Interesting Reparations for Global Warming

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”   - Emma Lazarus

If you thought global warming scaremongering tactics went away with the most recent failed prediction for 2015 when we were supposed to be flooded and underwater, with little polar ice caps left, you would be mistaken.

Writing for the Washington Post, Michael B. Gerrard, a legal scholar at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, proposes that we should take in millions upon millions of refugees that will eventually be displaced by climate change. He said, “We ruined your country. Welcome to ours.” Playing on Emma Lazarus’ famous quote, he adds, “Give us your thirsty, your hot, your flooded masses.” Apparently carbon footprint taxes and wealth redistribution are not enough, we must adopt progressive social engineering of the planet.

If global warming average temperatures increase above 3.6 degrees, islands like Kiribati and the Marshalls and parts of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, and Vietnam will disappear underwater, flooded by melting glaciers in the Himalayas and the Andes. And if people don’t keep their voluntary and non-binding promises to cut CO2 (at the U.N. Climate summit in Paris in December 2015), “the thermometers could go much higher.” From Sierra Leone to Ethiopia, land will turn into desert. The heat will increase violence, ethnic and political tensions, Gerrard said.

Gerrard’s proposed solution is a pledge “to take on a share of the displaced population equal to how much each nation has historically contributed to emissions of the greenhouse gases that are causing this crisis.” http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-38454957.html

Quoting the World Resources Institute, between 1850 and 2011, the U.S. caused 27 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, a trace gas that all plants need to grow. As a matter of fact, greenhouses provide extra CO2 in their solariums in order to accelerate plant growth.

The European Union causes 25 percent of CO2 emissions, China 11 percent, Russia 8 percent, and Japan 4 percent. It is curious how only industrialized countries are identified as culprits even though nobody bothers to explain how ice melted 15,000 years ago or who or what caused the Mini Ice Age during the Middle Ages when there was little or no industrial pollution.

A very arresting photograph that illustrates this needed massive relocation of humans from poor countries to wealthy countries in the west shows Biblically dressed humans wading through chest-deep water and women carrying heavy loads of possessions on their heads.

Gerrard suggests that the U.S. should then take in 27 million people to absolve themselves from the 27 percent CO2 sin. Taking in just one million per year as we currently do is not enough; it won’t be a popular move but it would be “fair,” he added. We must take responsibility for the gases we expel into the atmosphere and pay for the damage. And if the new arrivals want to “re-create their own communities” within our country, it is only “fair.”

He agrees that these people could adopt desalination practices and other technology-savvy agricultural methods but “they typically take a great deal of money and energy, the very resource we have failed to conserve in the first place.”

The gloom and doom prediction is that “If we don’t want millions of people seeking heaven here – or dying while they try – then the United States and other industrialized countries need to become far more aggressive in cutting their greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Europe is in a furor over who will take in” those who are fleeing civil war in Syria and oppression in Eritrea, said Michael Gerrard.  They risk their lives to reach the shores of European safety and the lure of entitlements.

Might Europeans be leery of these refugees because of the attacks against innocents, like the recent one on a Tunisian beach, when Britons on vacation were mowed down with machine guns by a religionist of peace?

A report released in May 2015 by NASA indicated that “updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20915-nasa-s-own-data-discredits-its-predictions-of-antarctic-doom

According to New American, the report did not clarify whether climate warming may be natural or may be coming in cyclical patterns, or whether global warming is anthropogenic.

It has been reported by many scientists who are now called “global warming deniers” that average temperatures fluctuate, the globe’s climate changes in natural, cyclical patterns, cooling and warming, causing glaciers and polar ice caps to grow and to shrink.

NASA scientists began measuring ice caps by satellite in 1979 during the end of a 30-year cooling period. The “normal baseline” was thus established during this cooling period with very thick ice caps. As James Taylor of Forbes wrote,

“The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Since the Pope inserted himself into the climate change industry, Dr. Klaus Kaiser wrote a letter to the “Academicians of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS)” to clarify their positions, particularly since they have a significant “influence on the development of poorer nations and their people” and in light of the fact that these people “are presently deprived of many of the energy-driven amenities of the developed countries.”

