Global warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans?
100 percent of the global warming over the past 60 years is human-caused, according to the IPCC's latest report
A bold plan for Pope Francis, Bill Gates to save the world
Commentary: Two leaders who can step up before we destroy the planet
But climate change and global warming demand leadership and action, not more studies.The United NationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of 2,000 scientists has been studying the problem since 1988.Their recent Fifth Assessment Report concluded these scientists are now 95% certain humans are the primary cause of climate change the past half-century.The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s recent survey of 18 scientific associations scientists concluded with 97% certainty . You don’t need more studies to lead and act.
Note: "You don’t need more studies to lead and act." That's certainly the case with Al Gore, and the Muslim president of the United States of America, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, HUSSEIN Obama bashed Climate Change 'deniers'!.htm.
A quoted an UNNAMED SURVEY" . . . recent survey of 18 scientific associations scientists concluded with 97% certainty."
warming, NOT!.doc
Don't forget to watch this important video: warming, NOT!.htm
Returning to their false article . . .
So why all the resistance to science? As we reported in “Climate Science is a hoax: Big Oil, GOP, God say so,”the Vatican’s Pontifical Academies of Science along with the UN-IPCC and NASA scientists have been overwhelmed by a powerful, well-funded army of climate-science deniers. Bottom line: They fear that acceptance of science fact will open the door to universal governmental regulations and taxation of carbon emissions, reducing profits and radically changing the business model of all global energy producers.
Note: Isn't that EXACTLY what is happening with this false "science," promoted at the United Nations,and through that organization, governments throughout the world, including in the United States by the Muslim president, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, i.e.: " . . . universal governmental regulations and taxation of carbon emissions, reducing profits and radically changing the business model of all global energy producers."?
Pope Francis has already warned us of the three self-destructive trends: First: unsustainable global warming and climate change on Planet-Earth. Second: The pope says the global economy is “near collapse” as inequality increases, fueling revolutions. Third: Earth’s natural resources will be unable to feed the 10 billion people living in 2050. The three go hand-in-hand, merge, with trigger mechanisms cross-linked to ignite simultaneously.
Important:
urges 'world authority' to govern economy, finance . . . .doc
calls for world authority.doc
We reported on Pope Francis’ manifesto in a column last year, “Pope is an anticapitalism socialist—thank God.” The manifesto clearly articulated the pope’s mission on Earth. A mission to lead not just the church’s 200 cardinals, 5,000 bishops, 450,000 priests and deacons, not just the 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide and the 78 million in 17,645 American parishes, but also guide and inspire leaders of the world’s 196 countries and a population of more that seven billion that’s rapidly growing into an economically unsustainable 10 billion people living on the planet.
Note: Read the whole of the Article, "Pope is an anticapitalism socialist—thank God." further down on this page . . .
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, has warned us:
Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility
President Obama will use his "executive authority" to write law bypassing Congress and the Constitution to cut carbon emissions from the nation’s coal-fired power plants by up to 20 percent, according to people familiar with his plans, which will spur the creation of a state cap-and-trade program forcing industry to pay for the carbon pollution it creates.
Mr. Obama will unveil his plans in a new regulation, written by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, at the White House on Monday, 02JUN14. It would be the strongest action ever taken by an American president to tackle climate change and could become one of the defining elements of Mr. Obama’s legacy.
Note: Cap-and-trade programs are effectively carbon taxes that place a limit on carbon pollution and create markets for "buying and selling government-issued pollution permits". Yes, part of the universal government regulations and taxation of carbon emissions, reducing profits, and radically changing the business model of all global energy producers, and national governments from capitalist to Communism, which the "pope" Francis I supports. Coal plants are the nation’s largest source of the greenhouse gases that scientists say are the chief cause of global warming.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama tried to shove a cap-and-trade bill through Congress in 2010, but the legal bill died in the U.S. Senate in 2010. Republicans, Tea Party groups and the coal industry attacked CAP and TRADE criticizing the legislation as a “cap and tax” that would raise energy prices, have a huge negative effect on jobs, by raising the cost of production nation wide. Cap and trade is now seen as political poison in Washington. Republicans said that the new rule has created "a back door, bypassing the legal way law is to proceed forth through Congress, and giving Barack HUSSEIN Obama through Executive Order the ability to force through, against the Constitution a politically inflammatory policy by reviving it in the states. This Executive Order, pushed through EPA regulation, bypassing Congress, will breathe life into state-level Federally mandated cap-and-trade programs.
