Former Head of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco: "Coming in May, the @IPBES #GlobalAssessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Get dates, background and other info you need about the report with their primer (in 6 languages)"
"This is inevitable – and what I mean by that is the George W. Bush administration did not push back or try to change anything," argues Marc Morano of Climate Depot. "They rubber-stamped United Nations reports and they never challenged the underpinning of this science that claims that our oil and gas are creating a climate catastrophe." Morano, Marc (Climate Depot)Morano says Barack Obama came into office and made it worse – and he contends the current administration needs to shoulder some blame as well.
"The Trump administration has not challenged the endangerment finding that the Obama administration implemented that says carbon dioxide is a danger to our atmosphere," says Morano, "[and] the Trump administration has not yet appointed a presidential commission to reexamine the science."
Because of that, Morano asks: "Who can blame a judge?" "It's amazing more judges haven't come to this ruling," he continues. "The time has come to officially start challenging the scientific claims of the United Nations and pushing back on this nonsense – and until that happens, I'm not even confident that, if this goes to the Supreme Court, it will go our way at this point."
"Using Nordhaus’s model assumptions, if the World as a whole fulfilled the Paris Climate Agreement collectively with optimal policies, then the world would be worse off than if it did nothing. That is due to most countries pursuing little or no actual climate mitigation policies. Within this context, pursuing any costly climate mitigation policies will make a country worse off than doing nothing. Assuming political leaders have the best interests of their country at heart, and regardless of whether they regard climate change a problem, the optimal policy strategy is to impose as little costly policy as possible for maximum appearance of being virtuous, whilst doing the upmost to get other countries to pursue costly mitigation policies."
Professor Guus Berkhout of the new international climate institute in the Netherlands.: 'In the last 20 years the CO2 increase has thundered on, but the observed temperature does not show any increase anymore. That is an important indication that there must be much more going on than CO2 warming.'
As a geophysicist, I warn that it is highly unlikely that the natural movements would have stopped abruptly after 1850. And that since then only mankind would be responsible for this warming. However, this extreme message is exactly what the IPCC has made clear with great emphasis in its latest report SR 1.5. According to the report, nature’s contribution is marginal and will remain marginal in the future. The IPCC derives all these certainties purely from its theoretical model!'
Study by UN IPCC lead author Michael Oppenheimer claimed that "global warming" will lead to "mass migration to the U.S." due to alleged future lower crop yields in Mexico by 2080
Climate activist Bill McKibben in the LA times claimed that the influx of immigration to the U.S. will REDUCE "global warming" because the new immigrants "would have fewer children" and as a bonus the new immigrants would be LESS likely to "pull the [election] lever for climate deniers."