by James Delingpole
CO2 is not – and has never been a poison
Each of our exhalations, each of our breaths, emits an astronomical quantity of CO2 proportionate to that in the atmosphere (some >40,000 ppm); and it is very clear that the air we expire does not kill anyone standing in front of us. What must be understood, besides, is that CO2 is the elementary food of plants. Without CO2 there would be no plants, and without plants there would be no oxygen and therefore no humans.
Plants love CO2. That’s why the planet is greening
Plants need CO2, water, and daylight. These are the mechanisms of photosynthesis, to generate the sugars that will provide them with staple food and building blocks. That fundamental fact of botany is one of the primary reasons why anyone who is sincerely committed to the preservation of the “natural world” should abstain from demonizing CO2. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual increase in the CO2 level. But what is also observed is that despite deforestation, the planet’s vegetation has grown by about 20 percent. This expansion of vegetation on the planet, nature lovers largely owe it to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com …
AIM Special Report
As the year draws to a close, we like to highlight some of the American media’s worst abuses that occurred during the past year. We have picked 10 stories for which there were general narratives presented by the mainstream media—narratives that ignored the larger truths to be gleaned from these stories. In other cases, the media missed the story altogether. We easily could have picked many more that meet those criteria, but arbitrarily chose to look at 10, in no particular order.
- The Fake Iran Agreement
- Global Warming Deal
- Obamacare’s Ongoing Failures
- Ignoring Benghazi Revelations
- Blame Gun Control Laws or the Attacker?
- The Islamic State
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Failures
- Vetting Hillary Clinton
- Skewed GOP Primaries
- Securing our Skies
1. The Fake Iran Agreement
In July the mainstream media celebrated a deal between Iran and the P5+1 that would provide Iran with sanctions relief along with virtually no accountability. Today, the administration, along with their lapdogs in the press, continues to argue that this somehow adds up to a good deal for the world.
It doesn’t. In fact, there really is no deal at all. The New York Times and other news organizations still call this a “signed” deal. It isn’t. Julia Frifield, the State Department Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, wrote in a November 19 letter to Republican Representative Mike Pompeo (KS) that “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document.” She added that “The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose—and ramp up—our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments.”
Such farcical arguments expose the deal as a sham. Case in point: in both October and November Iran tested a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, in violation of United Nations resolutions. In addition, Iran was asked by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to provide its own samples from theParchin military site. CNN portrayed the IAEA’s inspection of Parchin as alandmark victory, although the inspectors entered an empty facility containing no equipment. The fact is that this deal, for all intents and purposes, can be interpreted by the Iranians as whatever they want it to be.
In a December 28 article, The New York Times cited an Iranian shipment of low-enriched uranium to Russia as “one of the biggest achievements in [President Obama’s] foreign policy record…” As we demonstrated in a recent article, this “achievement” is, in fact, a dangerous hoax in which the Obama administration and the Iranian mullahs are equally invested.
Here is what the December 28 Times article says: “Iran is still disassembling centrifuges, which enrich uranium, and disabling a plutonium reactor, among other steps that are required under the nuclear agreement struck in July.”
Besides the fact that no deal was “struck,” meaning signed, this is what the Iranian foreign minister said about those two issues, from a recent New Yorker magazine interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif that I linked to in my recent article:
NEW YORKER: Where does the Iran nuclear deal stand? What is your timetable to complete steps pledged in dismantling part of the program?
IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF: We’re not dismantling anything. We are uninstalling some centrifuges and reconstructing the Arak reactor, modernizing it…
In other words, Iran lies and deceives in order to collect their frozen assets—estimated to be $100 billion-plus—and keep on violating virtually every significant aspect of the so-called “agreement,” while Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry go along with it and claim it as a great victory for their legacy. Even The Washington Post acknowledges how cynical the whole process is, while The New York Times continues as a propaganda organ of the Obama administration. This is the same administration that, as Politico pointed out, “counts ‘bringing peace’ to Syria a 2015 win.”
Socialism is Not the Answer
CO2 is 1/27 of 1% of our atmosphere. Nature produces over 90% of that. It is essential for plant growth and those plants provide oxygen, which is 21% of our atmosphere. Not a bad trade off.
Although he probably didn’t mean to, Secretary of State John Kerry made a compelling case for why the U.S. and other countries should not go down the path of shutting down coal-fired plants, raising energy prices and stunting economic growth to combat global warming.
Speaking in Paris, Kerry said:
The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.
He’s exactly right. Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels estimate that the climate regulations the Obama administration are imposing on the energy sector – costs that will be passed down to households – will avert a meager 0.018 degree Celsius of warming by the year 2100.
In fact, the U.S. could cut 100 percent of its CO2 emissions and it would not make a difference in global warming.
Using the same climate sensitivity modeling as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world would only be 0.137 degree C cooler by 2100. What’s worse is that if you included100 percent cuts from the entire industrialized world in their modeling, then you would only avert warming by 0.278 degree C by the turn of the century.
