In 2015 I will have plenty of help, over half the scientists this coming year will agree with me that AGW does not exist after reviewing the facts.
Climate Change
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
In 2015 I will have plenty of help, over half the scientists this coming year will agree with me that AGW does not exist after reviewing the facts.
Well if there is so little consensus then it should be easy for you to find many science organizations of national or international standing that say that AGW does not exist.
I'll be waiting to see all the statements. How about even one. Put up or shut up.
$10 billion UN-linked climate change fund wants immunity from prosecution
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-immunity-from-prosecution/?intcmp=latestnews
The Green Climate Fund, (GCF) a United Nations-affiliated piggy-bank intended to finance climate change projects around the world, is determined to win sweeping U.N.-style immunities from prosecutions for its global operations--even though the U.S., its biggest contributor, opposes the idea, and the U.N. itself says its own diplomatic immunities can’t cover the outfit.
The immunities issue could well spark even deeper opposition from Republican lawmakers in next year’s Congress to the Obama Administration’s aggressive climate change policies--which include a recent $3 billion pledge to the Fund.
“We would definitely be opposed to any extension of immunity to the Fund,” said a senior aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will chair the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works starting in January.
“What do they need protection from?” he asked. “In essence, they are doing business development projects. If you look at the way millions of people do transactions across national borders, they do it without immunity and very successfully.”
Apparently undeterred, fund officials told Fox News that they are now trying to hammer out “bilateral agreement templates” that could be laboriously negotiated with each country where it operates—a total that could eventually reach the great majority of the U.N.’s 193 members.
The Fund has already negotiated one agreement of immunity—with its new host country, South Korea, as a condition of moving its headquarters there last year.
If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.
The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free.
Just why the GCF needs the sweeping protections is not exactly clear. In response to questions from Fox News, Michel Smitall, a Fund spokesman, provided mostly opaque answers.
(More at above url)
Bottom Line: The U.N. Green Climate Fund knows that it is such an improper criminal enterprise that it wants immunity from prosecution. The executives are obviously aware that the projects will not be in the best interest of the countries it will operate in, and most of its programs will only serve to enrich politicians while further oppressing the people in many nations with policies that will not allow the evolution of local economies, expansion to meet energy needs, or proper education of future generations.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-immunity-from-prosecution/?intcmp=latestnews
The Green Climate Fund, (GCF) a United Nations-affiliated piggy-bank intended to finance climate change projects around the world, is determined to win sweeping U.N.-style immunities from prosecutions for its global operations--even though the U.S., its biggest contributor, opposes the idea, and the U.N. itself says its own diplomatic immunities can’t cover the outfit.
The immunities issue could well spark even deeper opposition from Republican lawmakers in next year’s Congress to the Obama Administration’s aggressive climate change policies--which include a recent $3 billion pledge to the Fund.
“We would definitely be opposed to any extension of immunity to the Fund,” said a senior aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who will chair the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works starting in January.
“What do they need protection from?” he asked. “In essence, they are doing business development projects. If you look at the way millions of people do transactions across national borders, they do it without immunity and very successfully.”
Apparently undeterred, fund officials told Fox News that they are now trying to hammer out “bilateral agreement templates” that could be laboriously negotiated with each country where it operates—a total that could eventually reach the great majority of the U.N.’s 193 members.
The Fund has already negotiated one agreement of immunity—with its new host country, South Korea, as a condition of moving its headquarters there last year.
If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.
The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free.
Just why the GCF needs the sweeping protections is not exactly clear. In response to questions from Fox News, Michel Smitall, a Fund spokesman, provided mostly opaque answers.
(More at above url)
Bottom Line: The U.N. Green Climate Fund knows that it is such an improper criminal enterprise that it wants immunity from prosecution. The executives are obviously aware that the projects will not be in the best interest of the countries it will operate in, and most of its programs will only serve to enrich politicians while further oppressing the people in many nations with policies that will not allow the evolution of local economies, expansion to meet energy needs, or proper education of future generations.