Dr. Kaiser pointed out 12 scientifically incontrovertible facts:

1.      Without CO2 in the atmosphere life on earth, plants, animals, humans could not exist.

2.      For 4.5 billion years atmospheric CO2 on Earth was higher than today.

3.      Photosynthesis converts CO2 to organic matter thus reducing CO2.

4.      Oxygen is produced in the earth’s atmosphere from CO2 via photosynthesis.

5.      Oceans and fresh water are alkaline, not acidic; photosynthesis also increases the alkaline property of neutral or acidic water.

6.      Without human influence, kilometres-thick ice shields covering the northern part of North America and Eurasia 20,000 years ago have melted completely about 5,000 years ago.

7.      For the most part, during the 15,000-year period mentioned, atmospheric CO2 stayed at 250 parts per million.

8.      CO2 is not ‘pollution,’ when “the earth’s plants and ocean algae consume any CO2 stemming from fossil resource use with the same vigour as that emitted from volcanoes and fumaroles.”

9.      Coal, a source of man-made CO2, provides a lot of the energy needs of the planet. India and China build a new coal-fired plant each week. Dr. Kaiser urges countries in Africa to expand their use of fossil fuels.

10.  The word “consensus” has zero meaning in science; look at astronomer Galileo who was exonerated by the Vatican 400 years after the Catholic Church condemned him as a heretic for his view on heliocentricity.

11.  CO2 is a vital trace gas in the atmosphere, not a “pollutant.” http://canadafreepress.com/article/73340

The naked truth is expressed quite clearly in this quote by Warren Moss:

“‘Such impending catastrophic events – flooding, droughts, heat waves, and higher seas – all allegedly caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels,’ have been used by the global-warming theorists working with federal agencies and the UN to impose draconian environmental regulations geared to bring the world’s industrial-based economy to its knees.” http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20915-nasa-s-own-data-discredits-its-predictions-of-antarctic-doom

 

 

The Industry and Economics of Climate Change/Global Warming

Photo: Ileana Johnson 2014

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Lima, Peru, December 1-12, 2014, determined to chisel a new treaty that would mandate a cap and trade on greenhouse gas emissions effective by 2020 and would “eliminate the use of fossil fuels entirely by 2050.”

The hypothesis that rich nations caused climate change by burning fossil fuels to produce energy has never been proven by IPCC’s computer modeling. The fact that now the hypothesis changed its name from global warming to climate change in the face of obvious 18 years of global cooling is enough evidence that the purveyors of the industry of climate change are desperate but are not giving up. Fleecing rich countries with carbon taxes is a very lucrative scam.

“We must leave fossil fuels in the ground and not repeat the steps of the developed countries that brought us to this point,” said Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis, international policy advisor for Climate Action Network Latin America.

The Climate Action Network, “a conglomerate of 900 radical green groups from about 100 nations, mocked Australia, Belgium, Ireland, and Austria because they have yet to donate to a new Green Climate Fund.” The real agenda of spreading the wealth from developed countries to poor countries and arresting economic development could not be more transparent. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/12/02/exclusive-new-legally-binding-treaty-emerges-on-first-day-of-lima-climate-conference/

Martin Kaiser of Greenpeace stated that, “In Lima, the countries must agree on the long-term goal of phasing out fossil fuel emissions to zero by mid-century while moving towards 100 percent renewable energy for all in a fair transition period. Subsidies for fossil fuel industries must be shifted towards renewable energy deployment and climate adaptation for vulnerable countries. In countries like the U.S., China, and the EU, the phase-out of coal must be accelerated.”

So how are renewable energy industries working out so far across the globe as replacements for fossil fuels? Judging by the number of bankruptcies filed and by the billions in taxpayer dollars wasted so far, with scant energy produced, not very well.

Take Ivanpah Solar Power Facility (ISPF), which cost $2.2 billion to build ($1.6 billion from government loan guarantees and $600 million from private investors, including one third from Google), “was supposed to deliver an energy output of approximately 1.7 million MWh (megawatt-hours) of electricity annually.”