If Kerry got his wish, developing countries like India and China would play ball. But they’re not going to and quite frankly, neither is the rest of the developing world and some parts of the developed world.
According to the Climate Action Tracker, there are plans to build more than 2,400 coal-fired power plants over the next 15 years. That includes plants that have been announced, in the pre-permit stage, permitted or under construction. These countries want access to cheap and abundant energy, in order to provide their citizens with a stable current of electricity and to keep their economy growing.
Kerry got one point very wrong, however. We’re talking about carbon dioxide emissions, not carbon pollution. The administration has evolved their message on this issue, from global warming, to climate change, to carbon pollution.
Carbon dioxide is a colorless, non-toxic gas that does not have adverse impacts on human health. Calling CO2, carbon pollution, is deceiving the public. But at least Kerry spoke clearly about the futility of any unilateral or multilateral plans to address global warming.
Now it appears some among the Climate Summit’s host-nation French media were just as outraged by Barack Obama’s glaringly ignorant commentary regarding how mass shootings only happen in the United States – and said those words while standing on a stage in Paris less than two weeks after that city saw hundreds of its citizens gunned down and blown up by Muslim terrorists in a mass shooting attack.
“The president appeared tired, bored, and then made comments that had some reporters glancing at one another as if to say, “Did he really just say that?”
Global warming is the cause of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world according to Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, and other Democrats. Let’s add in the Prince of Wales. With a straight face they make this claim, ignoring any and all other evidence to the contrary.
But if that is so, if global warming causes terrorism, then I think the Democrats need to answer this question: why does global warming only turn Muslims into terrorists?
There are Jews in the Middle East and Africa. There are Christians in the Middle East and Africa. There are animists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and others. But only certain Muslims, often from wealthy families, turn into terrorists. The Jews, Christians, animists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and the rest never seem to be affected by global warming in that way.
Perhaps instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to explore why lesbians are fat, the federal government should spend some cash on why global warming turns only Muslims into terrorists.
Or maybe it doesn’t.
German professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert confirmed what other previously reported, NASA fiddled with global warming data to push global warming.
Ewert is not the first scientist to make this discovery. British scientists called the fiddling of climate data the biggest science scandal ever in February.
A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.
According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.
Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:
Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.
But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.
Given that the hoax has been repeatedly debunked by the failure of the climate to conform to politically motivated pseudo-scientific models, and that even when the climate does start to change it will only be because in never stays the same for long, what is the point of the United Nations constantly spewing global warming rhetoric? Power is part of the point. The rest of it is money:
At the upcoming United Nations Climate Summit in Paris, participating nations have prepared a treaty that would create an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” giving Third World countries the power to haul the U.S. into a global court with enforcement powers.
Congress would be bypassed – left out in the cold – by this climate deal, critics say.
Policies once left to sovereign nations could be turned over to a U.N. body if the U.S. and its allies approve the proposed deal in Paris during the summit scheduled for Nov. 30-Dec. 11.
According to the proposed draft text of the climate treaty, the tribunal would take up issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.”
Whenever moonbats use the word “justice,” they are planning to inflict the opposite. Their ability to keep a straight face while throwing around terms like “climate justice” is almost awe-inspiring.
What the term means in this context is that rich countries must have their economies hamstrung by caps on the harmless CO2 emissions that result from literally all productive activity, while being forced to shower money upon the corrupt governments of poor countries. Our major economic competitor China counts as a poor country, probably because the people there are not Caucasians.
The odds that Obama and Kerry would object to this are slim.
Otherwise moonbats would love Halloween, since it entails kids demanding treats they did nothing to earn. But it has been found guilty of economic injustice, because climate change causes income inequality and jack-o’-lanterns cause climate change:
Most of the 1.3 billion pounds of pumpkins produced in the U.S. end up in the trash, says the Energy Department’s website, becoming part of the “more than 254 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced in the United States every year.”
Municipal solid waste decomposes into methane, “a harmful greenhouse gas that plays a part in climate change, with more than 20 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide,” Energy says.
Somehow the USA managed to thrive for over 200 years without the Department of Energy, which was inflicted on the nation during the disastrous Jimmy Carter Administration.
The “imperial presidency” was an epithet applied to Richard Nixon’s administration. Nixon was a piker compared to Barack Obama.
In recent days, Obama has fashioned and jammed through Congress an unsigned, unverifiable and unworkable deal that assures Iran will get nuclear weapons.
Today, he’s set to agree with Communist China’s dictator, Xi Jinping, to restrict our economy in the name of curbing global warming and to constrain – and possibly expose – our cyberwarfare capabilities in the preposterous belief that China will do the same. If the precedent of the Obamabomb deal with Iran applies, neither would be subject to congressional quality control.
Next week, Obama will meet with his Russian counterpart, with whom he promised he’d have more flexibility. What’s next? Our capitulation on Ukraine? Acceding to Putin’s military incursion in Syria?
Who will stop Obama’s dangerous imperial overreach?
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution