A Silly Analysis (This is about as valid as the everything is caused by climate change arguments): "All 8 [Presidential] administrations who oversaw a cooling trend were Republican. There has never been a Democrat president who oversaw a cooling global temperature. Also, the top 6 warming presidencies were all Democrats."
Media and scientists hyping temperature changes year-to-year so small as to be within the margin of error.
Book Excerpt - The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:
Retired MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has ridiculed “hottest year” claims. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said.
“If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.” Lindzen pointed out, “We’re talking about less than a tenth of degree with an uncertainty of about a quarter of a degree. Moreover, such small fluctuations—even if real—don’t change the fact that the trend for the past 20 years has been much less than models have predicted.”
Christy: “[W]e are not morally bad people for taking carbon and turning it into the energy that offers life to humanity in a world that would otherwise be brutal (think of life before modernity). On the contrary, we are good people for doing so.”
“If you choose to make regulations about carbon dioxide, that’s OK. You as a state can do that; you have a right to do it. But it’s not going to do anything about the climate. And it’s going to cost, there’s no doubt about that.”
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”
The unemployment rate when FDR took the oath in 1933 was 25 percent. It never fell below 14 percent through the 1930s. In June 1938, despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress, FDR was presiding over a nation where unemployment was back up to 19 percent. World War II and the conscription of 16 million young men gave us “full employment.” And the war’s end and demobilization saw the return of real prosperity in 1946, after FDR was dead.
Yet this Green New Deal is nothing if not ambitious. To cope with climate change, the GND calls for a 10-year plan to meet “100 percent of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
MARC MORANO (CLIMATEDEPOT.COM): It's been called the most expensive treaty in world history with a price tag of upwards of $100 trillion, a global cost of $1 to $2 trillion annually, and, again, you mentioned this two degree thing, and I actually point out this was -- the authors of this two degrees target actually admit it was, quote, pulled from thin air, the scientists in the United Nations admit this. So -- and then even The Washington Post has acknowledged that, even if you're afraid of global warning, the U.N. Paris Agreement would basically do nothing, has no impact on the climate. This is medieval witchcraft to think that we can all come together with some treaty, make a bunch of pledges, and have a temperature a hundred years that's different.
Statement of Terry O’Sullivan, General President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, On the “Green New Deal”:
"It is exactly how not to win support for critical measures to curb climate change...It is difficult to take this unrealistic manifesto seriously, but the economic and social devastation it would cause if it moves forward is serious and real...threatens to destroy workers’ livelihoods, increase divisions and inequality, and undermine the very goals it seeks to reach. In short, it is a bad deal."
California’s new Governor was candid. “Let’s be real,” he said, “the current project as planned would cost too much and, respectfully, take too long. Right now, there simply isn’t a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were.”
“The tragic reality is this planet simply can’t sustain billions of people consuming industrially produced animal agriculture because of environmental impact. It’s just not possible, as China, as Africa move toward consuming meat the same way America does because we just don’t have enough land.” In addition to convincing the masses to give up meat, Booker has other legislative goals that would interfere with America’s eating habits. “Legislatively, I want to continue to be a part of a movement of folk who are fighting against corporate interests that are undermining the public good and the public welfare,” he said.
Bjorn Lomborg reacts: That’s because your hamburger is being blamed for climate change. Meat production — especially raising cattle — emits methane and requires carbon-dioxide-intensive inputs. In the breathless language of recent reporting, a “huge reduction in meat-eating is essential” to avoid “climate breakdown."
"Nobody but nobody in my business seriously invests in Europe. They haven’t for a generation. Europe is no longer competitive. It has the worlds most expensive energy and labour laws that are uninviting for employers. Worst of all, it has green taxes that, at best, can be described as foolish as they are having the opposite effect to how they were intended." - Billionaire businessman Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Open Letter to the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, 12 February 2019
Rex Murphy: US Democrats’ ‘Green New Deal’ Will Turn America Into Venezuela - "The Green New Deal uses environmentalism as a lever to pursue a far-larger, more sinister, agenda, a mad leap to a socialist nightworld. --Rex Murphy, National Post, 12 February 2019