That's what I thought. Not a single science organization. Come on GWB! How hard could it be if there is only 50% consensus to find one ONE science org that denies AGW. There are hundreds of them certainly there must be ONE!
Climate policies lock chains on developing nations
http://communities.washingtontimes....mate-policies-lock-chains-developing-nations/
"Today, more than 1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity. Hundreds of millions of others struggle with unreliable power. Power outages interrupt factory production, students walk to airports to read under the lights, and schools and hospitals lack vital electrical power.
Electricity is the foundation of a modern industrialized nation. Lack of electricity means poverty, disease, and shortened lifespans. Foolish climate policies lock chains on developing nations."
http://communities.washingtontimes....mate-policies-lock-chains-developing-nations/
"Today, more than 1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity. Hundreds of millions of others struggle with unreliable power. Power outages interrupt factory production, students walk to airports to read under the lights, and schools and hospitals lack vital electrical power.
Electricity is the foundation of a modern industrialized nation. Lack of electricity means poverty, disease, and shortened lifespans. Foolish climate policies lock chains on developing nations."
Last edited:
D.C. has passed sea level rise 'tipping point,' more cities to follow
BY ANDREW FREEDMAN
SAN FRANCISCO — Major U.S. coastal cities, including Washington, D.C. and Wilmington, North Carolina, have already slipped past a sea level rise-related “tipping point,” and into a new era of increasingly common and damaging coastal flooding events, a new study found. . . .
BY ANDREW FREEDMAN
SAN FRANCISCO — Major U.S. coastal cities, including Washington, D.C. and Wilmington, North Carolina, have already slipped past a sea level rise-related “tipping point,” and into a new era of increasingly common and damaging coastal flooding events, a new study found. . . .
Yet even as the 2C target has become a touchstone for the climate talks, scientific theory and real-world observations have begun to raise serious questions about whether the target is stringent enough.
For starters, the world has already warmed by almost one degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. That may sound modest, but as a global average, it is actually substantial. For any amount of global warming, the ocean, which covers 70 percent of the earth’s surface and absorbs considerable heat, will pull down the average. But the warming over land tends to be much greater, and the warming in some polar regions greater still.
The warming that has already occurred is causing enormous damage all over the planet, from dying forests to collapsing sea ice to savage heat waves totorrential rains. And scientists realize they may have underestimated the vulnerability of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
Those ice sheets now appear to be in the early stages of breaking up. For instance, Greenland’s glaciers have lately been spitting icebergs into the sea at an accelerated pace, and scientific papers published this year warned that the melting in parts of Antarctica may already be unstoppable.
“The climate is now out of equilibrium with the ice sheets,” said Andrea Dutton, a geochemist at the University of Florida who studies global sea levels. “They are going to melt.”
That could ultimately mean 30 feet, or even more, of sea level rise, though scientists have no clear idea of how fast that could happen.
For starters, the world has already warmed by almost one degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. That may sound modest, but as a global average, it is actually substantial. For any amount of global warming, the ocean, which covers 70 percent of the earth’s surface and absorbs considerable heat, will pull down the average. But the warming over land tends to be much greater, and the warming in some polar regions greater still.
The warming that has already occurred is causing enormous damage all over the planet, from dying forests to collapsing sea ice to savage heat waves totorrential rains. And scientists realize they may have underestimated the vulnerability of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
Those ice sheets now appear to be in the early stages of breaking up. For instance, Greenland’s glaciers have lately been spitting icebergs into the sea at an accelerated pace, and scientific papers published this year warned that the melting in parts of Antarctica may already be unstoppable.
“The climate is now out of equilibrium with the ice sheets,” said Andrea Dutton, a geochemist at the University of Florida who studies global sea levels. “They are going to melt.”
That could ultimately mean 30 feet, or even more, of sea level rise, though scientists have no clear idea of how fast that could happen.
This helps explain the peer reviews of climate alarmist papers...
Are companies selling fake peer reviews to help papers get published?
Are companies selling fake peer reviews to help papers get published?
But what explains your stupidity?