Global Warming Science: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming
US Democratic Party and the Great CO2 Scam
[last update: 2020/02/28]
|
Paris, USA
Obama didn’t really care about CO2 emissions – he made a deal with China that they could continue to exponentially increase their CO2 emissions from his 2014 deal until 2030. That negates anything the USA can do to “limit warming”. He then agreed to the UN Paris agreement which also allowed China to continue increasing emissions until 2030 as if CO2 actually doesn’t matter. (He also bought a $12 million waterfront home – guess he doesn’t really believe in the climate scam.)
The US produces about 15% of the global CO2 emissions and currently emits about the same as in 1990.
US power sector emissions have decreased.
“Total annual rolling CO2 emissions were 1,725 million metric tonnes, which was 29% lower than in 2005.” https://emissionsindex.org/#chart-3-view-1
If the US took every car off the road and shut down all energy production/use, it would have no effect on the global climate. So why do the Democrats want to stifle the American economy by imposing draconian “climate–saving” measures?
|
|
UN
The UN started the climate scam (see http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UN_AGWscam.htm) in an attempt to form a global government overriding individual countries’ sovereignty and obtain permanent funding through a global carbon tax.
And they are always upping the alarm.
…
Who is this UN secretary general Antonio Gutrerres? From Portugal, he “was the secretary-general of the Socialist Party from 1992 to 2002. He served as president of the Socialist International from 1999 to 2005” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Guterres [bold added] So the UN is now run by a blatant socialist.
Guterres:
https://news.yahoo.com/un-chief-says-humanitys-war-against-nature-must-151942525.html
(Guterres told a lie in that statement – climate-related disasters are actually declining. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/12/14/why-climate-advocates-need-to-stop-hyping-extreme-weather/#11eafa417f0a)
The UN’s lies continue: “If we don’t urgently change our way of life, we jeopardize life itself.”
UN’s Ottmar Edenhofer, former co-chair of the IPCC Working Group tells it like it is: “We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy”
Christina Figueres, former head of UNFCCC, tells what the global warming scam is all about:
“"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels. "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”
According to Time’s Person of the Year, Greta Thunberg: “After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all.”
That’s what the scam is really about – dismantling western civilization, creating a global communist system.
The world’s largest emitter of CO2 (China) is a “developing country”, and as such, wants money from the US for this big bogus scam.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/17/china-india-demand-cash-climate-action-eve-un-summit/
So in the mind of the UN, the biggest emitter of CO2 (China) is the leader in saving the world from CO2. The UN is 1984 (the book, not the year)
From the above article, Trump, the climate realist:
The UN also wants to prosecute “climate deniers”:
And: “The damage that climate deniers do is heinous, and they have no excuses. The time has come to prosecute them for postericide.” https://en.unesco.org/courier/2019-3/climate-crimes-must-be-brought-justice
|
|
Democrats
The Democratic Party endorses a “climate emergency” as proposed by the “The Climate Mobilization”: “In August 2018, ahead of the midterm elections, the Democratic National Committee reaffirmed their commitment to emergency Climate Mobilization by passing a resolution calling for “a national social and economic mobilization” to “address the Climate Emergency” and “restore a safe climate.” With this plank reaffirmed, mobilization is the official position of the party.” https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/overview-and-team
In 2016, Obama’s attorney general pursued the possibility of prosecuting “climate change deniers”:
“In news that should shock and anger Americans, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that not only has she discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against so-called “climate change deniers,” but she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.” Lynch was responding to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who urged Lynch to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled,”” “This not only represents a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours, it is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment. Will the FBI’s possible investigation include going after dissenting scientists who publish articles or give speeches questioning the global climate change hypothesis?”
From the above article: “this is also reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those whom he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Both Lynch and Whitehouse might want to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.”
All of the Democratic Party 2020 presidential candidates, including Michael Bloomberg, are promoting the climate “emergency”. (And none are moderates: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2020/02/16/politics-of-democratic-candidates/)
Bloomberg has already pledged his allegiance to the UN.
https://www.bloomberg.org/press/releases/bloomberg-special-envoy-climate-action/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-network-climate-lawyers-ag
From the above article: “The arrangement, which currently pays the salaries of Special Assistant Attorneys General (SAAGs) in 10 Democratic AG offices, is drawing new scrutiny now that Bloomberg is running for president. The New York University School of Law's State Energy & Environmental Impact Center, which was started in 2017 with $5.6 million from Bloomberg's nonprofit, hires mid-career lawyers as "research fellows" before providing them to state AGs where they assist in pursuing "progressive" policy goals through the courts.”
And: “What’s problematic is the arrangement through which a private organization or individual can promote an overtly political agenda by paying the salaries of government employees” … “According to its website, the NYU State Impact Center currently has attorneys placed in the AG offices for Washington, D.C., Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York and Oregon. The attorney general running each of those offices is a Democrat.”
“A "special assistant attorney general" who has been working for Oregon's Department of Justice, yet whose salary was being paid by Michael Bloomberg using a pass-through agency, is working in circumstances partially or completely contrary to Oregon law, according to an analysis by the office of legal counsel that serves the Oregon State Legislature.”
