Category Archives: Truth about CO2 and Global Warming

Global Warming issue is use an excuse to push more taxes on Gasoline

A $240 PER GALLON GAS TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? NEW UN REPORT SUGGESTS CARBON PRICING

Dailycaller
10 October 2018
Michael Bastasch

  • A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
  • The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
  • If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

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.

If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The IPCC’s report is meant to galvanize political support for doubling down on the Paris climate accord ahead of a U.N. climate summit scheduled for 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 (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), the stretch goal of the Paris accord.

However, the costs of meeting that goal are high based on the IPCC’s own figures. (RELATED: Here’s What The Media Won’t Tell You About The U.N.’s New Climate Report)

In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) , 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.

To meet the goals of the Paris accord, which seeks to limit future warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would have range between $10 and $200 in 2030 and $160 and $2,125 in 2100.

That’s equivalent to a gas tax as high as $1.70 per gallon in 2030 to nearly $19 per gallon at the end of the century. That’s less onerous than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), but still no walk in the park.

California and many European countries have policies to price carbon dioxide emissions and mandate green energy, including cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. But carbon prices under those systems are nowhere near where the IPCC says they need to be.

The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.

“While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 [degree Celsius](2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required,” reads the IPCC’s report.

In the U.S., Republican lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposed to carbon taxes in July. Democrats 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.

Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida introduced carbon tax legislation shortly after all but five of his GOP colleagues in the House voted to oppose such a bill. Curbelo’s bill would tax carbon dioxide at $23 a ton — nowhere near what the IPCC calls for.

However, the IPCC suggested a lower carbon tax could be used in conjunction with command and control policies, like regulations and bans on coal plants, could achieve “generate a 1.5˚C (2.7°F) pathway for the U.S. electric sector.”

But that point only serves to undermine Curbelo’s bill, which would put a moratorium on some environmental regulations and possibly eliminate some if emissions goals are reached.

The IPCC noted the “literature indicates that the pricing of emissions is relevant but needs to be complemented with other policies to drive the required changes in line with 1.5°C (2.7°F)-consistent cost-effective pathways.”

My Conclusion: Thing is that why UN, IPCC and the other global elites want Global warming or Climate Change to be a problem. Because they want more money and power; they know: that Global Warming or Climate Change is never an issues but it a natural occurring event that occurs everyday, that carbon dioxide is plant food, That solar minimum is on it’s way and earth will cooler within decades to come.
With the IPCC thinking the earth will be 1.5°C (2.7°F) warmer by either 2040 or 2050 is not going to case because we would be in a new solar minimum at that time. Once IPCC is caught for misleading and keeping people in the dark and soon one day IPCC will have to explain themselves why they’re deliberately deceiving people to either make money and gain power. The reason why they keep scare people will the global warming the climate change nonsense because they think they can get away with it and achieved their agenda.
We need to call those people who pushing climate change by scaring us into accepting their agenda; out or we may face another dark age. The Climate Change scare has nothing to do about saving the planet nor protecting the environment.

Advertisements

Study: Geoengineering, other technologies won’t solve climate woes

Watts Up With What
11 October 2018
Anthony Watts

Solutions such as geoengineering will not make enough of a difference.

By Steinar Brandslet

The countries of the world still need to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate targets. Relying on tree planting and alternative technological

“We can’t rely on geoengineering to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” says Helene Muri, a researcher from NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme. She was also one of the lead authors of a recent article in Nature Communications that looked at different climate geoengineering projects in the context of limiting global warming.

The average temperature on Earth is rising. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended limiting this warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, and better yet to less than 1.5 degrees. These targets were set in the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was ratified by nearly all nations.

Various geoengineering options are among the solutions being considered. They involve intervening directly in the Earth’s climate system to prevent temperatures from rising as much as would otherwise happen due to the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Geoengineering comprises reducing atmospheric CO2 levels, or reducing the effect of the Sun.

Untested, uncertain, and risky

Can we remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere with the help of technology or capture more COby planting millions of trees? Can we reflect more of the Sun’s radiation by injecting particles into the atmosphere?

“Several techniques could help to limit climate change. But they’re still untested, uncertain and risky technologies that present a lot of ethical and practical feasibility problems,” say Muri and her colleagues.

In short, we just don’t know enough about these technologies and the consequences of putting them to use, the researchers say.

