~ Where the Sun Will Never Set on Our liberty ~
Agenda2030 Tids 9/24/16 From our own Jodi!
Climate Change Treaty Says It’s NOT About Climate Change
Despite the hoopla surrounding the so-called climate change agreement signed at the G20 summit in China on Tuesday, the agreement actually means nothing.
That’s because there are no significant consequences for countries that do not adhere to the standards created by the agreement. The standards were articulated at the COP21 meeting in Paris last year.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation examined the agreement, and as Professor David Campbell of Lancaster University, who wrote the analysis, explained, “developing” countries such as China and India are allowed to produce as much CO2 as they like.
As Bjorn Lomborg wrote in Global Policy of the Paris agreement, if all countries follow the standards, “The temperature reduction by 2100 is 0.17°C in the optimistic scenario and 0.05°C in the pessimistic scenario, with an average of 0.11°C.”
Then why the hell is this an issue? Oh yeah, redistribution.
Top 5 ‘Climate Change’ Myths Debunked
This one is for you Prius-driving, canvas tote bag-carrying hippies who refuse to shop at Amazon because of the cardboard boxes, who are always talking about “emissions” and “the polar bears.” You know who you are. Thanks for caring for the environment, you hypocritical weasels. Guess what? A lot of that crap you believe? It’s just that. Crap. And it’s okay to think critically about it.
MYTH: The world is getting hotter at a significant rate.
TRUTH: The world has gotten 1.7 degrees hotter since 1880.
MYTH: Rise in CO2 is dangerous and can directly be traced to man-made emissions.
TRUTH: CO2 isn’t a pollutant. Most of the rise in CO2 is coming from natural sources.
MYTH: The Ice Sheets are MELTING AWAY!
TRUTH: Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing by billions of tons. Also FAIL: Scientist That Predicted Ice Caps Would Melt in 2013… Now Cla...
MYTH: Climate change models are reliable.
TRUTH: NOAA has been caught skewing data.
MYTH: Climate change is the consensus of scientists.
FACT: Not all scientists are in agreement over climate change. Also, manmade climate change is still a theory.
MYTH: Hybrid cars are better for the environment.
TRUTH: Not exactly. Production emissions are much higher, the minerals mined for the battered are typically done with little oversight on “non-green ways” and you’re still hurting the environment FAAAAR more by buying a new hybrid than buying used gas.
Worth the time to watch a little Crowder.
Ship of Fools II: Green Arctic Expedition Frustrated by Large Quantities of Ice
An Arctic expedition designed to raise awareness of the perils of man-made climate change is being frustrated by unexpectedly large quantities of ice.
The South Pole has withstood warming
The U.S. Navy handed out a $334 million contract for solar power without having a good way to determine whether the project would be cost effective.
Study: Veganism Not the Most Environmentally Friendly Diet
"The vegan diet wastes available land that could otherwise feed more people."
The five diets that contained the most meat used all available crop and animal grazing land. The five diets using the least amount of meat—or none at all—varied in land use. But the vegan diet stood out because it was the only diet that used no perennial cropland at all, and, as a result, would waste the chance to produce a lot of food.
So much for sustainability. Save the earth by firing up your grill this weekend.
EXCLUSIVE: Feds Hide $25 Million In Payments To Lawyers Suing Under Environmental Laws
Groups concealed by the government have raked in $25 million in legal fees from federal agencies through lawsuits under three environmental laws since 2009, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis found.
The Department of Treasury’s Judgment Fund database tracks how much federal agencies have paid out for lawsuits and court settlements, but doesn’t track the names of the individuals or groups that are actually suing the government.
More than $49 million in taxpayer funds was paid to lawyers suing the Obama administration under three major environmental statutes, TheDCNF found. Environmental activists have gotten millions from taxpayers suing the government to expand federal regulation.
“It’s no surprise the Treasury Department is hiding who gets the money in these transactions,” Adam Andrzejewski, Founder and CEO of transparency group OpenTheBooks.com, told TheDCNF. “Because these suits involve the federal government, taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going and what agendas they’re advancing.”
The administration paid out more than $25 million to attorneys and firms that were either listed as “unnamed” or “redacted” from 2009 to 2015. Nearly $630,000 was paid out to groups where some of the plaintiff’s attorneys were listed but others were redacted.
The $49 million was paid out to groups under 512 so-called “citizen lawsuits” – lawsuits filed under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, TheDCNF previously reported.
