There’s no (Man Made) Global Warming / Climate Change as empirical measurements and empirical data, i.e. EVIDENCE clearly shows.
If there really was a problem, what’s with all the fake data from NASA/NOAA?Ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/interesting-historic-icedata/
History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption
In 1974, The National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) generated this graph of global temperatures, showing a large spike in the 1940’s, rapid cooling to 1970 and net cooling from 1900 to 1970.
NOAA Global Temperature Fraud
In 1989, Tom Karl at NOAA reported that almost all global warming occurred before 1919, and that Earth cooled from 1921 to 1979.
The Corrupt History Of NASA Temperature History
In 1974, the National Center For Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado showed no net warming from 1870 to 1970, and a 0.5C cooling from 1940 to 1970.
CRINGE VIDEO : Arnold Calls for REVOLUTION After Paris Climate Exit
Former California Governor and failed Apprentice host Arnold Schwarzenegger called for a “grassroots revolution” to fight against global warming after President Trump announced the U.S. will withdraw from the agreement.
In a video, the former governor urged citizens and elected officials to “rise up” and save Planet Earth.
“One man cannot destroy our progress, one man can’t stop our clean energy revolution, one man can’t go back in time. Only I can do that,” Schwarzenegger said.
Uh, this guy should just go back to acting.
The Paris Climate deal was a crappy deal for the USA, distributing away it’s wealth to other nations.
But you won’t hear this Globalist agenda puppet mention THAT part.
— ATTN: (@attn) June 2, 2017
THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT WON’T CHANGE THE CLIMATE
The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won’t do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer–except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.
Bjorn Lomborg: Trump Is Right To Reject Paris Climate Deal: It’s Likely To Be A Costly Failure
By Paul Homewood
The inconvenient truth from Bjorn Lomborg, the inconvenient warmist:
It is foolhardy and foolish for world leaders to stay fixated on Paris – not only will it likely falter, but it will be hugely costly and do almost nothing to fix climate change.
Hours before Donald Trump announced that the US would be quitting the Paris carbon-cutting treaty, UN Secretary General António Guterres took to the President’s preferred medium, Twitter, to declare that climate action is “unstoppable”.
The clear message, reinforced by leaders from the European Union and China, is that the rest of the world will continue with the Paris Treaty without US involvement. Their resolve is quickly going to smash into three incontrovertible truths.
First, the Paris Treaty will be the most expensive global agreement in world history. Cutting emissions without affordable, effective replacements for fossil fuel means more expensive power and less economic growth.Calculations using the best peer-reviewed economic models show the global price tag of all the Paris Treaty promises –through slower GDP growth from higher energy costs – would reach $1 trillion to $2 trillion every year from 2030. Without US involvement, the rest of the world must cough up between $800 billion and $1.6 trillion annually.
Furthermore, the treaty hinges on the delivery of $100 billion a year in “climate aid” to developing nations, starting from 2020 – a vow that slightly awkwardly came originally from the U.S.
These huge costs have imperilled the Treaty since its signing. It is not difficult to imagine other leaders balking at slowed growth, or to envisage wealthy nations reneging on the promised aid.
“Unstoppable”? It remains to be seen if that bravado withstands an economic downturn.
Second, the agreement was always going to have a tiny impact on temperatures, but without the US it will achieve even less.
The little that any of us remember of the Paris Treaty is the bold political rhetoric from world leaders who said that they were committed to keeping temperature rises under 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Legally binding – only go up to 2030, and only commit the world to achieving less than 1 per cent of the carbon cuts that would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2 degrees Celsius.
In other words, the Paris Treaty leaves 99 per cent of the problem in place, and even more if world leaders want the almost unattainable goal of keeping temperature rises to 1.5°C. Undoubtedly, we will hear lots of politicians talk a big game about future cuts, but experience doesn’t bode well for such promises. Remember the Kyoto Protocol – which was sold to the world in 1998 as the fix for global warming, and started falling apart almost as quickly as Paris.
Third, and most problematically: despite a lot of hype, green energy is nowhere near ready to take over from fossil fuel.
The rhetoric is relentlessly optimistic: a typical quote, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance chairman Michael Liebreich, is that “Renewables are robustly entering the era of undercutting” fossil fuel prices. We have heard this for decades. In 1976, environmentalist Amory Lovins said that solar energy competitiveness was imminent: “a largely or wholly solar economy can be constructed in the United States with straightforward soft technologies that are now demonstrated and now economic or nearly economic.” In 1984, the Worldwatch Institute declared that wind subsidies “will not be needed within a few years.”
After hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies, we only get, according to the International Energy Agency, 0.5 per cent of the world’s energy needs from wind, and 0.1 per cent from solar PV
This was – and remains – wishful thinking. Green energy is so inefficient that its deployment is almost entirely reliant on subsidies. When the United Kingdom cut solar power subsidies, installations plummeted. Spain was paying almost 1 per cent of its GDP in subsidies for renewables, more than it spends on higher education. When it reduced these subsidies, new wind energy production entirely collapsed.
Subsidising the deployment of renewable energy such as wind turbines and solar panels to reduce our CO2 emissions has been a dead-end. After hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies, we only get, according to the International Energy Agency, 0.5 per cent of the world’s energy needs from wind, and 0.1 per cent from solar PV. Even by 2040, if the Paris Treaty had stayed fully in place, after spending $3 trillion in direct subsidies, the IEA expects wind and solar to provide just 1.9 per cent and 1 per cent of global energy.
These three incontrovertible facts mean that it is foolhardy and foolish for world leaders to stay fixated on Paris – not only will it likely falter, but it will be hugely costly and do almost nothing to fix climate change.
Paris Climate Deal Exposed as a Total Fraud
In an explosive interview, Katie Hopkins exposes the Paris Climate deal as nothing but a total fraud meant to cost the United States billions of dollars while developing countries have no burden whatsoever.
DailyMail.com global columnist Katie Hopkins called the Paris climate deal an “absolute fraud,” and said President Trump has shown “true leadership” by ditching it.
“All the United States is doing with the Paris accord is signing away billions of dollars to developing countries that create most of the emissions,” Hopkins told host Abby Huntsman.
The president pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord on Thursday, saying it was a bad deal for the country and would hurt American workers.
The agreement, signed by former president Obama and almost 200 other countries in 2015, committed the United States to reducing carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. Meanwhile China and developing countries receive billions of dollars from the United States but are under no immediate obligation to cut emissions.
Hopkins related that back when she worked in the United Kingdom meteorological office she observed scientists “scare-mongering” and “using data in interesting ways to make the problem seem worse.”
They were “virtually on their knees begging for grants,” she recalled.
People should stop “dressing as polar bears” and start backing Trump, Hopkins concluded.