Category Archives: Global Warming / Climate Change

UN wants $240/gallon gas tax to combat global warming

On October 7, 2018, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the final draft of a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C, which is intended to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit this December. The report calls for societal changes that are “unprecedented in terms of scale” in order to limit future global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the goal of the Paris accord.

According to the Daily Caller, Oct. 8, 2018, the IPCC Special Report claims that to keep future global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to 45% of 2010 levels by 2030, that is, in less than 12 years; and 100% reduction by 2050.

To achieve those goals, the world would have to largely abandon its use of coal for electricity, and use more solar and wind power. The report says the costs of such a transition would be high, and options could include a carbon tax as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100.

The IPCC Special Report is collectively authored by 26 climate scientists from 16 countries, including two from the United States (Drew Shindell and William Solecki). According to the report:

4.1 There is very high likelihood that under current emission trajectories and current national pledges the Earth will warm globally more than 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, causing associated risks. The nationally determined contributions submitted under the Paris Agreement will result, in aggregate, in global greenhouse emissions in 2030 which are higher than those in scenarios compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C by 2100. More ambitious pledges would imply higher mitigation costs in the short-term, albeit offset by a variety of co-benefits, but would lower both mitigation and adaptation costs in the long-term….
4.4 Limiting global warming of 1.5°C implies the need for transformational adaptation and mitigation, behaviour change, and multi-level governance….
A broad portfolio of different mitigation policy options, including carbon pricing mechanisms and regulation, would be necessary in 1.5°C pathways to achieve the most cost-effective emissions reductions…. Reduction in energy demand can also be achieved through behaviour change….
Policy instruments, both price and non-price, are needed to accelerate the deployment of carbon-neutral technologies. Evidence and theory suggests that some form of carbon pricing can be necessary.

In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100.

Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller translates for us what a carbon tax of $27,000 per ton by the year 2100 means:

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

The Democrat Party had called for a price on carbon dioxide in their 2016 party platform, but they haven’t made much effort on that front since the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.

This July, GOP lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes, despite a bill introduced by Rep. Carlos Curbelo to tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.

See “Why President Trump got U.S. out of bad-for-America Paris Climate Accord“.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

UN’s dire warning: Terrifying climate change data means we’re doomed in 12 years!

The UN isn’t going to let Al Gore have the last word.

From NY Post: Earth is on track to face devastating consequences of climate change — extreme drought, food shortages and deadly flooding — unless there’s an “unprecedented” effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, a new United Nations report warns.

The planet’s surface has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and could see a catastrophic 1.5 C (2.7 F) increase between 2030 and 2052, scientists say.

“This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heat waves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes,” Andrew King, a climate science academic at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement to CNN.

The stunning statistics were released Monday in a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned that we must make “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” in order to save our planet.

Scientists with the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC said that in order to have even a 50-50 chance of staying under the 1.5-degree cap, the world must become “carbon neutral” by 2050. Any additional carbon dioxide emissions would require removing the harmful gas from the air.

If nothing is done, Earth can expect temperatures to rise by 3 degrees Celsius, more frequent or extreme droughts, an increase in deadly hurricanes and as much as 90 percent of coral reefs dying off — including the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, according to the report.

Countries in the Southern Hemisphere would see the most drastic effects.

“The next few years are probably the most important in human history,” IPCC co-chair Debra Roberts, head of the Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department in South Africa, told Agence France-Presse.

Efforts to curb climate change must also extend beyond the 2015 Paris Agreement reached among 197 countries — which President Trump withdrew the US from in June 2017.

“The window on keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees C is closing rapidly and the current emissions pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement do not add up to us achieving that goal,” said King.

Staying within the 1.5 degrees C target, instead of 2 degrees C, would result in the global sea level rising 3.9 inches less by 2100, reducing flooding. It would also cut down on species loss and extinction and reduce the impact on various ecosystems.

“There were doubts if we would be able to differentiate impacts set at 1.5 C and that came so clearly. Even the scientists were surprised to see how much science was already there and how much they could really differentiate and how great are the benefits of limiting global warming at 1.5 compared to 2,” Thelma Krug, vice chair of the IPCC, told Reuters. “And now more than ever we know that every bit of warming matters.”

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Thursday Political Funnies!

And the best for last!

