Tag Archives: UN Intergovernmental Panel on 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:
error0
 

Top adviser to Australia PM: Global warming is a NWO fraud led by UN

A brave man in the Australian government is telling the truth about “climate change,” formerly called anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
He is Maurice Newman, a former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corp., who is the chairman of Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council and, as such, the government’s top business adviser.
In an op/ed for The Australian newspaper, Newman asserts that:

  • “Climate change” is a myth fostered by the United Nations for political reasons — to create a new authoritarian world order under its control.
  • 95% of the climate models we’ve been told which “prove” human activities — specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions — have caused and are causing Earth’s temperatures to be warmer, are in error. Instead of warming, world temps have been “in stasis,” i.e., unchanged, for the last two decades.

Instead of giving you second-hand sources to Newman’s op/ed (which is what Drudge Report inexplicably did yesterday, with a link to an AFP/Jiji article in the Japan Times), it is always better to go to the original or primary source because then there is no filtering and added commentary by the middle-man.
So here is Maurice Newman’s op/ed in its entirety. Maurice Newman

The UN is using climate change as a tool not an issue

By Maurice Newman The Australian, May 8, 2015
It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.
We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.
In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”
Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.
We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the [UN] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.
Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.
Christiana Figueres
Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?
In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”
In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.
Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.
Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.
Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Company] and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.
They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)
And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.
Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.
Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.
There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.
Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough.

Maurice Newman mocked by climate fascistsGood students of satanist Saul Alinsky that they are, Global Warming Nazis are already deploying Alinsky Rule No. 5 by mocking Maurice Newman as a crazy tinfoil hatter. (Source of pic)

See also:

~Éowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

New Emails by Global Warming scientists show them to be frauds

Last Tuesday, a new spate of “warmist” e-mails were anonymously released to the public. The e-mails were exchanged among scientists who claim humans are causing a global warming crisis, which requires drastic and coordinated measures on the part of the world’s governments.
James Taylor writes in Forbes.com, Nov. 23, 2011, that the newly-revealed e-mails are igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
1. Prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions, in total contravention of science’s defining and necessary Principle of Intersubjectivity. The latter refers to the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate the theory’s assertions, observations or experiments.
Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

Leading global-warming liar Phil Jones


In a newly-released email, Phil Jones — a leading warmist climatologist at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) who’s working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s premier and most influential institution on global warming — writes:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”

In another email, Jones writes of a collusion with the U.S. Department of Energy to conceal data:

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Global Warming co-conspirator Michael E. Mann


The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. In an email released in Climategate 1.0, Jones wrote to a warmist colleague, Penn State University scientist Michael E. Mann:

“Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

2. The “warmist” scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry. The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate, advance predetermined outcomes, and coordinate attacks on skeptical scientists.
Mann writes in another newly released email:

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.”

In another email, Mann writes:

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre.

Global Warming co-conspirator Tom Wigley


These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.
3. Many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Global warming co-conspirator Jonathan Overpeck


Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona and the coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment, writes in an email:

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports.

Global warming co-conspirator Peter Thorne


Peter Thorne — who worked at the UK Met Office until 2010 and now, God help us, is with the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina — writes in an email to Phil Jones:

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary. I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

In an email to Michael Mann, Tom Wigley acknowledges the lies:

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

The legal definition of “conspiracy” is:

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

The Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 emails are evidence of a conspiracy of warmist scientists. If the Republicans in Congress have a set, they’d hit these criminals with the RICO Act. But they don’t, and they won’t.
I found the photos of these pseudo-scientists to post here so that we know what they look like. Consider the photos to be their mug shots!
Lest we forget, Americans having notoriously short memories, the two leading GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both were/are believers in manmade global warming.
In Romney’s case, as recently as in his 2010 book, No Apology, Mitt said that, yes, there is global warming/climate change and that it’s human caused. Now that he’s running to be the GOP nominee for 2012, he’s started to hem and haw.
As for Newt Gingrich — the smartest Republican, ever — he so believed in manmade global warming that he appeared, with Nancy Pelosi, in a 2008 TV ad on global warming created by über climate fraudster Al Gore. As recently as November 8, 2011, Newt still maintains that, gosh darn, he just “doesn’t know if global warming is occurring”.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0