And: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/15/bloombergs-bucks-fund-liberal-mercenaries-crusade-/ “Other Democratic presidential primary contenders may push the Green New Deal, but Michael R. Bloomberg is advancing his climate change agenda behind the scenes with the help of one Democratic state attorney general at a time. Since its founding in 2017, the billionaire’s State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at New York University School of Law has quietly planted climate lawyers — paid by the center — with Democratic attorneys general in nine states and the District of Columbia despite alarm over what Republicans call his “liberal mercenaries.””
“This push by government officials to investigate and prosecute climate change “deniers” is not only an abuse of their authority — it’s a fundamental violation of the First Amendment. And it should terrify scientists, researchers, engineers and anyone else who engages in the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is the hallmark of an advanced technological society.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/20/has-von-spakovsky-prosecuting-climate-change-denie/
From the above article: “Attorneys general participating in this scurrilous persecution, such as New York’s Eric Schneiderman, claim the First Amendment doesn’t apply to scientific debate and dissent on climate change because apparently Mr. Schneiderman knows the “truth”: “Climate change is real.” In his view, the targets of their investigation are committing “fraud” and are therefore not protected by the First Amendment. The arrogance is truly appalling — and dangerous.”
Democrats are subverting the system to force their climate-scam policies onto the country.
Bernie wants to bern us – a $16 Trillion plan:
…
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/22/bernie-sanders-2020-climate-change-1471638
So in less than 10 years, somehow there will be enough electricity to replace oil/gas by using solely the unreliables in his climate justice nationalized power companies? This guy is out of touch with reality.
“It would disproportionately hurt the poor by making them pay more for basic goods like food and energy. And it would slow economic growth by reducing labor-productivity. Sanders may deny that his Green New Deal would increase energy prices, but in boasting that it will create 20 million more jobs, he is pointing to the reason why energy prices would rise. Making anything more labor-intensive makes it more expensive.”
Which one is more dangerous? A multi-millionaire communist who’s plans could never get passed by a 2-party house and senate? Or a billionaire that bypasses government channels to force his climate-scam onto us regardless of the law?
The Democrats have created a “House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis”:
Democrats’ “Select Committee on the Climate Crisis” wants Google/YouTube to silence “climate misinformation” that does not agree with the party line:
https://climatecrisis.house.gov/sites/climatecrisis.house.gov/files/SCCCLetterYouTube.pdf
The Committee’s letter continues: “As we all work together to solve this crisis, we must also eliminate barriers to action, including those as pervasive and harmful as climate denial and climate misinformation.”
And:
(Some great YouTube videos about climate issues are created by Tony Heller. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhjZI0ceSBQ and https://realclimatescience.com/)
I read about the Democrats in a book in high school:
https://www.azquotes.com/author/11147-George_Orwell
See also: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2020/01/30/castor-fixes-free-speech/
Google had a large project in an attempt to convert all of Google (Alphabet) to “clean energy”. They discovered that today’s renewable energy technologies won’t work at a large scale to reduce CO2: “As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work” https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
Trump was smart enough to get the US out of Obama’s Paris accord. But the Democrats want to turn the US over to the UN. The Wall Street Journal:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a U.N. climate conference in Madrid on Dec 2, 2019, to announce that the U.S. is still part of the Paris Agreement, despite President Trump giving the U.N. formal notice of withdrawal from the pact in November. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosi-will-always-have-paris-11575331248
From the WSJ article:
“President Trump didn’t jet off to Madrid for this week’s United Nations climateklatsch, but Nancy Pelosi brought a congressional delegation—and a message. “By coming here,” she proclaimed at a news conference, “we want to say to everyone: We’re still in. The United States is still in.””
And:
“As a reminder, the Paris deal from the start was impotent, little more than a pep rally for bien-pensants. Countries submitted voluntary pledges to cut emissions, but without having any realistic plans in place to get there. Not that it mattered, since the accord included no enforcement mechanism. China, which pumps out more CO2 than the U.S. and European Union combined, agreed that its emissions would peak in 2030. Even that target now is in doubt, as Beijing expands coal-fired electricity. Today China has 148 gigawatts of coal power generation “either under active construction or under suspension and likely to be revived,” according to a report last month from the nonprofit Global Energy Monitor. That is “nearly equal to the existing coal power capacity of the European Union (150 GW).”
“China burns about half the coal used globally each year. Between 2000 and 2018, its annual carbon emissions nearly tripled, and it now accounts for about 30% of the world's total.” … “Recent media reports and satellite images suggest that China is building or planning to complete new coal power plants with total capacity of 148 gigawatts—nearly equal to the entire coal-power capacity of the European Union within the next few years” https://phys.org/news/2019-12-china-coal-trims-energy.html
|
|
Conclusion
Democrats are actively promoting the climate lies and supporting the UN in trying to reduce the sovereignty of the US.
“Bottom line: the climate activists are decisively winning. The science no longer matters in the public policy debate. Activists have moved beyond it and the major science institutions no longer defend it against the activists’ exaggerations and misrepresentations. … The climate policy debate is interesting as an example of our society’s growing dysfunctionality. Larger political forces (e.g., who wins the presidency in 2020) will determine who wins the debate.” https://fabiusmaximus.com/2020/02/12/climate-policy-debate-is-dead/
“A CNN poll in April found that 96% of Democrats favor taking “aggressive action” to combat global warming” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/22/bernie-sanders-climate-change-plan Democrats - the party of 1984 (Orwell’s book)
|
|
|