H/t GiGi, CSM and maziel

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Going after your wallet in the name of climate change: Bloomberg awards grant to Seattle to study traffic congestion pricing

The city of Seattle – like many west coast, progressive run cities – has many, many problems (homelessness, needles left on the streets, open drug use, feces and urination on the streets, increased crime due to lack of enforcement, etc.).

Having not solved those issues with massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, Mayor Jenny Durkan is moving  on to solving climate change seeking another way to steal more taxpayer dollars.

MyNorthwest reports that the Michael Bloomberg’s American Cities Climate Challenge has awarded the city a $2.5 million grant to study ways to address climate change. One item the mayor wants to study is traffic congestion pricing.

The mayor said, “We’ve got a lot of work to do to see exactly how we would implement it, how we would put up the cameras to catch people, how you would charge, how much you charge, and what we do for equity,” Durkan said Friday. “Because there’s a number of people right now who have to travel into Seattle … because they can’t afford to live here anymore. It’s tied to affordability.”

Of course the mayor has no idea when the traffic congestion pricing program would be implemented. Guess she’s got plenty of time to burn through a $2.5 million grant.

The end goal, of course, is twofold: Get more of your money and force you to change your behaviors. From the report: “The pricing would establish tolls to drive on select Seattle streets, perhaps with differing charges depending on the time. The aim is to discourage people from driving cars around town as the population grows.

The mayor also said, “If you look across the globe, those cities that have implemented congestion pricing have had the greatest success on getting people out of vehicles and reducing vehicles in the city,” she said. “It’s had another huge, very important benefit. That’s a health benefit. The number of asthma cases in children have dropped precipitously in those areas where they’ve actually had congestion pricing.”

Read the whole MyNorthwest story here.

Seattle hasn’t had a republican mayor since 1952. And they knew EXACTLY what they were getting when they elected demorat Jenny Durkan in 2017.

Sorry Seattleites…I’m fresh out of empathy for y’all.

See also:

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

More fake hurricane-weather news

This morning, FOTM‘s DCG posted a video showing how the Weather Channel broadcasts fake news about Hurricane Florence by exaggerating how strong the wind is.

A reporter pretended to be unsteady on his feet, buffeted by the supposed strong wind. Alas, the video camera showed that right behind the reporter were two people casually strolling by.

I had a GIF made of the video in case YouTube takes it down:

But it’s not just the Weather Channel that is engaged in fake weather news.

CNN, too, faked its Hurricane Florence reporting, as shown in the pics below (source: Mark Dice).

The first pic is from CNN’s live footage of Anderson Cooper standing in the supposed deep flood waters up to his waist.

Notice, however, the camera man standing in shallow water just a few feet away.

Here’s a pic of the same flood waters taken from a different camera angle showing the same camera man and another CNN employee standing in shallow water.

Note: Snopes says the pics are actually of Anderson Cooper reporting on Hurricane Ike in 2008. If true, it just goes to show Cooper and CNN have been engaged in fake weather reporting for at least 10 years.

But it wasn’t just Anderson Cooper faking weather news.

CNN’s senior diplomatic correspondent Michelle Kosinski also engaged in fake weather news.

Here she is, paddling in a canoe, in seemingly deep flood waters.

Alas, her lie is revealed when two men casually slosh by, showing that the “deep flood” is only ankle deep.

If the MSM fake weather news, what else are they faking?

H/t Vivian Lee

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

HYPOCRITE: Harrison Ford wants us to stop electing leaders who don’t believe in science

Hollyweird HYPOCRITE Ford: Do as I say, not as I do…

Harrison Ford, like many in Hollyweird, is a HYPOCRITE.

While speaking at the Global Climate Action Summit, Ford whined about climate change and anti-science political leaders. He said, “If we can’t protect nature, we can’t protect ourselves.”

He also said the following: ““If we don’t change the path that we’re on today, the future of humanity is at stake. While you work to meet the challenge of climate change, I beg of you— don’t forget nature. Because today, the destruction of nature accounts for more global emissions than all the cars and trucks in the world. For God’s sake, stop electing leaders who don’t believe in science.”

Read about his speech here.

First of all, I don’t need some smug, self-righteous Hollyweird actor telling me who I should vote for. That’s MY decision and MY decision alone.

Secondly, let’s take a look at what this HYPOCRITE does for a hobby, shall we?

According to Wikipedia, Ford is a licensed airplane and helicopter pilot. He owns the following private aircrafts:

  • Gulfstream II
  • Bell 407
  • de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver
  • Ryan PT-22

Apparently at one time he had amassed a collection of seven private aircrafts.