State Dept. Will Spend $396,000 on Climate Change Competition
"A Green Growth Climate Challenge" held in another country.
The State Department will spend almost $400,000 of tax payer dollars on a climate change competition to be held in Morocco. The competition is part of the Department's aggressive fight against climate change.
“Morocco and the U.S. share a strong commitment to combating climate change which they are tackling aggressively at the international, national, and local levels,” according to a grant announcement. “The U.S. Department of State Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR) seeks to highlight this shared commitment by driving policy and commercial innovation through a Green Growth Climate Challenge.”
The State Dept. is looking for nonprofits, universities and organizations to hold a competition that will garner ideas how to “mitigate the impacts of climate change through the use of clean energy and energy efficient technology.”
The National Endowment for the Humanities is spending over $50,000 to publish a book about the relationships between humans and trees.
State Department Spends $185,000 on Piece of 'Art'
“Rather than a sense of constriction, the various sized pieces are like precious small gifts, hiding happy mysteries,” writes the art blog “Studio and Garden” about an art installation made for the embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. One unhappy mystery is why the State Department paid $185,000 of taxpayer dollars for it.
The 9.5 ft x 9.5 ft yarn artwork called "Lares and Penates" is by artist Sheila Hicks, according to a government contract signed in April. It will be displayed in the new Embassy Compound completed last summer. The Embassy cost $699 million to build and used "green construction techniques" including low-flow faucets compliant with the Americans for Disabilities Act.
Perhaps the embassy compound in Benghazi could have used a piece of art like this. Lares and Penates couldn't have done any worse job of protecting it than Hillary Clinton did.
Art is a good thing for the agenda.
NYT Looking To Hire A ‘Climate Change Editor’ As Ad Revenues Slide
The New York Times wants to hire a “climate change editor” to make what it calls “most important story in the world” more appealing to a global audience.
“The Times is ramping up its coverage to make the most important story in the world even more relevant, urgent and accessible to a huge audience around the globe,” reads a job ad from the international edition of The Times.
Its push for more global warming coverage comes as the paper embarks on a new strategy to shed its American identity and appeal more to international audiences. It’s all part of CEO Mark Thompson’s plan to spend $50 million over three years on “a new era of international growth,” Politico reported in May.
Not everyone was thrilled with The Times’ decision to hype global warming. University of Colorado climate researcher Roger Pielke Jr. thought The Times’ ad hinted at more of a political campaign than a journalistic venture.
Obama's Most Flagrant Violation Of the Constitution Yet
How Obama is using the United Nations to force his radical environmentalist agenda on the American people.
President Obama has just committed his most flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution to date. He purported to commit the United States to a legally binding treaty without first obtaining consent by two thirds of the Senators present, as required under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Obama is using the United Nations to end run the Senate with regard to the Paris Agreement on climate change negotiated last December.
Last week, Obama submitted an instrument to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, for deposit with the UN, which he claims signifies official “acceptance” of the Paris Agreement by the United States. Obama said he and China’s President Xi Jinping together decided to “commit formally to joining the agreement ahead of schedule.”
White House defends Obama evading Senate on Paris climate deal
The White House on Monday defended President Obama’s decision to enter into the Paris climate accord without Senate ratification but stopped short of confirming a Chinese report that he will do so this week during his trip to China.
Still, it would surprise no one if Mr. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping were to announce the ratification of the sweeping climate change agreement before the Sunday opening of the Group of 20 summit in Hangzhou, Zhejiang.
White House senior adviser Brian Deese said the president has the legal authority to ratify the accord without the two-thirds Senate vote required for treaties. He said the pact negotiated by 195 countries in December is merely an “executive agreement.”
Obama's Latest Climate Change Measures Mean 'You Can't Build That'
What about all that shovel-ready talk, Mr. President?
After lecturing American business owners that they "didn't build that," President Obama is now making it so that Americans "can't build that" at all, with new climate change guidelines meant to stifle construction deemed too damaging to the environment.
Basically, the Obama administration is hoping to lead the charge against climate change by restricting itself (shocking) to beginning federal projects that have the least impact on the environment.
These new measures are a widening of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), reports The Washington Times. Now, federal agencies will need "to quantify the impact of activities that require federal permits not just on the environment but also on 'projected direct and indirect GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.'"
According to The White House, these guidelines are "another big step in the administration’s effort to consider how all types of federal actions will impact climate change and identify opportunities to build climate resilience.”
