"The UN brags that up to 4,000 people are likely to attend, representing more 300 nongovernmental organizations (read, environmental activist groups) and more than 80 countries. There is no compelling agenda, no compelling actions items, and no expected meaningful outcome from the conference. It is simply an opportunity for leftist global activists to get together and express outrage about economic freedom and the existential global climate disruption that is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced – surpassing Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, the Black Plague, smallpox, AIDS, and the threat of nuclear war combined
Seriously, now, if global warming is the greatest existential threat facing humanity, as the UN and Democratic presidential hopefuls claim, why would the UN induce 4,000 people to carbon-bomb the atmosphere with 4,000 multi-leg, roundtrip flights to whine about it? Almost nobody (other than us wonks here at CFACT) really cares or will be paying attention to the conference. Couldn’t they hold the conference at UN facilities in New York or Brussels? Or better yet, couldn’t the conference can be held online for a much lower carbon footprint?"
As shown here repeatedly, the Climate Accord would do nothing to effect the climate and was never designed to do that.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/36523/
This "save the planet" facade is being used to sell the real scheme which is a transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries.
They hijacked climate science and are marketing a fake climate crisis by spinning the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years(the last time it was this warm) and a climate optimum into all sorts of things that are NOT as crisis.....or a climate emergency, the new term to scare you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/world/asia/green-climate-fund-global-warming.html
metmike: Under the Climate Accord with Obama, the US pays the most of any country............and China get some of the money because they agreed to enter only under those conditions(they get money and don't have to cut until 2030).
The majority of countries on this planet are poor. Why wouldn't they all sign up for the Climate Accord?
They don't have to cut emissions(only rich countries do) and they get money........as rich countries share the wealth under the master UN plan of global socialism.
So if you wonder why some of the biggest fossil fuel burning people on the planet, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, AOC, President Obama and thousands of others can tell us we have a climate emergency and YOU need to stop using fossil fuels(while their personal actions are ANTI environmentalist) ........it's because their objective is global and US socialism.
For you and me that is.
For big shots like them in high positions of power, burning fossil fuels at 100 times the rate of most of us, some earning millions it's a perfect world isn't it.
If global warming is such an existential threat, why did Obama spend 14 milion for a house on the coast 8 ft above sea level? Isn't that supposed to be under water in 10 years?
Under the most extreme scenarios that would be the case at the end of this century...........which are the ones we hear about to scare the heck out of us but the oceans are actually increasing at a rate that will take 500 years to get to his house(it could accelerate higher, this is possible but not much so far, which is our best indicator)
Excellent communicator of the authentic facts:
Celebrities, activists, environmentalist organizations, the UN, government entities and sadly, even the Vatican support the theory that humans cause climate change. However, in this exclusive interview, “global warming” expert and author Marc Morano gives you hard-hitting arguments and facts that dispel the artificial fear propagated by “climate emergency” alarmists. Marc Morano talks about:
Population control (min 14:24)
Global warming (min 17:12)
Medieval warm period (min 19:37)
Best arguments against climate change (min 33:03)
The fake 97% scientific consensus (min 34:17)
The Green New Deal (min 38:23)
Pope Francis and Laudato Si (min 48:11 )
Socialism and environmentalism (min 51:27)
His book, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (min 57:38)
Some of my discussions are here:
Great discussion by Dr. Willie Soon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zrejG-WI3U
metmike, thanks for being here!
It is so easy to fall for the hoax, when it's so hot outside.
YW Gunter,
The hoax is very convincing and the gatekeepers of information have people bamboozled with junk science, using words, exaggerations, misleading, spinning and ignoring climate history.
This really has been the most powerful element about being able to post here for me has been.
I can show graphs, charts, data, papers, pictures/images and information about the authentic science to prove every statement...........and disprove the fake climate crisis in a way that would not be possible otherwise.
The other side can show an image or feature a story about a drought somewhere and convince you that it was caused by from climate change.
I show you that GLOBAL drought has not increased.
They blamed recent hurricanes on climate change. I showed you that hurricanes have NOT increased using ALL the hurricane data.
They blamed the tornadoes earlier this year on climate change...........I showed you that violent tornadoes have DECREASED because of climate change based on the data.
They use broken climate model projections going out for the next 100 years. I showed you how they are too warm by showing the models and the observations.
They claim the oceans will be up XX number of feet by the end of the century. I show the graph of actual sea level rise............a bit over 1 inch/decade.
They claim that increasing hot/dry and adverse weather is hurting crops. I show the bin busting crop yields BECAUSE of beneficial climate change and increasing CO2.
They claim that climate change causes more extreme cold in the WInter(when it got real cold) man, that one would have been easy to bust with just a bit of common sense and no graphics/data.
But here's the problem.
How many people will see all this data of the authentic science?
And an even bigger problem. When guys like mojo, cliff, frey, vandenplas and joj see the actual scientific data. They don't believe it because they have already decided before looking at it, what they should know based on what they already think they learned.
I'm an atmospheric scientist that's studied it for decades but I have tons to learn about climate change!