Well worth spending the 36 minutes to listen to the video.
* http://www.truthandaction.org/founder-w … warming/2/
"There’s been less than one degree temperature change since 1978 and no warming to speak of since 1998. So where is the government getting their information from?
It turns out that the government has been manipulating climate computer models. This means that the American tax payers are being charged 4.7 billion dollars a year in taxes that are being used to fund organizations that carry out meaningless studies based on bad science. Basically, the American people are paying fake scientists to lie to them."
Why should we give our money to liberals when they can't tell us to what degree our actions affect the environment? ... to the tune of $4.7 billion a year.
Well, I read on godtoldmeitewastrue.com that Putin paid Trump to ditch Paris so he could sell more oil.
Must be true. Putin is the only world leader supporting Trump right now.
The birthplace of ISIS is probably happy, happy too.
The founder of the Weather Channel is a Meteorologist not a climate scientist. They're too very different fields. Weather and climate are too very different things. The whole idea most governments around the world and large numbers of military leaders are part of a scam designed to ensure a continuous supply of grant money isn't very believable. And concern about global warming isn't just coming from liberals. Even many conservatives are trying to sound the alarm. Check out the Guardian article "Military experts say climate change poses 'significant risk' to security."
"A coalition of 25 military and national security experts, including former advisers to Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, has warned that climate change poses a “significant risk to US national security and international security” that requires more attention from the US federal government.
The prominent members of the US national security community warned that warming temperatures and rising seas will increasingly inundate military bases and fuel international conflict and mass migration, leading to “significant and direct risks to US military readiness, operations and strategy”"
Before 1978 Science was anything BUT what it is today , It wasn't P.C. modeled science , nor graph politics , the leftist boogy -man Bill Nye born inventist and alarmist , It's like the ACLU has decided to buy a test tube kit and expand into liberal science., The science of today is of inventive sciences - .and NOT a disproving theory science .
Politics and science don't go together like politics and constitutional law don't go together .
John Kerry ,Nancy Pelosi " .....Trumps children will suffer more asma ......?"Seriously - this is science ?
Come on liberals -catch up with reality !
The science, religion and philosophy of social-Democracy has fallen apart. Its been one false prophesy/prediction after another, which is obvious to anyone with a memory still in tact.
Which IS the latest mentality of ,apparently , ALL things liberal ?
I like what Mike Huckabee had to say, "And a list of their apocalyptic warnings of environmental disaster from the first Earth Day in 1970. I don’t know why environmental activists are worried about what Trump is doing; according to them, the world should have already ended and all of us died by 1990 at the latest."
But, but now we're all going to die? Fear is a great motivator to extort people again and again. People are still waking up and realizing we have a President that keeps promises, and will do the right thing. My God, Trump is a fighter...he meant it when he said, "I will fight for you!" Its wonderful to see.
I won't get tired of winning!
Gore and Blood can go straight to hell if they like.
............"Fear is the great motivator again and again ......." Good points all !
So this is hell, I wonder what Heaven is like. ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
Environmental Science.org - "Meteorology is the study of the atmosphere. Meteorologists use science and math to understand and predict weather and climate. They also study how the atmospheric and weather conditions affect the earth and its human inhabitants."
Global Warming as an expression was a bad choice of words because it focuses the mind on just one aspect of ‘Climate Change’. For years now, the correct term is ‘Climate Change’, which includes aspects of global warming.
If you live in other parts of the world, other than America, you’ll know that climate change is real. In Europe the change in the past 20 years has been dramatic. As an example, in Bristol, England (where I live), pre 1990 we would always get snow every winter (anything up to 1ft), since c1990 we’ve had very little snow, and none for years now.
Not only are our winters getting warmer, but increasingly so are our summers; especially in the past 8 years where progressively each summer has been hotter than any other summer since records began in the 19th century. This year alone, we are now on our third heat wave since March (breaking all previous records); so any claims that there hasn’t been any significant warming since 1998 is false.