According to Dr. Klaus Kaiser, the Ivanpah facility, which covers 4,000 acres and is located in the Mojave Desert, delivered a very low output of 250,000 MWh during January-August, 2014. The visionaries of solar power did not take into account the blasting of mirrors by sand and dust. To solve the problem, ISPF investors decided to seek extensions on the borrowed money and to use more natural gas, “doubling the amount of natural gas usage permitted for ‘preheating’ of the solar towers,” thus spinning the truth and “fudging the numbers.” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/67861

Eric Wessof wrote in his article, “Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies, 2009 to 2013,” in which he tallied the solar companies that went bankrupt, were acquired, closed, restructured, sold for a song, or in the endangered category, a lengthy list of 102 companies, hardly a success story. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-Deceased-Solar-Companies-2009-to-2013

The Washington Post reported on the billionaire Vinod Khosla who invested in a biofuel plant called KiOR in Columbus, Mississippi, that “was supposed to turn wood chips into hydrocarbons that could be poured straight into a refinery, pipeline, or car.”

Instead of producing the magic catalyst, on November 10 2014, KiOR filed for bankruptcy, “leaving behind 2067 creditors, including the State of Mississippi which can ill-afford the bag of $75 million, 20-year, no interest loan.” The promised 1,000 jobs to be created by December 2015 never materialized. (“The Misadventures of a tech billionaire confronting the stubborn economics of the biofuel business,” Washington Post, November 30, 2014)

According to Washington Post, KiOR spent $5-$10 per gallon notwithstanding the cost of building the plant. KiOR’s losses were $629.3 million and had revenues of $2.25 million. The bankruptcy was inevitable even though “Khosla spent $85 million and Bill Gates $15 million in October 2013.”

The project of transforming biomass into fuels by using “catalytic pyrolysis, or cracking,” an invention by a company in the Netherlands, BIOeCON, turned out to be a renewable money pit for KiOR which produced very little energy. http://www.bioecon.com/

Among other energy programs and initiatives for renewable energy, President George W. Bush promised in 2006 “to make ethanol not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks and switch grass.” http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/energy/

Using corn as fuel was not such a great idea either; corn that fed billions of people around the world skyrocketed in price in recent years and became scarcer, causing people in many countries to riot.

Wind turbines caused health hazards in humans and millions of bird kills around the world, some on the endangered species list. The energy produced was certainly dirty green and inadequate for most developed countries. Conventional fossil fuels were used to run gears to prevent rusting and to supplant electricity when the wind turbines were idle. Turbines had to be cut off in some areas at speeds of maximum production of electricity because the noise and constant thumping was unbearable to the nearby residents. Just because a turbine rotates, it does not necessarily mean that it produces electricity.

Are most large economies of the world ready to ditch fossil fuels entirely as proposed in Lima Peru by the environmental architects of gloom and doom alarmism and replace them with renewables? The answer is a resounding no, unless we are ready to live in the dark ages again.

Copyright: Ileana Johnson 2014 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Government Gone Wild

“Unfortunately, human nature cannot be changed by an act of the legislature.” – Calvin Coolidge

The weatherman at KUSI-TV, John Coleman, the Weather Channel founder, had told Red Eye host on Fox News a long time ago that he wanted to sue Al Gore for global warming fraud. He said that “30,000 scientists among whom 9,000 have Ph.D.’s have signed on to debunk global warming.”

In spite of their efforts, global warming advocates have marched on, transforming how we obtain and use energy in this country and around the globe.

Interestingly, scientists from the University of Geneva will present this month “Laser, Weather, and Climate” at the conference of the World Meteorological Organization and report on “experiments using lasers to cause water to condense or ice to form, crucial in accelerating rainfall.” Cloud “seeding” had been known since 1940s, shooting silver iodide or dry ice into a cloud, “simulating the natural salt, dust, and other tiny particles in the atmosphere that help form water drops.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/article-2403631/Control-weather-shoot-lasers-clouds.html#ixzz2dkCbW9zm

Coleman had hoped that this large group of scientists would have the opportunity to debate Al Gore and the scientists behind him who have decided that global warming is real. But Al Gore and his alarmist followers refused to debate because their “consensus” opinions mixed with carefully manipulated data had become “settled science” and were thus not open for debate. 