Stumbling blocks

Tree planting sparks major political problems, for example. A lot of forest land has been cut to grow food, which limits how much of acreage can be reforested. Recent research also raises the question as to whether or not additional forest land can predictably lower temperatures. Data simulations from NTNU and Giessen University show that temperatures may increase, at least locally.

Another mitigation proposal is the use of biochar, which is charcoal that can be ploughed into the ground to store carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere as CO2. Here the question is whether it is really conceivable to carry this out on a large enough scale to make a difference. The researchers’ consensus? Hardly.

How about adding nutrients to the sea to spur phytoplankton blooms that could sequester carbon? This proposal involves fertilizing iron-poor regions of the ocean. However, the potential side effects could be huge, disrupting local nutrient cycles and perhaps even increasing the production of N2O, another greenhouse gas.

We simply don’t know enough yet. Some potential solutions might even do more harm than good. The authors of the article encourage more discussion and learning.

NETs and airy plans

So what about “negative emissions technologies”, often abbreviated as NETs? NETs involve removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, specifically CO2. Some of these proposed techniques could work well on a global scale. But some of them are expensive and are still in their infancy in terms of technology.

Prototypes for direct carbon capture from the air already exist. This technology shows great potential, but would require a lot of energy and significant infrastructure if done at scale. Cost estimates range from $20 to more than $1000 per tonne of captured CO2. If you consider that the countries of the world emitted more than 40 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2017, it quickly becomes clear that financing this approach would be prohibitively expensive.

Adding particles to the air would require regular refills and probably planes or drones dedicated to the task. The concept might be feasible, but the side-effects are unclear.

And so it goes on for one potentially grand proposal after another. In sum, these ideas are simply too little, too late – or too expensive.

“None of the proposed techniques can realistically be implemented on a global scale in the next few decades. In other words, we can’t rely on these technologies to make any significant contribution to holding the average temperature increase under the 2 degree C limit, much less the 1.5 degree limit, says lead author Mark Lawrence, Director of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.

No substitutes for cutting emissions

Emissions reductions could still salvage the Paris Agreement’s 2 degree C goal. But the challenge in meeting this goal is that the Earth’s increasing population, which has also seen a steady increase in the standard of living, will have to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that are being emitted into the atmosphere compared to today.

Most of the IPCC scenarios include some form of geoengineering, typically afforestation and bioenergy, coupled with carbon capture and storage, especially if the goal is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees by the end of this century.

The researchers behind the study warn against relying on solutions other than clear-cut emissions reductions. Otherwise, there is a danger that technological solutions may be seen as substitutes for cutting emissions, which they are not.


The paper:

Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Mark G. Lawrence, Stefan Schäfer, Helene Muri, Vivian Scott, Andreas Oschlies, Naomi E. Vaughan, Olivier Boucher, Hauke Schmidt, Jim Haywood & Jürgen Scheffran. Nature Communications volume 9, Article number: 3734 (2018) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05938-3

Raucous Calgary rally rails against carbon tax

MSN
6 October 2018
Lauren Krugel

CALGARY – A raucous crowd of more than 1,500 crammed into a Calgary convention centre Friday night to hear Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, leader of Alberta’s Opposition United Conservative Party, rail against the federal carbon tax.

“It’s really, my friends the worst tax ever, a tax we can’t afford, a job-killing tax that hikes up the price of services and goods and drives up the price of heating your homes,” Ford told the anti carbon-tax rally.

The crowd frequently rose to its feet waving signs that said “Renew The Alberta Advantage” and “Scrap The Carbon Tax.” Many jeered when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s name was mentioned.

So many people showed up that some had to listen from the hallway so as not to run afoul of fire codes.

Ford made no secret of who he will root for in Alberta’s provincial election next spring.

“Let’s elect a new United Conservative government in Alberta,” he said. “A new day has dawned in Ontario and a new day will dawn in Alberta.”

Kenney has said the repeal of Alberta’s $30-a-tonne carbon tax will top his agenda if his party wins the election.

“There is no compassion in telling seniors on modest fixed incomes that they can’t have an active life just so you can feel virtuous by imposing this carbon tax on Albertans,” he said.

“It isn’t progressive and it’s not compassionate.”

Kenney said the “multibillion-dollar job killing carbon tax” was not in the NDP’s 2015 election platform.

“It is not just the biggest tax hike in Alberta history. It is the biggest lie in Alberta history,” he said.

“Why are we engaged in this act of economic masochism when it will not make one whit of difference for the environment?”

Heavy equipment operator Steve Spackman came to Calgary from Okotoks, just south of the city, for the rally because he’s fed up.

“We’d probably hire more people at work I bet you, if they didn’t have that carbon tax every month coming in for gas,” he said.

Alberta’s NDP government introduced the provincial levy before Ottawa required it. With the Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion in limbo, Premier Rachel Notley is now refusing to raise it in line with federal requirements.

Ottawa passed legislation last spring to give it authority to impose a carbon price on any province without its own beginning Jan. 1, 2019. It is starting at a minimum of $20 per tonne, rising $10 per year until 2022.

Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government scrapped that province’s cap-and-trade system in July and launched a challenge of the federal carbon plan.

Provincial resistance to Ottawa’s carbon policy has been ramping up.

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Ford met in Saskatoon on Thursday, where the two conservative leaders said they will continue to fight the tax together. To that end, Moe announced Saskatchewan will file for intervener status in Ontario’s court challenge.

Ontario had already pledged to support Saskatchewan’s court challenge when the premiers met in New Brunswick in July. Moe’s government has asked Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal to rule on whether the federal plan is constitutional.

Ford and Moe gained another ally Wednesday when Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister announced his province will not go ahead with a $25-a-tonne levy that was to come into effect in December.

“We’ll all be at the premier’s table defending common sense and Canadian taxpayers to fight against Trudeau’s carbon tax,” Ford said Friday.

Trudeau said earlier in the day that Canadians gave his government a mandate in the last election to implement a national carbon price and that is exactly what it is going to do.

“Pollution should not be free anywhere across this country,” he said at an event in Windsor, Ont.

Alberta Education Minister David Eggen said earlier Friday that Albertans should be disturbed by Ford and Kenney working together.

“Certainly we know how to solve our issues in Alberta and we don’t need someone form Ontario coming and telling us what to do,” he said.

“Our climate action plan is very effective up to now in creating jobs, helping to diversify the economy and quite frankly is helping to reduce pollution as well.”

 

Global Wheat Shortage / Hungersteine / Vegan Death Cult

From the appearance of “hunger stones” in the extreme drought conditions, to mainstream admission of the global wheat shortage, the signs of Peak Food are everywhere as the changes in our climate accelerate. Missouri regulates what you can call “meat.”‘ London’s first insect farm has opened. And the vegan death cult evidences itself to be equally venomous as the climate change cult. Christian breaks it down.

CO2 levels dangerously low for our planet; optimum levels of 800 – 1200 ppm would unleash reforestation, greening and food crop production

Natural News
13 August 2018
Isabelle Z.

(Natural News) Which planet sounds like a better place to live: One that is full of plants and trees and teeming with wildlife and biodiversity with plenty of food to go around, or a cold and barren one with a starving and dying-off population? If you’re like most people, you would choose the first option without hesitation. If you’re Carl Zimmer of the New York Times, however, it’s that second scenario that is inexplicably more appealing.

He wrote that “rising CO2 levels are making the world greener, but that’s nothing to celebrate.” It’s not? Reforestation, greening and food crop production are nothing to celebrate? Unfortunately, there is a lot of ignorance floating around about the topic of carbon and what it does to and in the environment. Climate change alarmists have been pushing the narrative that carbon is bad for the planet for so long that it’s frighteningly easy for the mainstream media to get away with expressing such ludicrous views. People read stories like Zimmer’s and simply nod in agreement because they think it’s what those who care about the planet should believe – never mind the fact that basic science tells us otherwise.

Respected ecologist Patrick Moore was quick to call out the article, calling the widely-read paper quote “a bad joke.” He believes the world is currently deficient in carbon dioxide compared to geological epochs in the past. He explained why he considers 800 to 1200 ppm of carbon dioxide to be the optimal level, pointing out that planting crops that are grown in greenhouses that have carbon dioxide pumped into them are ridiculously effective. Why would anyone use a greenhouse in the first place if carbon dioxide was actually bad?

He tweeted: “Try to tell a greenhouse grower that the effect of higher CO2 is “small.” They will laugh you out of the room with their 25-80% gain in yield.”

Even environmental journalist Andrew Revkin, who concedes that he has a lot of questions about carbon dioxide, said that Zimmer’s choice of the word “terrible” is without merit.

CO2 levels need to be higher, not lower

Plants simply can’t survive without carbon dioxide, and it’s already at dangerously low levels. If today’s levels were doubled, our planet would be lusher, with rain forests flourishing and deserts growing forests. This would lead to a more abundant food supply, better self-sufficiency and thriving life, as Mike Adams discusses in the must-see video “Carbon Dioxide: The Miracle Molecule of Life.”

Carbon dioxide is essential for life, and plants use it not only for breathing but to synthesize medicinal molecules like vitamin C, curcumin, and cannabidiol. It is not the enemy that it has been made out to be by those who don’t know any better.

Here is what would really happen if we didn’t have carbon dioxide on our planet: Plants would die, our food web would essentially collapse, and humans would become extinct. Those who are fighting the war against carbon are either completely clueless, blinded by greed because they stand to profit on some sort of global warming “solution,” or they simply want everyone to die.

Sources for this article include:

DailyCaller.com

NaturalNews.com

Before long, if you don’t agree with official climate change propaganda, you will be banned from YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter

Natural News
14 August 2018
Tracey Watson

(Natural News) Back in 2006, The Guardian published an article entitled, “A climate of censorship,” in which Brendan O’Neill warned that government officials in the U.K. were comparing climate change deniers to terrorists and arguing that both should be denied media air time. He warned that many such “deniers” were, in fact, scientists at respected British universities, and that no government official had the right to compare them to dangerous terrorists. He noted that there was an increasing push towards the censorship of free speech, including the right of such scientists and others to insist that man-made global warming does not exist.

O’Neill noted:

Increasingly, environmentalists are calling for the silencing of climate-change skeptics or deniers. The deniers’ words are so dangerous, we are told, that they must be censored for the good of humanity. Some have even claimed that in denying climate change, these individuals are committing a “crime against humanity” and should be put on trial.

I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change. But I am a free speech advocate. And this rising tide of intolerance and censoriousness in the debate about climate change should concern anyone who believes in free and open and rational debate.

A dozen years later, it is highly unlikely that The Guardian would even publish an opinion piece like O’Neill’s anymore. It has become commercially “dangerous” to suggest in any way, shape or form that man-made global warming might not be true – though these days you are more likely to encounter the term “climate change” than “global warming,” as temperatures have inconveniently refused to match up to the predicted highs of the so-called “experts.” In short, it would be financial suicide for any mainstream broadcaster or publication to give airtime to the evidence presented by anyone who denies global warming; their advertising dollars would simply disappear, and they would be mocked and decried as scientifically ignorant. (Related: Global warming debunked – NASA report verifies carbon dioxide cools atmosphere.)

YouTube censors any who dare to spread “climate misinformation”

BuzzFeed recently reported that the social media giant YouTube is now “fact-checking” any videos which dare to question climate change. The company has also taken the step of adding the following disclaimer to such videos:

Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.

Amazingly, this line is a direct quotation from a Wikipedia entry, as if Wikipedia can be referenced as an accurate source of scientific information!

Since March, YouTube has also been adding Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica entries next to “conspiracy theory” video clips, such as those claiming that the moon landing and Oklahoma City bombing never took place. By doing the same for climate change videos, they are directly censoring scientific information – in many cases presented by knowledgeable experts – and lumping it together in the public mind with completely unbelievable and historically unsound clips. (Related: The “global warming hoax – 30 years of failed predictions that never came true.)

There are respected scientists who insist global warming does not exist

What YouTube is doing would be acceptable if all the world’s most respected scientists were in agreement about the climate change theory. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as was recently illustrated when the highly respected, retired German climatologist Dr. Werner Kirstein addressed the annual Anti-Censorship Conference.

In reference to global warming, Kirstein warned: “[T]he science has been seriously compromised by politics, power-hungry bureaucrats and politically motivated organizations, such as the WMO, IPCC and The World Bank. It all comes down to funding. It’s sad, but that’s how it works.” He added, “Climate science is totally politicized.”

So much for Wikipedia and its “Multiple lines of scientific evidence.”

Of course, YouTube’s actions mimic those of all the other social media platforms, all of which have been actively censoring the information they have access to. Pretty soon, censorship won’t be enough, and anyone who admits to skepticism regarding the mainstream global warming narrative will likely be denied access to these platforms.