2016 was one of the warmest two years on record: https://youtu.be/QaEActgrn3U
Prior to 2000 temperatures in Britain almost never reached 30 degrees Celsius (86F); whereas, since 2006 such temperatures has become a regular (almost yearly) event; with each year on average becoming hotter than the previous year.
2015, Britain bakes on the hottest July day ever: https://youtu.be/h5HKllhdXE8
Paper agreements , political ideologies , P.C. thoughts on Climate Change effect nothing in the climate .
It takes the physical act of peoples hands to clean up anything.
How is -----No littering ----working out for us ?
Bill Gates announced that privet investors are committing $7 billion dollars for clean energy R&D. I'll go with that instead of government hot air and subsidies in today's ineffective green technologies.
Those who want to combat climate change should focus on boosting green energy innovation. The US already shows the way with its pursuit of fraking, making it safer and more efficient every year. America has drastically reduced the cost of natural gas. This momentous switch from coal to lower CO2 gas as a source of energy has done far more to drive down CO2 emissions than any recent government policy. Turns out those politicians who gathered in Paris-France could learn a lot from Paris-Texas' privet sector.
It was in Trump's first speech he talked about the need to invest in the American infrastructure. When we build infrastructure, we are actually reorganizing the physical space time of the planet, allowing our world to obtain higher and higher levels of efficiency. So! If your system is moving to higher and higher levels of efficiency...Energy flux density, for example. Such as from coal based economy to oil based
economy to nuclear based economy, there will be an increase in the productive power of human labor every step of the way and that is the way actual wealth is created. Money is simply the way of facilitating trade amongest people, it has no intrinsic value at all.
It is privet investments and innovations that really work to solve problems, not government bureaucracy, policies and over regulations that stifle real progress in America. We will continue to lead the way but it will take time because of the obstructionists that want to sell us down the river in bad deals that only promote the redistribution of wealth, and do little to nothing to reduce climate change.
I agree colorfulone, private investment in Research and Development of clean energy is important, and if you lived here you would know that is exactly what is happening in Europe; on a scale far larger than what is being achieved in the USA.
Germany (the world leader in Green Energy) is a prime example where private investment and ownership in renewable energies is huge, now topped $100 billion; add that to the $100s billions being privately invested across the rest of Europe, and it dwarfs America’s feeble attempts.
I disagree with the concept that governments are subsidising ineffective green technologies. I have done research into this and your view seems to be true for the USA where government and business attitudes are different e.g. projects tend to be fragmented and government funded. Whereas in Europe there are a lot of initiatives on smaller scale privately funded schemes that integrate into larger schemes.
One of many organisations (often as joint public/private ventures) is MARINET (Marine Renewables Infrastructure Network) who with just $15 million investment from European government’s co-ordinates private investment across Europe is creating profitable Research and Development opportunities for private companies: https://youtu.be/f40PhfU_ZXU
Yes, generating energy in Europe is currently more expensive than in America, but this is because the initial investment costs of investing in the new green renewable energy infrastructure isn’t cheap; but once the investments are made (and they are now at an advanced stage in Europe) the running costs are considerably cheaper than burning fossil fuels e.g. sun, wind, water, thermal and bio are all free resources. The breakeven point for Europe is on target to be in 2025, after which time Europe will have a plentiful supply of free energy from the sun etc., that will be cheap to capture and transmit to homes and businesses (because the infrastructure will already exist). This is the advancements being made across the whole of the world except for Syria, Nicaragua, Australia (where they’ve had problems in switching over to green energies), and the USA who looks as if they will be left behind as the rest of the world invest in cheap sustainable green energy for the future.
It was only 10 years ago and I was as sceptical as you are about green energy. I’m not naturally green by nature, but in the past 10 years I’ve seen the transformation away from fossil fuels to green renewable energy in Britain on an impressive and unimaginable scale (in spite of Britain being one of the least green countries in Europe). I’ve seen the achievements in Bristol (where I live) in recent years; Bristol was awarded the ‘Green Capital of Europe’ in 2015 because of its achievements.
For example, all of Bristol’s sewage is now digested by anaerobic bacteria that produce vast quantities of natural gas which is now used to run a fleet of 200 Bristol buses with the excess either being fed into the national gas grid, or burnt to produce cheap electricity which is then fed into the national electricity grid.