Carbon dioxide gas, the necessary gas for plant life, had been used as a “huge accepted scam,” the cause of global warming. At best, Coleman said, it may have caused 1/10 of 1 percent degree increase in temperatures. CO2 is a harmless substance, not a pollutant, it is water vapor.

Discussing the infamous “hockey stick graph,” developed by Dr. Michael Mann, Coleman stated that it had become the environmentalist Bible and the cornerstone of global warming, “built on bad science.”  “You can put any data in a graph and come up with a hockey stick.”

When asked what caused the global warming alarmism, Coleman described it as an “environmentalist religion” which started with World Earth Day in 1970, followed by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an advocacy group, former Vice President Al Gore with his Nobel Peace Prize, the pliant media, and politicians who could not let a manufactured crisis go to waste and used it to their advantage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

On being asked why he thought global warming was a scam, Coleman responded that “If you study all the papers of the IPCC on climate change, if you study everything their scientists have done, it all boils down to a claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, put there by our burning of fossil fuels, is going to turn the climate of earth into an oven, and we all are going to bake and die. That is sheer nonsense, we have been burning fossil fuels for hundreds of years and we might have raised the temperature by 1/10 of one degree.”

This past spring, Judith Curry, a professor and chairperson of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and a weather forecaster, testified on Capitol Hill in a subcommittee hearing on climate change. “If all other things remain equal, it’s clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet,” she told the committee. But, do we really have the ability to control all other variables in the air, in the soil, in the water, volcanoes, and the sun?

Curry continued, “I’ve been trying to understand how there can be such a strong consensus, given these uncertainties.”  She said, while humans may be contributing to climate change, we cannot predict how the climate will alter in the future and therefore, there is “no point in trying to reduce emissions.” http://kosu.org/2013/08/uncertain-science-judith-currys-take-on-climate-change/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_August_30_2013

Curry made news when she published an article in Science magazine in 2005 warning that hurricanes would grow in intensity as the result of climate change. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_aprilcolloquim_prt.htm

Elite globalists like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, who have pushed the idea of global warming for a long time, actually own the carbon trading system who is supposed to protect the earth from CO2 emissions, and are going to enrich themselves from the cap and trade scheme, taking a percentage of each transaction.

The oil companies, also global warming proponents, prefer a different route, imposing a direct CO2 tax. The taxpayers will pay the piper while the global government elites will fill their coffers, running the whole green scam. At the end of the day, global warming alarmism is about power to make money through bogus taxation and control over how the dumbed down masses live.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/oil-companies-support-global-warming-alarmists-not-skeptics.html

How would the masses have to live? We will have to drive Smart Cars, walk, bike, take mass transit, do without electricity by giving utilities the power to cut it off via Smart Grid and Smart Meters if we are consuming too much. We cannot be trusted to make our own decisions in regards to consumption. We must be nudged and eventually shoved if we don’t obey.

We are supposed to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar power. Never mind that the dirty little secret is that solar power needs a lot of fossil fuel energy as a backup and a lot of land to display the solar panels. Never mind that wind turbines cannot really generate electricity without backup from conventional power sources, in spite of the fact that they turn in the wind.

