Links tagged “consenus buster”
- The ‘Science’ Underlying Climate Alarmism Turns Up Missing
Posted June 9, 201010:07 AM by Marc Morano | Tags: consenus buster, science
- CS Monitor: ‘A Martin Luther moment in science history: Prominent Physicist Calls Global Warming ‘the most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen’
- UN IPCC’s Richard Tol: ‘The number of people who die in 2010 due to conventional air pollution is greater than number of people who are projected to die in 2100 due to climate change’
- Princeton’s Will Happer and Dr. Roger Cohen’s Discussion of Climate Science
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘The UN IPCC Reports have become ‘bumper sticker’ climate science’ – Report lobbies for ‘politically manufactured consensus’
Curry: " The IPCC Reports have become 'bumper sticker' climate science – making a political statement while using the overall reputation of science to give authority to a politically manufactured consensus." ... "The IPCC has strayed far from its chartered role of assessing the scientific literature in support of policy making. The entire framing of the IPCC Reports is now around the mitigation of climate change through emissions reductions. Not only has the IPCC increasingly taken on a stance of explicit political advocacy, but it is misleading policy makers by its continued emphasis on extreme climate outcomes driven by the implausible extreme emissions scenarios." ...
"The most important finding of the past 5 years is that the extreme emissions scenarios RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5, commonly referred to as 'business-as-usual' scenarios, are now widely recognized as implausible. These extreme scenarios have been dropped by UN Conference of the Parties to the UN Climate Agreement. However, the new Synthesis Report continues to emphasize these extreme scenarios, while this important finding is buried in a footnote: “Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”
Great Water Reset: The UN & WEF are coming for your water now! ‘Sustainable development’ water dictates – Aim to ‘achieve internationally agreed water-related goals’
Cheryl K. Chumley: The United Nations plans to protect water that’s used for bathing; water that’s used for developments; water that’s home to sea life; water that’s used for transportation. So the up-and-coming controls would likely focus on residential limits to water usage, and costly increases to access that water; on bans on agricultural usage, and costly increases on farmers; on strict controls on the types and numbers of ships that can sail the seas and rivers and channels, and costly increases for this form of transportation. ... as with carbon offsets, the U.N. water czars will demand trades of activities to offset the supposed pollution of the waterways.
So much for jet skiing. So much for fishing on the weekends with the family. It’ll be too expensive — and regulated.
“Natural resources crises, including for water and food, come within the top 10 biggest risks facing humanity in the coming decade,” the World Economic Forum wrote. ... “[A]s global warming continues to take effect, ordinary weather is becoming a thing of the past, exacerbating our water crisis,” the World Economic Forum wrote.
Flashback: Collapse of energy, food, transportation systems prompt calls for government nationalization of industries – Echoes 1930s push for Great Reset style reforms
Green Dictatorship? Netherlands Politicians Answering to the EU instead of Voters – Despite rejection of agriculture policies in recent elections
Lawyers Seek To Add Stock Of Lawyer Jokes By Demanding Oil Companies Be Prosecuted For Homicide
So if using oil is murder—and it has to be murder and not manslaughter, for our authors know of what they do—then lawyer Donald Braman and “public citizen” David Arkush are murderers. Perhaps they’ll turn themselves in? If it isn’t ink, it’s the gas they put in their cars, or the fuel in the planes in which they fly, or in heating or cooling their home, or running the electricity to pay for their Netflix accounts, or in manufacturing the clothes they wear, or in the plastic which surrounds them in their own homes, or in growing the food they eat. There is no way these sad individuals can remove the charge of hypocrisy, or escape the logic of their own argument. ...
If this “lethal harm”, caused by use of oil, is indeed “unparalleled in human history”, then our authors, who knowingly participate in this lethal harm, damn themselves. None of this can, or must, be taken seriously. The charge is absurd. It is asinine. It can only be the result of, as I said, lowly greed, or worse, profound stupidity and irresponsibility.