• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

China's Global Warming Hoax Exposed

China's Global Warming Hoax Exposed

Postby smix » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:41 pm

China's Global Warming Hoax Exposed
Investors Business Daily

URL: http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... -in-smoke/
Category: Politics
Published: December 4, 2016

Description: Climate Change: Even as China is busy blasting Donald Trump for not taking global warming seriously it's ramping up coal production and throwing its promised CO2 reductions out the window. Hopefully, Trump won't be as easily fooled by China's duplicity as President Obama. At a meeting of environmental officials earlier this month in Marrakech, Morocco, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin lectured Trump about the importance of climate change. Just a few days later, the New York Times reported that "China is scrambling to mine and burn more coal," and Fortune reported that the country is currently building $500 billion worth of new coal plants. According to other accounts, China has authorized coal mines to boost production by 1 million tons per day, as it tries to stimulate economic growth. Bloomberg reported earlier in the month that China's five-year plan calls for a 19% increase in coal-fired generating capacity. The International Energy Agency, which had been praising China's alleged decarbonization efforts, now says this "transient spike" in coal use could go on for years. This will, the Times notes, "make it harder for China and the world to meet emissions targets." That's because China is already the world's largest producer of CO2 emissions, and any increase it makes can easily swamp reductions made by other countries. Shanghai banker Brock Silvers said it best, when he told the Times that "I get a kick out of people in the West who think China is decarbonizing, because I see no sign of it whatsoever." None of this should come as a surprise to anyone. Two years ago, we noted that the agreement Obama signed with China to cut CO2 emissions was ridiculously one-sided. While Obama pledged to cut U.S. emissions as much as 28% in 11 years, China agreed only to take action starting in 2030, giving itself 16 years to increase carbon emissions before promising to curb them. Then, just before the heralded Paris agreement last year, we learned that China had been burning 17% more coal than it had claimed for the previous 15 years — reminding everyone but climate change enthusiasts that relying on a communist country for accurate data was foolhardy. And now, less than a year after signing the much ballyhooed Paris agreement — which Obama said meant that "the world has officially crossed the threshold for the Paris Agreement to take effect" — we learn that China is busy increasing coal production. We'd be just as upset as environmentalists are about this development if we thought it meant anything. But as we've pointed out in this space, even if every country abided by their Paris promises, the impact on the global climate would be negligible. And that's assuming there's a crisis to be averted — a claim that grows more difficult to sustain as the climate refuses to warm up as predicted. The real problem with these agreements isn't that China is cheating. When the choice is between growing one's economy and fighting the phantom menace of "climate change," the answer is easy. The problem is that Obama has been so willing and eager to strap a gigantic "clean energy" millstone around the economy's neck, killing growth, adding to the cost of energy, lowering standards of living — all for nothing. Climate change might not be a "Chinese hoax," as Trump once said. But China's claim to be on the vanguard of fighting climate change certainly is. Trump might want to announce that, as president, he plans to follow China's lead and put economic growth ahead of pointless, growth-killing CO2 reductions.



The Growth Of Global Warming Nonsense: Surely We've Reached Peak Madness
Inverstors Business Daily

URL: http://www.investors.com/politics/comme ... k-madness/
Category: Politics
Published: November 28, 2016

Description: Time magazine said Donald Trump's election has climate change negotiators down, but not out, and has "cast a long shadow over progress made at" the United Nations climate conference held earlier this month in Morocco. Seems the alarmist community is still stuck in the denial phase of the five stages of grief. The negotiators' denial is not their attempt to pretend that Trump didn't win, a road that some on the left have taken. It is more deeply rooted in the fact that their predictions of disaster have not materialized. They have tried for decades to frighten everyone on the planet and all this time later, few are scared because they see the gaping holes in the narrative, the miserably failed forecasts, the glaring lack of evidence and the garbage dump of lies. Yet the activists continue to behave and screech as if the world is on the brink and there are only days left to save it. Average Westerners simply trying to live their lives honestly and work hard for their families aren't moved by the braying. They see insane proposals, such as the one from Oxford University that suggests foods should be priced according to their climate impacts, and shake their heads as if their loony uncle living in the room over the garage is talking to Moses again. But it's more than that, isn't it? It seems we are watching the psychological breakdown of a segment of the Western population that is desperately trying control other people and greedily snatch the world's economic levers, and employing harsh scare tactics in its effort to achieve these goals. Let's not even pretend that this group cares about the environment. The international Paris agreement that President Obama unilaterally signed on to without input from Congress, the agreement that the alarmist community has declared to be absolutely vital to putting off climate change, would do little to stop projected warming into the next century. Researcher Bjorn Lomborg, who believes that man's carbon dioxide emissions are having some impact on the planet, says that if every nation fulfilled its promise to cut emissions by 2030, "the total temperature reduction will be 0.048" degrees Celsius by 2100. In other words, Paris won't change a thing. Despite the fact that the Paris accord will produce no climate benefit, the political left, which includes the agenda-driven media, continues its deranged behavior over the election of Trump because he has indicated that he will pull the U.S. from Obama's unethical deal. This lunacy, consciously chosen, is possibly best illustrated by the Democratic National Committee staffer who whined that Clinton's loss means that he's "going to die from climate change," and marched out of a meeting in which the Democrats were trying to rally from their election defeat. The unfortunate dupe, who must be a recent campus emission, as he acted like one of higher education's delicate snowflakes, is the product of the hysteria his own party has whipped up. Global warming raving has also affected a group of eight kids from Washington, who are suing their state over climate change. The Associated Press says they are "part of a nationwide effort by young people to try to force action on global warming." They've been incited, no doubt, by the Democrats' unrelenting fanaticism about the subject. But isn't the Democratic Party the party of science? That's the label its members have awarded it. Aren't the kids and the Democratic staffer simply reacting to the party's rational position on global warming? Journalist John Tierney probably wouldn't agree. "The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left," Tierney, a New York Times reporter, wrote in the Autumn 2016 City Journal. He acknowledges that "there's plenty of ignorance all around," but also reports that "some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats." Remember this the next time outgoing (thankfully) Secretary of State John Kerry says anything about global warming. He might be one of the many members of his party who doesn't know that astrology isn't a science and that it takes a year for Earth to revolve around the sun.



With Trump, The U.S. Can Escape The Paris Climate Deal Trap
Investors Business Daily

URL: http://www.investors.com/politics/comme ... deal-trap/
Category: Politics
Published: November 16, 2016

Description: The #NeverTrump faction of Republicans and conservatives, as well as libertarians who couldn't vote for him, might never be sold on Donald Trump's presidency. But they could have something to celebrate other than the crushing of the Clinton political machine: America's disentanglement from the Paris climate deal. Without the approval of Congress, which he legally needed, President Obama made the U.S. a party to the Paris climate treaty. The global warming community rejoiced. But Trump, who apparently knows fraud when he sees it, says the climate deal is dead to him. He promised in May that he would cancel the U.S. commitment to the pact and withdraw American funding for United Nations programs related to global warming. Trump also did what congressional Republicans should have been doing for the last eightAs Many As Half Of Global Warming Alarmist Research Papers Might Be Wrong years: He called out the EPA for the "totalitarian tactics" it uses to block energy extraction. Trump is making Obama, the unserious Secretary of State John Kerry, and the rest of the climate change alarmists as nervous as a college snowflake who can't find his safe space. Kerry's aides are probably following him around with a fainting couch since the election, should he be overcome by the vapors. Over the weekend they needed to be in Antarctica, where Kerry was apparently knocking off a bucket list item at taxpayers' expense rather than conducting diplomacy. Foreign governments are also reacting childishly to Trump's win and what that means for the Paris deal. The Financial Times has reported that "China has warned Trump that he will be defying the wishes of the entire planet if he acts on his vow to back away from the Paris climate agreement," while "India also joined in the warnings." But not all is silly: A European Union official has said that "Trump's victory will probably make some parties feel empowered to start trying to reopen what has been agreed." One would think that China and India, the first- and fourth-ranked producers of fossil-fuel greenhouse emissions respectively, would be happy that Trump could help them shed the bondage of the Paris agreement so they could continue to grow toward First World status. But in the age in which the alarmists have successfully bullied those who don't agree with them, these nations and others, like high school students struggling to fit in with the cool kids, have apparently become "concerned" about greenhouse gas emissions. Or maybe they don't actually plan to comply with the Paris restrictions but want the U.S. to handicap its economy by observing the controls. Reasonable people, meanwhile, are encouraged by the prospect that Trump will unyoke the U.S. from a deal that the climate change community says won't make a difference in global temperature anyway. But it would make a difference in our wallets. They'll be lighter. We've actually been down this road to disaster before. And it actually turned out to be a leisurely drive. Despite assurances from the same crowd that catastrophe would be waiting around the next corner, George W. Bush's rejection of the 1992 Kyoto Protocol turned out to be the right choice. Four subsequent presidential terms and nearly 16 more years of greenhouse emissions did not bring the disaster so many predicted. Another benefit of Trump's election is the possible appointment of Myron Ebell as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It could be that Ebell, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is just the right man for the long-term job of eliminating the EPA, a hopelessly political agency that has caused more problems than it has solved. At a minimum, he should help the EPA staff members — who are among the federal employees who said they'd quit their jobs if Trump was elected — keep their promises. The environment will never miss them.