Dr. Klaus Kaiser explained in his recent article that wind farms consume quite a bit of energy before they produce any electricity themselves. A small wind farm with three turbines can use 100 KW – hence the term “parasitic consumption.”  Dr. Kaiser continued, “Wind turbines need a constant supply of electricity to keep the gear boxes at the right temperature, to power the system controls, for lighting and operational purposes, and – in winter – heat the blades in order to prevent any build-up of ice. These requirements are entirely independent from wind.” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57556

At times, some wind farms only produce enough electricity to heat up a few cups of tea.  The turbines are very expensive to install, operate optimum at certain wind speeds, kill a lot of birds, and produce an unhealthy and annoying hum that is affecting human lives and animals negatively.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10264185/The-wind-farms-that-generate-enough-power-to-make-a-few-cups-of-tea.html

Denmark generates 20% of its electricity from wind but it can only use 5% of it safely – it exports 15% to Germany and other neighbors who have much greater electricity needs than Denmark, in order to avoid destabilization of the grid. Dr. Kaiser stated that “despite all that ‘free’ electricity from wind, the Danes enjoy the highest electricity costs in the European Union, approximately double the rate found in most of the other EU countries…’a terribly expensive disaster,’ said the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament.” Worse yet, the CO2 emissions associated with wind produced electricity, “produces more CO2 than other energy sources. Denmark’s CO2 emissions rose well over 30% in the year 2006 alone.”

Wind power is highly variable and thus it requires conventional power as a backup. When backup power is on standby, the cost of producing and storing energy is higher. Wind energy is much more expensive, is not reliable, and is currently subsidized by taxpayers. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27170

There is not enough renewable energy to replace coal-generated, hydro-generated, and nuclear power generated electricity to satisfy the commercial and private cheap energy needs of the planet’s economy.

According to energycitizens.org, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandated by Congress (set amounts of biofuels blended into gasoline and Diesel), has affected much of America’s corn crop used by both humans and livestock feed. Since 2010, weather events and biofuel production doubled corn prices from $3.50 per bushel to over $7.50.

In order to meet RFS in 2022, Energy Citizen calculated that more than 40 million acres of land must be used instead of growing food or livestock feed. “One study estimates that almost 80 percent of current U.S. farmland will have to be devoted to raising corn to satisfy RFS biofuel mandates.”

Advocating for relaxing such draconian RFS mandates, energycitizen.org wrote that a “16-gallon tank of gas contains ethanol made from enough corn to feed 22 people for a day.” U.S. produced 13.95 million gallons of ethanol in 2011, enough to feed 570 million people for a year.

In August 2013, Christine Metcalfe, a “community councilor” from Scotland, won a landmark legal victory for ordinary citizens, halting the U.K. government’s “unlawful and unpopular wind energy initiative, stopping all British wind farm development until public approval is granted. The European Union and the U.K. were found to have violated citizens’ rights, protected under United Nations’ Aarhus Convention.

Germany recently announced that it will not follow “smart meter guidance from the European Union” because it would be too costly for consumers.  EU’s $700 billion plan for a “smart” Europe had recommended that 80 percent of homes install smart meters by 2020. Germany had commissioned a study by Ernst and Young and their report showed that installation costs for users with low power consumption would experience higher installation costs than the savings derived from smart meter use. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-01/germany-rejects-eu-smart-meter-recommendations-on-cost-concerns.html

Germany has 48 million traditional meters and utilities are itching to replace them.  A switch to smart meters would have to be coordinated with the recent change in energy generation away from nuclear power and towards renewables, slated to be 80 percent of consumption by 2050.

Americans are beginning to wake up and fight the installation of Smart Meters. They are a threat to our health, an intrusion into our privacy without a warrant, and a spying device. Such ‘smart’ meters cause escalating utilities bills in spite of household reduction in consumption.

“Hundreds of local governments have passed moratoriums and other ordinances to prevent utilities from mandating installation.” A rising tide of awareness has forced utilities to offer opt-out to citizens in a dozen states, although most utilities charge an additional fee, “cited by rights groups as extortive.”

Josh Del Sol, a Canadian Director, produced a documentary with donations from concerned citizens, “Take Back Your Power,” available at http://www.takebackyourpower.net starting September 5. The documentary is a “great collection of first-hand footage, never-before-seen interviews and eye-witness accounts of the problems that have turned so-called ‘smart’ meters and the ‘smart’ grid into a widespread controversy involving the energy utility industry and governments.”

We are making progress debunking global warming/climate change policies and interests of the global government cabal but they are far ahead.