This guy, like many Hollyweird stars, flies via private jets when traveling about the world lecturing us.

This guy has the AUDACITY to speak to us about “global emissions” when he yearly emits more from his private aircraft flights than I will ever be responsible for in my lifetime?

You, Mr. Harrison, are a FLAMING HYPOCRITE.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Bad news for global warmists: Trees and forests increased 865,000 sq. mi. instead of decreased

In 2015 in its alarming report, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations dolefully claimed that global tree canopy (or forests) had decreased by a catastrophic 129 million hectares in just 25 years:

In 1990 the world had 4,128 million [hectares] of forest; by 2015 this area had decreased to 3,999 million ha. This is a change from 31.6 percent of global land area in 1990 to 30.6 percent in 2015.

But according to a new study published in Nature, satellite data show that in the 34 years from 1982 to 2016, global tree canopy cover actually increased by 865,000 square miles.

According to the square mile to hectare conversion formula, 1 square mile = 258.998811 hectares. An increase in global tree canopy of 865,000 sq. miles, therefore, is the equivalent of an increase of 224.034 million hectares — in contrast to the UN report’s decrease of 129 million hectares.

The abstract of “Global land change from 1982 to 2016,” by Xiao-Peng Song, et al., in Nature, 560 (2018), pp. 639-643, says:

Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia.

The greatest increase in tree canopy or forests occurred in Europe, including European Russia, where it exploded by 35%. China is a close second, where tree canopy gained 34%. In the U.S., tree canopy increased by 15%.

In fact, the increase in forests in the United States and bad management are fueling the terrible scourge of California wildfires.

Umair Irfan reports for Vox on Sept. 4, 2018, that California has 129 million dead trees, spread across 8.9 million acres, which are kindling for wildfires:

The bumper crop of kindling helps explain why this has been the worst year on record for California wildfires. Already, more than 876,000 acres have burned in California, compared to 228,000 last year at the same time. The Mendocino Complex Fire, now almost fully contained at more than 459,000 acres, is the single largest fire on record in state history. The largest fire before that, the Thomas Fire, was just put out in January this year.

Worse still, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection spokesperson Heather Williams said the recent fires have barely made a dent in the glut of dead trees,  and peak fire season in Southern California is still to come later this year.

See also “CA Wildfires Could Increase 77% By 2100“.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Fake News: National Geographic's starving 'climate change' polar bear

Sat, 04 Aug 2018 18:42:46 +0000

eowyn2

Last December, National Geographic magazine published a heart-rending video of an emaciated polar bear barely able to walk.

National Geographic captioned the video “THIS IS WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE LOOKS LIKE” — attributing the starving polar bear to climate change. On the video’s YouTube page is this text:

This is what climate change looks like. This starving polar bear was spotted by National Geographic photographer Paul Nicklen on Somerset Island….

As temperatures rise, and sea ice melts, polar bears lose access to the main staple of their diet—seals. Starving, and running out of energy, they are forced to wander into human settlements for any source of food. Feeding polar bears is illegal. Without finding another source of food, this bear likely only had a few more hours to live.

Now, eight months later, one of the two National Geographic photographers who took that video admits that they didn’t really know the polar bear was starving because of climate change.

Cristina G. Mittermeier writes in the August 2018 issue of National Geographic:

The connection between an individual animal’s death and climate change is rarely clear—even when an animal is as emaciated as this polar bear.

Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy. With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral—and people took it literally….

When Paul posted the video on Instagram, he wrote, “This is what starvation looks like.” He pointed out that scientists suspect polar bears will be driven to extinction in the next century. He wondered whether the global population of 25,000 polar bears would die the way this bear was dying. He urged people to do everything they could to reduce their carbon footprint and prevent this from happening. But he did not say that this particular bear was killed by climate change.

National Geographic picked up the video and added subtitles. It became the most viewed video on National Geographic’s website—ever. News organizations around the world ran stories about it; social media exploded with opinions about it. We estimate that an astonishing 2.5 billion people were reached by our footage. The mission was a success, but there was a problem: We had lost control of the narrative. The first line of the National Geographic video said, “This is what climate change looks like”—with “climate change” highlighted in the brand’s distinctive yellow. In retrospect, National Geographic went too far with the caption….

Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story—that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn’t know what had happened to this particular polar bear.

I can’t say that this bear was starving because of climate change….