As Many As Half Of Global Warming Alarmist Research Papers Might Be Wrong
Investors Business Daily

URL: http://www.investors.com/politics/colum ... -be-wrong/
Category: Politics
Published: November 10, 2016

Description: The global warming alarmist community firmly believes it has science on its side. The science is settled, its members repeat incessantly to show how "sciency" they are, despite the fact that they are wrong. And 97% of scientists believe man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing climate change, they say with great conviction, even though it's simply not true. Among its many efforts show it's a coalition of the enlightened, the Democratic Party works hard to convince the public that it's the "party of science." At the same time, it labors just as aggressively to portray the Republican Party as the "anti-science party," and it enthusiastically tags doubters as unthinking hicks. Given these facts, what are the alarmist community and the Democrats, whose platform hysterically calls climate change "an urgent threat," to do about research that has found that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue"? If this is indeed the case, then half of all global warming papers might also be untrue. According to the foreword of "Peer Review: Why Skepticism Is Essential," written by Donna Laframboise for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, "a significant part of the references in the fourth assessment" of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report were made "to 'gray literature.' " "That is, press releases, 'reports' from pressure groups and the like, which are not remotely the normal peer-reviewed scientific literature." In other words, IPCC-referenced propaganda. For the moment, let's imagine that from here on out, every piece of literature used by the IPCC to further the narrative is published by ostensibly reliable researchers. That still leaves much room for doubt. The Global Warming Policy Foundation report says that "even if all the citations used by the IPCC were peer-reviewed, this would not mean they were infallible." Laframboise says science is plagued with an "reproducibility crisis," meaning that published findings cannot be independently verified. She believes that "there is no reason to believe that the politically charged arena of climate science is exempt from" the problems found in other scientific research, "or that it doesn't share the alarming rates of irreproducibility observed in medicine, economics and psychology." "Currently, climate research is not subjected to meaningful due diligence prior to the IPCC presenting it as sound in its reports," Laframboise writes. "Until key climate findings meet a higher standard than mere peer review, we cannot claim that our climate policies are evidence-based." But the alarmist community isn't interested in evidence. It is consumed with fueling panic and creating a climate of fear, and goes out of its way to bully those who don't agree with its narrative. Rather than provide real evidence — it simply can't — it traffics in condemnations, character assassination, reprisals and marginalization. Its members act more like a high-school clique than responsible and open-minded adults. Those holding a different opinion are treated as "others." Science's "reproducibility crisis" is not the alarmists' only problem. It's another in a stack of inconveniences that keeps growing for them. The computer models that are their gold standards are flawed to the point of being truly useless, and the temperature record they cite is about as reliable as any statement ever made by a Clinton in pursuit of political gain. Alarmists need some real science, but a political coalition that regards genetically modified crops the way a Medieval peasant feared black cats isn't likely to find any.



When Asked To Show Evidence Of Man-Made Warming, Scientists Can't Do It
Investors Business Daily

URL: http://www.investors.com/politics/comme ... ant-do-it/
Category: Politics
Published: October 25, 2016

Description: There's probably not a phrase that the global warming alarmists and dim celebrities trying to play the role of intellectuals use more than some variation of "the science is settled." It's a catchy phrase that's intended to shut down debate and shame skeptics. And it's simply not true. The alarmist community has had almost three decades to prove its assumptions, and while it is plausible that there has been a small measure of warming, the disaster many predicted hasn't occurred. Worse for them, it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty that the warming that has happened — and quite possibly there's been none at all — was caused by man. Earth's climate has warmed and cooled throughout its existence. It's part of the natural cycle. Yet the alarmist community persists and never acknowledges that it might be wrong. At the same time, when its members are pressed to prove that their one-way beliefs are indeed fact, they can't do it. Consider a recent exchange in Australia, in which a skeptic, parliament member Malcolm Roberts, asked scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to convince him that there was proof of man-made global warming. With Roberts being a skeptic, the scientists naturally had a high hurdle to clear. But the response Roberts received was not particularly compelling. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Alan Finkel responded with the usual stale answers: Atmospheric carbon dioxide traps heat, CO2 emissions have increased, therefore man must be warming his planet. Then the Morning Herald noted, in a paraphrase, that Finkel conceded that "the effect of warming on climate wasn't clear." It followed with a direct quotation from Finkel, which was actually an admission. "We have models to try to predict what that will be and that's difficult," said Finkel. Difficult. And wrong. Finkel's failure to complete the task that Roberts put before him is nothing new nor isolated. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has said there "is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," while science writer Michael Fumento wrote convincingly three years ago that proof of global warming was evaporating. What the alarmists call "proof" and "evidence" is nothing more than conjecture. They cannot prove that man's activities have warmed the planet, even if the next 100 years are twice as hot as they have predicted. They can lay out their "evidence" as if in a courtroom, and urge the jury to make the connection. But the fact they can't get around is that there is more than enough reasonable doubt to throw out their prosecution. Carbon dioxide simply isn't the only suspect. Earth's climate system has far too many influences for the inquisitors to settle on just one.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1797828
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Green Technology


Mobile Device
  • 1
  • FREE CLASSIFIED ADS
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement