RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/the_global_warming_pause.html

CO2 may no longer affect climate.

The non-warming of the climate has become a topic much discussed since about 2005. John Christy has testified to Congress about the “gap” between IPCC climate models, which are based on steadily increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 and observations of atmospheric temperatures, measured by both satellites and radiosondes, 1978-2015. [REF hyperlink; see Christy fig. below]There have been many attempts to explain this discrepancy, ranging from a flat denial that such a gap exists [REF*; Tom Karl, Science, 2015 pp. 1469-1472, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5632] to attempts to account for the “missing incoming energy.” For example, Kevin Trenberth has proposed that the missing energy instead of warming the atmosphere, “hides” in the deep ocean, to be released later.

Based on all the foregoing discussion, of the log-dependence of CO2 forcing, [REF Myhre et al, GRL, 1998 vol. 25, doi: org/10.1029/98GLO1908] and its possible climate-cooling effect, I have a simpler hypothesis on the ineffectiveness of CO2 in warming the climate. I realize, however, that this explanation is unacceptable to IPCC, and to many climate-warming advocates. However, I believe the “gap,” now 40 years long, according to Christy, has existed throughout the Industrial Revolution — and probably during the whole of the Holocene. In other words, I consider the “pause” may be permanent.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/white-house-plans-to-re-assess-climate-change/

The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter its conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades.

 http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/22378/the-riddle-of-climate-changehttp://goudsmit.pundicity.com http://lindagoudsmit.com

The Riddle: What climate does climate change change?The Answer: The political climate of course.

Let me explain. Pollution and climate change are two separate issues. Environmental pollution is a man-made problem that humans can and should remedy. Taking responsibility for our behavior is a necessary part of civilized life and eliminating environmental horrors like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is something we all need to support. So far so good.

Climate change, on the other hand, is a natural phenomenon that is an intrinsic part of the earth’s environmental history. For the past millions of years the natural climate on Earth has fluctuated between warm periods and ice ages in approximately 100,000 year cycles. 80-90,000 years of ice age are followed by 10-20,000 years of a warm period.

Climate change was originally called global warming but environmental politicians had to change its name because the earth was embarrassing them by cooling. A rose by any other name is still a rose and so is climate change. The cooling and warming patterns of climate change are a natural, enduring, and ongoing phenomenon.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019

Don’t be fooled, the urgent need to combat climate change, as cited by the Green New Deal, is nothing more nor less than a trojan horse, inside of which lurks Comrade Marx. A utopian paradise for all is its promise — utopian as in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba and Chávez’s Venezuela.

ROOSEVELT‘s New Deal managed to delay America’s recovery from the Great Depression for years after the UK, Europe and Australia had recovered. This is a mere blip on the course of history compared with the dystopian future offered by the Green New Deal.

Backdropped by older white men of privilege, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) announced her Green New Deal (the Deal) in Washington; in the form of a proposed fourteen-page House of Reps resolution. Presumably the men were props calculated to give the impression that the madness had a kernel of sanity. After all, could middle- and older-aged white men sign up to flights of fancy? Well, yes, they can. Think of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders.

Before I cover some of the elements of the Deal a note of caution is warranted. I heard some conservatives and a few level-headed Democrats say that it was pie-in-the-sky. It isn’t. Pie-in-the-sky is an empty promise of unattainable benefits; writ large, it is a utopian promise of nirvana right here on planet Earth.

The Deal is not a pie-in-the-sky promise but a concrete threat of a future hellhole. And, as we know, unlike nirvanas, hellholes have been regularly brought about. This particular one, as for so many, would be a product of socialism. Don’t be fooled, climate change in the Deal is simply a trojan horse. Inside lurks comrade Karl Marx.

Certainty of climate catastrophe of biblical proportions sets the scene: mass migrant flight, enormous economic losses, wildfires such as we haven’t seen, ninety-nine percent of coral reefs gone, more than 350 million people “exposed to deadly heat stress.” And on top of all of this, rising sea levels, severe storms, and droughts, etc., etc.

If this were not enough on the climate front; on the socio-economic front, inequality and discrimination bear down on swathes of the populace. Suffering are “indigenous people, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialised communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” Who’s left, you might ask? Obviously, those left are privileged white men – hence I suppose those aforementioned privileged white men hovering behind AOC lest they be among those for the guillotine come the witching hour.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/phony_justice_through_phony_climate_policy.html

Would you be surprised to learn that of the five goals pronounced in the so-called “Green New Deal,” three of them focus on some form of social or economic “justice?” Or that the two that don’t instead use language right out of the UN’s globalist playbook? Well, they do, and, if you’ve been paying attention, you shouldn’t be all that surprised.

Indeed, the convergence of climate “science” and social “justice” is nothing new. Some argue that it dates back to 1972, when an unlikely blend of legitimate environmental activists, dyed-in-the-wool Marxists, and assorted anti-establishment 60’s leftovers met in Stockholm, Sweden to discuss the planet’s ills. And from that marriage of global environmental and social-justice concerns was born the IPCC’s parent organization – the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and its socialist-environmentalist manifesto – the Stockholm Declaration.

Others point to the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (a.k.a. the Earth Summit). There, the event’s Secretary-general, Maurice Strong, told the opening session that industrialized countries had “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma.” Yes, this was the gathering which spawned the infamous Agenda 21 [PDF], a global contract that pledged governments around the world to a UN plan to change the way people “live, eat, learn and communicate” all in the name of “saving the earth” from mankind’s mistakes, particularly global warming. (See IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks for details).

But these were non-binding international agreements typically not worth the paper they were then written on, not proposed legislation for a sovereign nation which would immediately impact the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of millions of citizens.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/the-green-new-deal-versus-rural-america/

Customers outside dense urban areas will get stuck with huge electric bills.

The Green New Deal is the shiny new object in Washington. Rolled out last week by Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Senator Ed Markey (D., Mass.), the proposal is a grab-bag of policies that covers everything from creating “high-quality union jobs” to universal health care. It has been endorsed by nine Democratic contenders for the White House and nearly 70 members of the House of Representatives.

The fundamental charge of the Green New Deal is the “green” part: The U.S. is supposed to get to “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.” Achieving such a goal (and doing it in just ten years) would require overhauling nearly every piece of energy infrastructure in the country. That’s where the Green New Deal parts company with the real New Deal — and, in fact, contradicts the achievements of the legislators who helped ensure rural electrification, and by doing so, helped set the table for America’s emergence as an economic superpower after World War II.

Two pieces of New Deal legislation changed the shape and structure of America’s energy sector: The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 busted the big electric utilities that had a stranglehold on America’s electric grid, and the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 provided low-cost federally backed loans to electric cooperatives and other entities, which allowed them to build their own electric grids and be independent of the big utilities. Those laws helped slash electricity costs for rural customers and led to a broad dissemination of economic and political power across the country that was critical to the development of western and southern states. And that leads to my thesis: If the Green New Deal becomes a reality, it will dramatically increase electricity costs and concentrate economic and political power in big business and in Washington. In short, the biggest costs of the all-renewable-energy push will be paid not by urban liberals such as Ocasio-Cortez, who are pushing the Green New Deal, but by rural Americans who probably voted for Donald Trump.