees for the four inland counties.
In Rhode Island, a half-degree difference separated Washington County on the coast and Providence County in the north.
In Massachusetts, temperatures in Nantucket and Boston registered nearly a full degree higher than average compared with inland areas around the town of Amherst in Hampshire County.
Differences of 1 or more degrees separated Wicomico County on Maryland’s Delmarva Peninsula from the interior of the state, as well as Philadelphia from the Allegheny Mountains and downstate New York from the Adirondacks.
It’s even more amplified in Pennsylvania and New York where mountain ranges act as natural barriers, blocking warmer air coming from the coast.
“It’s hard for a marine climate to move far inland,” Wysocki said.
Counties along the New Hampshire and Maine coastlines lack any clear pattern.
Maine as a whole hovered 1.9 degrees above average during that five-year time span – the middle of the pack among all states.
But five years is too small a window to observe definitive conclusions, said Sean Birkel, Maine’s state climatologist and a professor at the University of Maine.
“In general, the entire (Northeast) region has warmed over the past several years,” Birkel said.
Warming water
One conclusion has emerged among the regions’ scientists: The Atlantic Ocean is warming, and dramatically so.
Gawarkiewicz studies the area of the Atlantic where the shallower waters of the continental shelf slide into the depths of the ocean.
This area acts as a two-lane highway where cold waters from Canada and Greenland slip south closer to shore, while tropical waters pulled by the Gulf Stream pass north farther out to sea.
Over the past decade, an “extraordinary” change has hit the Gulf Stream, causing its path to become unstable, wobbling off the normal course and often bringing warmer waters nearer to shore, Gawarkiewicz said.
The stream emits more “warm core rings” – eddies of water up to 60 miles wide that spin toward land and can hold warm temperatures for months.
Along the way, the rings can increase water temperatures in a given area as much as 12 degrees above average.
Gawarkiewicz pointed to a University of Massachusetts study showing such rings have spiked from about 18 annually before the new millennium to 33 annually now.
Researchers tracked three of them in August and found they increased water temperature 5.5 degrees in the Georges Bank, an area of the continental shelf off Massachusetts that is larger than the state itself.
Other warming hot spots have hit locations such as Block Island, a 9-square-mile destination for vacationers and wildlife near the Rhode Island coast.
“They were catching Gulf Stream fish off Block Island in January,” Gawarkiewicz said.
Researchers suspect the rings play a role in the unusually high number of dead humpback whales along the Atlantic coast the past few years, Gawarkiewicz said.
Though scientists preliminarily concluded they died from ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement, they don’t know why it’s happening more frequently.
Warming waters offer one possibility, as they could draw the whales closer to busier coastlines.
In general, climatologists and other researchers in the Northeast said that although there’s no doubt global climate change drives warmer air and water temperatures overall, there’s still much to learn about the interaction between the two.
Among the most important inquiries is determining what’s here to stay and what will change with the wind.
“What is the future going to look like with (changing) patterns?” Wysocki said.
“And for how long do they kind of lock themselves in?”
Follow Kyle Bagenstose on Twitter: @KyleBagenstose
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY NETWORK: The Northeast warms ahead of rest of USA: 'Our winters now are not like our winters before'
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... li=BBnb7Kz