Obama orders new rules on coal-fired plants, sets condition for Keystone pipeline
Obama claimed climate change is having "profound impacts" on the planet and must be addressed. He called for the U.S. to lead the world in a "coordinated assault" on the issue.
Going around Congress and unveiling what was likely to be his most controversial plank, Obama said he was ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to create the first-ever carbon emissions limits for existing power plants.
He said that while other toxic chemicals like mercury are regulated, power plants can dump "unlimited amounts" of carbon pollution.
"That's not right, it's not safe. And it needs to stop," Obama said.
Ahead of the speech, White House climate adviser Daniel P. Schrag reportedly told The New York Times that a "war on coal" is needed.
"The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed," he said. Schrag is a geochemist and the head of Harvard University's Center for the Environment. He also sits on a White House advisory panel.
Republican lawmakers bristled at that remark. "It really encapsulates the attitude this administration holds in regard to states like mine," Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, who represents coal-heavy Kentucky, said Tuesday.
The industry, as well, issued similar warnings on Tuesday.
Advocates of the industry argue that it has made strides toward making coal more environmentally friendly. According to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), 10 clean-coal technology plants have launched since 2011. Another five are under development or scheduled to come online.
Group President Robert M. "Mike" Duncan said EPA regulations have played a big role in the closure of nearly 290 coal plants so far this year.
"Further regulation could force even more plant closures," he said in a statement, claiming the industry is evolving to expand clean-coal technologies -- provided the federal government allows it to.
In taking action on his own, Obama is also signaling he will no longer wait for lawmakers to act on climate change, and instead will seek ways to work around them.
Note: Barack HUSSEIN Obama then will act as a King, in this case, a Dictator, not as a President bound by the Constitution. If you don't like the dirty drawn out political fight, you simply bypass the Law of the Nation, and declare like a dictator your own law.
The linchpin of Obama's plan, and the step activists say will have the most dramatic impact, involves the limits on carbon emissions for new and existing power plants. The Obama administration has already proposed controls on new plants, but those controls have been delayed and not yet finalized.
The Chamber of Commerce give six reasons to oppose Barack HUSSEIN Obama's lawless rule against coal:
1.) It will negatively affect national GDP, employment, and real income per household. A Chamber of Commerce study predicts a peak decline in GDP of $104 Billion dollars in 2025, with an average of $51 Billion dollars per year from 2014 to 2030. It also predicts the loss of up to 442,000 jobs.
2.) It will have a very small impact on global CO2 emissions, which are set to rise rapidly. The Chamber’s analysis finds the proposal would address “a mere 1.8 percent of global CO2 emissions.” Regardless of national emissions reduction policies and adverse economic impacts, global CO2 emissions will grow rapidly.
3.) It will be extremely costly. Regulating CO2 emissions will generate adverse economic impacts in the U.S. in exchange for reductions overshadowed by rapidly rising emissions elsewhere. The plan would shave $51 Billion dollars off GDP annually and increase electricity costs by $289 Billion dollars.
4.) The law governing mercury and other toxins is a huge economic drain; the new plan would be even worse. To date, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) is the most expensive power sector rule issued by the EPA, at a projected total cost of $9.6 Billion dollars per year… The average compliance cost of the EPA’s CO2 regulations is nearly triple that, at $28.1 Billion dollars, over a 17-year time frame.
5.) The plan will force the energy industry to deal with the cost of decommissioning or retrofitting existing, functional power-delivery infrastructure and replacing it. The total cost for incremental generating capacity, supporting infrastructure (electric transmission, natural gas pipelines, CO2 pipelines), decommissioning, stranded asset costs, and offsetting savings from lower fuel use and operation and maintenance is nearly $480 Billion dollars.
6.) The proposal places unrealistic demands on states, resulting in more burden on individuals and businesses, says the Chamber: “In regulating CO2 emissions, it appears the EPA will attempt to mandate a level of CO2 emissions reductions that is unachievable at the source (power plants).”
Obama tried previously to push “cap and trade” through Congress as part of an effort to control carbon emissions, but it died in 2010 in the Senate. The GOP, Tea Party groups and the coal industry attacked Democrats who supported it, warning the legislation would raise energy prices and cost jobs.
Now the "president" is invoking executive authority instead, and Republicans and energy insiders are complaining that Obama is circumventing lawmakers on a critical policy that could raise energy costs and shutter many coal-fired power plants.
In drafting the Executive Order, Barack HUSSEIN Obama used a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA), since carbon dioxide isn’t regulated under government air pollution programs. States and industry groups are preparing to wage legal challenges to the rule, The Wall Street Journal reported.