Yet, for his entire presidency, Obama has promoted "shovel-ready jobs" and massive infrastructure gains to boost and, therefore in his view, save the economy. His latest actions appear to be in direct opposition to those promises.
Obama Uses National Parks Centennial to Push Climate Change Agenda
President Obama proudly declared his success in “protecting more than 265 million acres of public land and waters, more than any administration in history,” adding, “we’ve got more work to do to preserve our lands, culture and history.”
Obama later shifted his focus from celebrating the 100th anniversary of the national parks system to climate change.
“As we look ahead, the threat of climate change means protecting our public lands and waters is more important than ever. Rising temperatures could mean no more glaciers in Glacier National Park, no more Joshua trees in Joshua Tree National Park,” Obama said.
The president also speculated climate change could threaten the existence of some of the country’s most well-loved monuments and destroy “vital ecosystems in the Everglades, even threaten Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.”
Told ya….the new ‘No-Go Zones’.
Government: New 700,000-Word Regulation is Good for You
The nine-second video of two federal bureaucrats the White House posted on its blog last week was notable for something it omitted.
That something was very big — and putting it on display might not have fit with the apparent propaganda purpose of the video.
The video itself starred EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, who sat side-by-side at a table.
The video starts with McCarthy and Foxx simultaneously scratching their signatures onto separate and apparently singular sheets of paper.
So, what exactly had these two bureaucrats done?
McCarthy and Foxx published a blog text that accompanied the video on the White House website. In it, they explained that — as part of President Obama's "Climate Action Plan" — they had approved a regulation that imposes new "greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards" on vehicles ranging from heavy-duty pickup trucks to tractor-trailer combinations used to haul cargo.
The regulation is 1,690 pages long. Page 1,689 is the signature page for Secretary Foxx. Page 1,690 is the signature page for Administrator McCarthy.
When Foxx and McCarthy signed the regulation — as recorded in the video on the White House website — they did not place the first 1,688 pages anywhere within view of the camera.
Was that in deference to trees? Or did the Obama administration not want to show America that these two unelected bureaucrats were signing a 1,690-page regulation.
U.S. mulls rule to require speed-limiting devices for trucks, buses
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Transportation Department on Friday issued a proposed rule that would require trucks and buses to be equipped with devices that would limit their speed, a move it said could save both lives and fuel.
"There are significant safety benefits to this proposed rulemaking," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. "In addition to saving lives, the projected fuel and emissions savings make this proposal a win for safety, energy conservation, and our environment."
Under the long-delayed proposal, all new U.S. trucks and buses weighing more than 26,000 pounds would need to be equipped with a speed-limiting device.
The department said the maximum allowable speed would be decided after the agency receives public input. Publication of the proposal kicks off a 60-day comment period.
It said both vehicle manufacturers and the companies that purchase and operate the vehicles would be subject to the rule.
Yeah…it ain’t about saving lives.
Taxpayer-supported biofuels emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than gasoline, according to a new study, challenging the benefits of mixing ethanol into the U.S. fuel supply.
“When it comes to the emissions that cause global warming, it turns out that biofuels are worse than gasoline,” Dr. John DeCicco of the University of Michigan and lead author of the study, said in a press release. “So the underpinnings of policies used to promote biofuels for reasons of climate have now been proven to be scientifically incorrect.”
“Policymakers should reconsider their support for biofuels. This issue has been debated for many years,” DeCicco said. “What’s new here is that hard data, straight from America’s croplands, now confirm the worst fears about the harm that biofuels do to the planet.”
What’s Wrong With the EPA Analysis Used to Justify New Fuel Standards for Trucks
In a continued effort to address alleged man-made global warming, the Obama administration has finalized energy efficiency standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks. While the administration is pledging to reduce fuel use and cut greenhouse gas emissions, its stringent energy mandate will do nothing to affect climate change.
What it will do, however, is take decisions away from the American individuals and businesses and consolidate more power in Washington. The regulation requires a wide variety of vehicles—from school buses and passenger vans, to garbage and delivery trucks and long-haul tractor-trailers—to improve fuel efficiency.
This is the second round of fuel efficiency standards coming from the Obama administration, with this one covering model years 2021-2027.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s press release, owners of the vehicles need not worry about the higher upfront prices paid to implement new technologies because drivers will save money on fuel costs—an estimated total of nearly $170 billion, according to the EPA. The press release states that “The buyer of a new long-haul truck in 2027 would recoup the investment in fuel-efficient technology in less than two years through fuel savings.”