Bristol Green Capital of Europe 2015: https://youtu.be/lwFC-UIb-4o
Inexpensive Green Initiative in Wales, which will generate up to 5% of Britain’s energy needs: https://youtu.be/mNyeha6L6D0
Electric Mountain in Wales:- https://youtu.be/d-Gbs_kXK8Q
In December 2015, nine months before the end of his presidency, Barrack Obama signed the Paris Accord. The United States did not. In order to ratify it as a treaty 2/3 of the Senate had to approve it. Obama told us it was not a treaty, but an executive agreement between himself and other nations. The Paris agreement was an agreement only with the Obama Administration, and an unratified treaty in which case it had no effect. The Constitution's separation of powers prevents the President from binding the country unilaterally. Our system does not divide authority into spheres controlled exclusively by the Senate, House and President. It requires combinations of offices to work together.
Obama's counterparts in Paris knew he lacked the support to bind our country. In fact, they watered down the wording of the agreement to support Obama's agreement that it does not require ratification. Examples: they changed the word "shall" to "should" in many places in order to avoid calling it a treaty. The negotiators chose between a treaty that would bind the United States and the promise of an outgoing president. Any claims that Trump or the United States "is going back on its word" is disingenuous. Only Obama gave his word and the other parties in Paris helped design the agreement to throw our Constitution out the window. Obama ignored his constitutional duty to submit treaties to the Senate. In fact, a statement from the Obama White House said it all when the White House signaled it would bypass the Senate, no matter what, by saying "I think it's hard to take seriously from some members of Congress who deny the fact that climate change exists, that they should have some opportunity to render judgement about a climate change agreement."
Under the agreement Obama signed, the UN would have called the shots on what we did within our own borders to protect the climate. They would have also had the power to punish us through embargoes and trade agreements.
Under Obama's agreement, China, the world's major polluters are ALLOWED to increase their emissions where the United States cannot. India is hinging its participation on billions of dollars of foreign aid.
The agreement was less about the climate and more about other countries gaining financial advantage over the United States.
This was a United Nations program that gave foreign leaders in Europe and Asia more say with respect to the United States economy then we do. It would have handicapped the United States economy - it was a deal that would have punished the United States, while imposing no obligations on the world's leading polluters. China would be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants, but we can not, according to the agreement. India would be allowed to double it's coal production by 2020, but we have to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants, but we can not.
Obama's requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the United States economy nearly $3 trillion.
By 2040 our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial-sector jobs, including 31 million manufacturing-sector jobs.
It would decapitate our coal industry which now supplies one-third of our electric power.
It imposed unrealistic targets on the United States for reducing our carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass.
China would actually be allowed to INCREASE emissions until 2030.
Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund - which is about 30 percent of the initial funding - WITHOUT being authorized by Congress.
We are $20 trillion in debt, US taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other country's energy needs.
The United States is already a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader. We can reduce our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord. America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions dramatically (who remembers those yearly emission tests).
The United States is the leader in oil and gas production.
For anyone that thought the Paris Accord was all about clean river and air, it is not, and never was.
THE AGREEMENT FUNDS A UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE SLUSH FUND UNDERWRITTEN BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.
Obama wanted to cut clean coal energy by 80%. He proudly professed that his plan would make electricity costs skyrocket. Sounds like a man who hated America to me, a traitor, a saboteur. Obama also touted his belief in the redistribution of wealth.
by Jacqueline Williamson BBA MPA MS3 years ago
If you have been watching the Weather Channel or your local weather station; you will realize that some of us have been experiencing phenomenal weather conditions. I heard that the wind chill factor in one city was 74-...
by SportsBetter3 years ago
Is global warming and climate change an important issue, or is it a hoax?I know there is much talk about climate change issues. I also know that various people profit off of these concerns, and the media certainly...
by My Esoteric13 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the...
by SparklingJewel14 months ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth...
by Holle Abee14 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by Will Apse5 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.