So, why isn't carbon dioxide considered a pollutant, and therefore NOT regulated? After all, carbon-dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have fluctuated wildly for thousands of years; at one point billions of years ago, it was the dominant gas in the atmosphere.
The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, ruled that today's "higher concentrations" are the "unambiguous result of human emissions." Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases "are well above the natural range of atmospheric concentrations compared to the last 650,000 years," the agency said.
Many pro-business groups (capitalists, i.e.: real American companies) have discouraged regulation of carbon-dioxide emissions by arguing that Carbon-dioxide, CO2, is an essential ingredient of life. In its decision, the EPA stressed that it considers CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases to be pollutants because of their role in propagating climate change, not because of any direct health effects.
The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, lumped carbon dioxide with five other gases -- methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- into a single class for regulatory purposes. That's because they share similar properties: All are long-lived and well-mixed in the atmosphere; all trap heat that otherwise would leave the earth and go into outer space; and all are "directly emitted as greenhouse gases" rather than forming later in the atmosphere.
Alternatively, tropospheric ozone wasn't included in the class, even though it creates smog and contributes to global warming. However, that gas isn't emitted directly; rather, it is created in the atmosphere when sunlight reacts with greenhouse gases "emitted by human activity such as engine combustion and industrial processes".
Similarly, the EPA declined to consider regulating water vapor or soot, also known as "black carbon," both of which are big contributors to the greenhouse effect but which don't share common properties with the six greenhouse gases.
Note: Darn, water vapor is a pollutant. Can't regulate that, though.
The EPA did acknowledge some positive impacts from higher CO2 concentrations, which offset negative concentrations, but they don't like to advertise these:
One is faster-growing trees in tropical forests, which helps offset deforestation, more plant growth that creates more oxygen offsetting CO2. Another is marshes that can more quickly grow above rising sea levels, providing an insurance policy of sorts for some low-lying areas against the potential ravages of rising sea levels resulting from warmer global temperatures.
The EPA also acknowledged some positive aspects of rising temperatures, but concluded that on balance, the negative impacts of climate change outweigh the positive.
Note: Hmmmm . . . sounds like a way to attack business, not because their is any direct health effect, but because of made up climate change agenda. The Real Threat, it appears then, to the American Economy is not global competition, nor "lack of qualified American workers," nor is it Terrorism propagated be government or individuals, but the Muslim "president, i.e.: dictator, Barack HUSSEIN Obama"doing the will of the antiChrist, the "pope," by following the Vatican's agenda pushed upon nations through the United Nations.
warming, NOT!.htm
has 'precedence over' Ambassadors at the UN . . . The 'pope' at the United Nations . . . Church or State.doc
Vatican at the United Nations, A Major Cause for Concern . . . .doc
2, Revelation 17, the antiChirst, Tony Blair A Biblical symbol thatis being used in conjunction with the European Union is the one from Revelation17 where a.htm
2, Revelation 17, the antiChirst, Tony Blair A Biblical symbol thatis being used in conjunction with the European Union is the one from Revelation17 where a.doc
urges 'world authority' to govern economy, finance . . . .doc
calls for world authority.doc
Dec. 11, 2013, 11:55 a.m. EST
Pope is an anticapitalism socialist — thank God
Commentary: Conservatives right to worry about ‘radical’ Pope Francis
Paul B. Farrell
Conservatives everywhere — from the GOP, Wall Street bankers, Big Ag and every climate denier, to union-busing politicians, Big Oil billionaires and traditional growth economists — every conservative should be concerned about this gentle pontiff’s deceptively disarming charm, his happy smile. He says he has no “political ideology.” He’s that good a diplomat. Yet his own words clearly brand him an anticapitalist, a socialist and a leader with a revolutionary mission. Thank God, because the world needs him.
The pope has a divine mandate to radically alter American politics
The pope’s words clearly reveal a man who’s been on top of financial, economic and political trends for a long time, worldwide and in America. This pope promises to radically transform an American political landscape that for many years has been dominated by the conservative capitalist ideology of Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. Yes, Pope Francis is challenging generations of right-wing conservative ideology.
So conservatives like Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Ryan should fear this pope, not just because of his radical message, but because he can deliver on it. He demands action and is commander-in-chief of the world’s largest, most dedicated army: 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, including 78 million Americans in 17,645 parishes, inspired by a mission to change the world’s political economy and backed by an “officer corps” of 200 cardinals, over 5,000 bishops, 450,000 priests and deacons all dedicated to carry out his mission.