It is so considerate that the federal government would devote taxpayer-funded resources to create and enforce a regulation that will help trucking business’ bottom line.
It’s a bunch of hogwash.
EPA admits never studying effects of ethanol as required by law
When Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 it introduced the current levels of controversial and problematic mandates for ethanol fuel blending which we’ve been wrestling with ever since. But it also provided a mechanism to monitor the effects of the ethanol mandate on the environment and the economy which would be reported to Congress every three years. After being repeatedly poked on the subject by the Associate Press, the Inspector General for the EPA admitted this week that the agency has simply ignored those instructions and the studies were never conducted.
The Obama administration has failed to study as legally required the impact of requiring ethanol in gasoline and ensuring that new regulations intended to address one problem do not actually make other problems worse, the Environmental Protection Agency inspector general said Thursday.
The conclusion in the new audit confirmed findings of an Associated Press investigation in November 2013. The AP said the administration never conducted studies to determine whether air and water quality benefits from adding corn-based ethanol to gasoline. Such reports to Congress were required every three years under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Given the ongoing debates on the subject, up to and including arguments between the presidential candidates all through the primary battles of both parties for two straight election cycles it’s rather amazing that the EPA could simply blow this off. The topic has made it into the platform committee discussions for both parties and it engulfs a variety of questions ranging from environmental impact to government mandates. There have been hearings held on the hill and endless scholarly papers penned on both sides of the debate.
Ethanol is hardly without controversy. On the production side it’s been repeatedly shown that it uses up to 300% more water than anyone expected. Vast amounts of land were converted to corn fields in the rush to cash in on the government mandate, causing all manner of environmental havoc. And the resulting fuel has been problematic at best. Consumer Reports has been warning for years that ethanol blends can destroy small engines and boat motors. In fact, this mandate has spawned an entire new industry which produces additives specifically designed to remove the ethanol which the government insists must be added to our gasoline. (There’s an unexpected government stimulus program for you.)
With this much controversy surrounding the subject, not to mention a legal requirement, how did the EPA manage to simply ignore the law and refuse to conduct these studies? They’re saying that it was too expensive and that a three year window wasn’t long enough to produce meaningful results.
EPA Cannot Prove That Its $16 Million Education Program Had Any Positive Results
Inspector general criticizes agency for using weak excuses for not collecting data
“Environmental education is a process that allows individuals to explore environmental issues, engage in problem solving, and take action to improve the environment,” the agency states. “As a result, individuals develop a deeper understanding of environmental issues and have the skills to make informed and responsible decisions.”
The program awarded more than $16 million in grant funds from fiscal year 2012 to 2014 that went to education organizations, internships, fellowships, and environmental awards.
When a grant is awarded to a specific project, the government requires that its effects be properly evaluated.
“The [Office of Environmental Education] was to determine, through its grantees, the percentage of all students and teachers targeted who demonstrated improved academic achievement or teacher aptitude,” the inspector general explains. “Further, the grantees were to provide information on the percentage of all grantee participants who demonstrate increased environmental knowledge.”
But instead of fulfilling its duty to obtain this information and report it properly, the EPA now claims that the Paperwork Reduction Act prevented it from collecting the data because it restricts the amount of information an agency can request from the public.
NPR: Should We Be Having Kids In Light Of Global Warming?
“Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” NPR Travis Rieder, a philosopher at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR. “The situation is bleak, it’s just dark … Population engineering, maybe it’s an extreme move. But it gives us a chance.”
Rieder said America produces a lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) per person, and the world’s poorest nations will be most affected by global warming. He suggests rich nations should stop having children to remedy this. Reducing the current birth rate to 0.5 kids per woman could be the “thing that saves us,” he said.
He does, however, acknowledge that slowing population growth would only achieve 20 to 25 percent of the cuts necessary to meet President Barack Obama’s global warming goals.
Depopulation is a big part of the evil agenda.
NPR Lectures About Selfish Moms Having Kids in 'Age of Climate Change'
The academic proposed a “carbon tax” on children, to decentivize procreation, in wealthy nations.
NPR correspondent Jennifer Ludden reported that Professor Travis Rieder presented “moral” arguments to James Madison University students, claiming the best way to protect future generations from the threat of climate change is “by not having them.”
A philosopher, Rieder told them that having fewer children reduces carbon emissions more effectively than not eating meat, driving hybrid cars, and using eco-friendly appliances. Ludden’s article posted on the NPR website about the interview with Rieder was even more positive. In it she wrote that his claims “sound pretty persuasive in the classroom.”
