Skip to main content

The climate change agenda is political and economic, not scientific.

Note: This may be my first and last article on climate change, unless something new comes up that deals with economics. The entire movement is based more on politics than science. The estimated cost of "fixing" our climate is estimated to be between $11 trillion and $100 trillion. It will hurt the poor more than the rich. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. It only accounts for .041 percent by volume of the atmosphere and is at one of the lowest concentrations when geologic time periods are studied. Water vapor has more influence. Should we ban this also?

When someone says the "debate is over" and the "science is settled" I know there is something else going on. I do not deny the climate is changing or that we need to be good stewards of our planet. Other than that, it's probably biggest hoax of all time. I've spend countless hours and days reading and studying the literature. The science IS NOT settled. 

Those pushing for aggressive government intervention in the name of fighting climate change often claim that “the science is settled” and dismiss any dissenters as “deniers.” The so-called “consensus” is codified in the periodic reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The alarmist camp’s repeated references to “peer-review” and the number of organizations behind the IPCC are rhetorically very effective; they have done a great PR job in making it look as if their political solutions really do flow naturally from what the scientists in white lab coats are reporting. But allegations from IPCC authors show that politics and not science drive the process at the IPCC.

I'm not a conspiracy nut. But I have studied comments made by officials of the IPCC who state that their goal is political power, the overthrow of capitalism and the redistribution of world-wide income. 

For example, climate expert William Happer, from Princeton University has stated:  "No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."

Did you know?
  • The reported 97 percent scientific consensus was pulled from thin air?
  • Over 250 skeptical scientists were featured in a Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee report?
  • A former UN IPCC official called global warming "my religion."
  • An analysis found that more than 250 scientific papers about global cooling where published from the 1960s to the 1980s.
  • Science groups that are nearly 100 percent dependent on government funding endorse the "consensus."
  • Ice ages haven occurred when carbon dioxide levels were up to 10 times as high as they are today.
  • Rising temperatures preceded CO2 levels in ice core data.
  • Polar bears are doing so well that climate campaigners have dropped them as their icon.
  • Antarctica is gaining ice.
  • The 1990 UN climate report showed a Medieval Warm Period warmer than the 20th Century.
  • "Hottest year" claims in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2016 were based on statistically meaningless year-to-year differences essentially within the margin of error.
  • Global warming has seen a slowdown or pause since 1998. 
  • Tampering with the temperature record has been so widespread that the current climate era has been jokingly called the "adjustocene" era.
  • Most computer models - which are based on assumptions -- are not accurate and are based on "faulty" software
  • Scientific American branded a climatologist who changed her mind about global warming a "heretic." Just one example.
  • Leading UN IPCC scientists were caught manipulating the peer review process to create an artificial "consensus."
  • Landfalls of major hurricanes to the United States have declined over the past 140 years.
  • Instances of F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
  • In the 1980s, the UN warned that by the year 2000 "entire nations would be wiped off the face of the Earth" by rising seas.
  • A top UN IPCC official said climate policy is to "redistribute the world's wealth."
  • The Paris Climate Accord would theoretically postpone global warming by four years and cost $100 trillion.
  • Climate skeptics defeated legislation and international treaties -- only to see Obama impose them without the benefit of Congress. 
  • Climate policies are denying life-saving technology to the world's poor. One in three Africans still don't have electricity. 
There's more, but I'm sorry, the science is not settled. That's not how science works. It's how religion works.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Hidden Agenda Behind the Global Warming Hysteria

Climate change activists are not just interested in reducing carbon emissions in order to "save the planet." Their underlying desire is to overturn capitalism and replace it with socialist governments worldwide. 

Our story starts with the IPCC, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. organization. "And any settlement of the Global Warming issue by the UN would entail massive transfers of wealth from the citizens of wealthy countries to the politicians and bureaucrats of the poorer countries." (1)

In 1992, at the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Program Executive Director Maurice Strong stated, very candidly: 

"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?" (2)

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton Administration as U.S. undersecretary of state for global issues, join…

IRA Taxes: Rules to Know and Understand

Article from schwab.com


Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) can be a great way to save for retirement because of the tax benefits they can provide. If you’re eligible, you can choose a traditional IRA for an up-front tax deduction and defer paying taxes until you take withdrawals in the future. Or, if eligible, you might opt for a Roth IRA and contribute after-tax money in exchange for tax-free distributions down the road.


So, what's the catch? There are a few. If you run afoul of some of the IRS rules surrounding these accounts, the penalties can be quite stiff—all the way up to a disqualification and taxation of your entire account.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and with few exceptions, the IRS isn’t very forgiving of mistakes. Knowing the rules can help you navigate the many potential IRA tax traps you might encounter on your way to retirement.

Keep in mind that when we discuss taxes and penalties, we’re referring to those at the federal level. In most states, you will also…

Critical Financial Steps When Buying a Home

In my lifetime, I have bought six houses, and sold five. I currently live in the sixth, which was new construction, which was an adventure unlike purchasing an existing home, But the principles of buying a home are the same, whether you are purchasing a new home, or an existing home.

1. Understand why you want to buy a house
Purchasing a home is a major decision that shouldn’t be taken lightly. It’s important to define your personal and financial goals before proceeding. Think about factors such as whether you’re craving more stability, whether it makes sense financially and whether you’re prepared for the responsibility of maintaining a home.

You should explore some resources on Renting vs. Buying before you make the decision. I posted a article with a couple of good videos on this subject, and bankrate.com as an informative article here
2. Dig Into Your Credit Reports and Credit Scores Your credit score and history are the first things all lenders will look at to decide whether or …