National Geographic‘s editor appended this note at the beginning of photographer Mittermeier’s mea culpa:

Editor’s Note: National Geographic went too far in drawing a definitive connection between climate change and a particular starving polar bear in the opening caption of our December 2017 video about the animal. We said, “This is what climate change looks like.” While science has established that there is a strong connection between melting sea ice and polar bears dying off, there is no way to know for certain why this bear was on the verge of death.

Here’s the deceptive starving polar bear video:

If human-made “climate change” is real, why would its proponents have to lie and deceive?

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Feminists rejoice: UK determines that sandwiches should be replaced with more "environmentally-friendly" lunches

feminist
From The Independent UK: The UK’s annual consumption of sandwiches has a greater impact on the environment than the use of eight million cars, scientists have claimed.
Researchers at the University of Manchester calculated the carbon footprint of 40 different types of sandwiches – both home-made and pre-packaged – taking account how the ingredients were produced, the packaging, as well as food waste discarded at home and elsewhere in the supply chain.
About 11.5 billion sandwiches a year are eaten in the UK, according to the British Sandwich Association (BSA).
The study found ready-made “all-day breakfast” sandwich containing egg, bacon and sausage to have the highest carbon footprint, generating 1,441g of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) – the same as driving an average car for 12 miles.
Professor Adisa Azapagic, from the university’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Sciences, said: “Given that sandwiches are a staple of the British diet as well as their significant market share in the food sector, it is important to understand the contribution from this sector to the emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, consuming 11.5 billion sandwiches annually in the UK generates, on average, 9.5 million tonnes of CO2 eq, equivalent to the annual use of 8.6 million cars.”
Those containing pork meat, cheese, tomato or prawns were also deemed carbon-intensive by the researchers but home-made favourite ham and cheese was found to have the lowest CO2 eq.
The study, published in the journal Sustainable Production and Consumption, found the estimated impact of ready-made sandwiches ranged from 739g CO2 eq for egg and cress to 1,441g CO eq bacon, sausage and egg. The carbon footprint of the most popular home-made sandwich, ham and cheese, varied from 399g to 843g CO2 eq depending on the recipe.
Agricultural production and processing of ingredients were found to be the largest contributor to a sandwich’s carbon footprint, accounting for around 37 per cent to 67 per cent of CO2 eq for ready-made sandwiches. Packaging material contributed 8.5 per cent of CO2 eq and transporting and refrigerating adding a further four per cent.
Keeping sandwiches chilled in supermarkets and shops accounts for up to a quarter of their greenhouse gas emissions, researchers said, adding that making them at home using the same ingredients could cut emissions in half.
The team concluded that a combination of changes to the recipes, packaging and waste disposal could halve the carbon footprint of the sandwiches.
The BSA estimates that extending the shelf life of sandwiches could reduce waste by more than 2,000 tonnes a year. Prof Azapagic said: “We need to change the labelling of food to increase the use-by date as these are usually quite conservative. Commercial sandwiches undergo rigorous shelf-life testing and are normally safe for consumption beyond the use-by date stated on the label.”
Responding to the research, Friends of the Earth called for retailers to stock more environmentally friendly lunch options.
Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner for the green lobbying group, said: “The meat and dairy industry is one of the biggest causes of climate change, so cutting back on meat and cheese fillings will be good for the planet – as well as our health. But supermarkets need to step up to the plate and make sure their sandwiches aren’t toasting the planet. It’s almost impossible to find a plant-based filling among the meaty and cheesy offerings.”
h/t Moonbattery
DCG

Please follow and like us:
0
 

8 years ago, Al Gore said North Pole will be completely ice-free by now

Mon, 01 Jan 2018 13:57:52 +0000

eowyn2

Eight years ago, on December 14, 2009, at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be completely ice-free by now:

(2:14 mark) “There is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap during . . . some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

That was FAKE NEWS!

As you can see in the graph below, the North Pole is in no danger of completely melting. In fact, as measured by Greenland Ice Core’s interglacial temperatures, the Earth actually is in a cooling period, compared to severe warming periods in the past, most recent period being the warming during the Middle Ages.

The graph below shows that global surface temperature actually had been cooling since 2001, and began a warming uptick after 2014:

Al Gore is only one of climate-change doomsday-sayers who, like him, are proven to be wrong, again and again. But that doesn’t stop them from continuing their alarmist predictions — and getting wealthy while so doing.

See also:

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0