Such anti-life arguments are typical of the left, including the environmental left.
Feds Ask: Will Global Warming Cause More Deadly Car Crashes?
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) wants to know if global warming will increase the risk of fatal car crashes.
“To be precise, 7.2% more people died in traffic-related accidents in 2015 than in 2014,” reads a DOT blog post calling for independent analyses of traffic accident data. “This unfortunate data point breaks a recent historical trend of fewer deaths occurring per year.”
The blog post, written by DJ Patil of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Mark Rosekind of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, then asks a series of “key questions” on the future of car crashes they want answered by groups taking up their call to analyze 2015 data.
Patil and Rosekind also ask: “How might climate change increase the risk of fatal crashes in a community?”
Your manliness could be hurting the planet
Researchers have known for decades that women tend to beat men on environmental metrics. They generally use less fuel and energy. They eat less meat. They're more concerned about climate change.
James Wilkie, a business professor at the University of Notre Dame, wanted to understand what drives this gender eco-friendliness gap. After years of exploring psychological bias, he and his colleagues developed a theory.
"Men’s resistance may stem in part from a prevalent association between the concepts of greenness and femininity and a corresponding stereotype (held by both men and women) that green consumers are feminine," they assert this month in the Journal of Consumer Research. "As a result of this stereotype, men may be motivated to avoid or even oppose green behaviors in order to safeguard their gender identity."
Wilkie’s team also found men in the studies were more likely to donate to an environmental nonprofit group that had a “masculine” logo — one with darker colors and bold fonts — than to an organization that displayed lighter tones and “frilly” letters. Logos didn’t have an impact on where women said they’d want to donate.
A similar trend emerged in an experiment at a BMW dealership. When presented with two versions of the same “green” car, men favored the one called the “Protection Model” over the “Eco-friendly Model.” Women, meanwhile, weren’t particularly swayed by either title.
“Stereotypical feminine behavior and attitudes are more in parallel with taking care of the environment,” Wilkie said of the findings. “Male traits tend to conflict with this idea of maintaining a nice environment for other people.”
Wilkie blames stereotypes. People who care about the environment are perceived as nurturing, gentle caretakers. Pop culture says they're barefoot hippies with long hair and flower crowns. That image clashes with traditional masculinity.
"Despite a prevalent stereotype that green consumers are more feminine than non-green consumers," the researchers wrote, "we show that men’s inhibitions about engaging in green behavior can be mitigated through masculine affirmation and masculine branding."
Be aware, manly men.
India’s Al Gore: US ‘Weapons’ Caused Global Warming
“The US has developed a type of weapon called High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP). It strikes the upper atmosphere with a focussed and steerable electromagnetic beam,” Anil Madhav Dave, India’s Environmental Minister, told Business Standard Monday. “HAARP is an advanced model of a super powerful ionospheric heater which may cause the globe to warm and have global warming effect.”
India is the world’s fastest growing, and third largest, emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2). In 2014, India got 59 percent of its electricity from coal, and Indian leaders are ramping up the country’s coal production by opening a new mine every month. The country appears set to literally double down on coal by doubling production and building 87,122 megawatts of new coal power capacity. Even with that level of coal use, it is estimated that 400 million Indians, 31 percent of the population, lack access to electricity.
India has stated it will only reduce emissions if it receives substantial assistance from Western countries, equivalent to $2.5 trillion over the next 15 years in direct aid, grants, and cheap financing.
'Previous estimates of extinction may be too high'
Enviros Evicting Native Tribes To Fight Global Warming
“Governments are accessing wealthy conservation groups based in the U.S. and Europe to take advantage of the billions of pounds of conservation money being offered by global banks, northern governments and foundations for climate change and biodiversity protection,” according to a Sunday article in The Guardian.
In order to make room for conservation-oriented eco-tourism and other anti-global warming confabs, local governments are using green rhetoric as a pretext to abuse some of the poorest people in the world. The Guardian discovered several dozen cases of human rights abuses in central Africa executed in the name of global warming and with financially support from the U.S. and E.U.
“This illustrates the extent to which conservation, biodiversity and global warming are campaigns by the rich against the poor,” Dr. Terry Anderson, a senior fellow and economist at the free-market Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The same people who support these causes bemoan environmental injustice, but all of these are clear cases of environmental injustice at the hands of Big Government.”
Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change
‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’
Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.
“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.
Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.
Thanks, this is a nice reference.