Discover the uncensored real truth about climate change at Real.video.

Sources include:

Who is Watching the Watchers & Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

With YouTube beginning the new “service” of providing a Wikipedia Link under videos it deems conspiratorial or wrong, I thought I would investigate the Wikipedia page that was linked under my video about climate change based on repeating cycles of solar activity ,not CO2. I found glaring inconsistencies between peer reviewed science and what is listed as fact in the Wikipedia Global Warming page.

After banning Alex Jones, tech giants now pushed to ban all “climate deniers,” targeting those who recognize the junk science of global warming

Natural News
10 August 2018
Vicki Batts

(Natural News) The great social media purge of 2018 is showing no signs of slowing down: Now that Alex Jones has been banned, the left-wing is on a power trip — and they’re already demanding more censorship. Media Matters, a left-wing organization funded by George Soros, has already stepped up to the soapbox, calling out Facebook for allowing “climate deniers” to have space on the network.

Writing for The Guardian, Dana Nuccitelli also recently called out the social media giant, with a headline declaring, “Facebook video spreads climate denial misinformation to 5 million users.” She goes on to argue that fake news is still running amok at Facebook. The call to silence anyone who presents opposing information is strong, and it’s coming from a variety of fronts.

Climate science is far from settled

The truth is that there is plenty of science to support the notion that global warming as we’ve come to know it is a hoax. Earlier this year, a pair of climate experts re-assessed simulations carried out by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The team ultimately found the future impact of climate change was overstated by up to 45 percent.

In 2017, a shocking report revealed that climate scientists had been fudging temperature data to make climate change look more pronounced. The science on climate change is far from a settled matter. Multiple reports have shown that much of the science surrounding climate change has been tampered with in one way or another.

Science that contradicts previously held beliefs is not automatically “fake news.” If that were the case, we’d all still believe the Earth is flat. It is wrong to silence every point of view that doesn’t align with left-wing dogma. These are important studies and people have the right to know about them. People have the right to hear and see divergent opinions: It encourages critical thinking and independent thought.

More censorship coming down the pike

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated in a recent interview that he does not support flat-out banning “climate denial” or similar ideas. He reportedly commented, “Our goal with fake news is not to prevent anyone from saying something untrue — but to stop fake news and misinformation spreading across our services. If something is spreading and is rated false by fact checkers, it would lose the vast majority of its distribution in News Feed.”

Zuckerberg espoused similar sentiments regarding InfoWars before banning him from the site. How long will it take for the Zuck to cave into the pressure from Democrats and left-wing organizations this time remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure: The Left  doesn’t want conservatives to have any space to voice their opinions, at all.

As Media Matters writes, “Combating fake news is key to combating climate change. As an editorial in the journal Nature Communications argued last year, ‘Successfully inoculating society against fake news is arguably essential’ if major climate initiatives are to succeed. Facebook could be a big part of the solution.”

They go on to accuse Facebook of “kowtowing” to conservatives; it would seem the Left won’t be happy until the conservative voice has been erased from the internet entirely. The notion of inoculating society against certain points of view is particularly troublesome — it’s as if the Left is admitting they want to control what people think.

The censorship of Alex Jones was just the beginning. Now liberals want to censor climate science — what will come next, censoring pro-liberty speech?

See coverage of real climate news at ClimateScienceNews.com.

Sources for this article include:

Dr. Tim Ball and the Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science – The Inconvenient Truth

We had a little trouble connecting in the beginning jump to 10 minutes to heat Dr. Tim Ball. BOOM Dr. Tim Ball joins us on a journey that uncovers the heart of the globalist deception – Global Warming/Climate Change. In this first part of the Tim Ball interview your eyes will be opened to the TRUTH about the deception. It is not your fault. The hypocrisy that the developed nations used fossil fuels to improve the length and quality of life and are now denying that opportunity to other nations is egregious. What makes it worse is that we know that the development the environmentalists oppose is the best way to reduce population and the pressures it brings. I wrote about what is called the demographic transition here. This hypocrisy is throughout all the environmentalist’s actions as they live the good life while telling others to live in poverty or at best reduced opportunity. Dr. Tim Ball exposes the malicious misuse of climate science as it was distorted by dishonest brokers to advance the political aspirations of the progressive left https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Cor… This book examines the claims of human induced global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) using proper journalistic and investigative techniques. It explains how it was a premeditated, orchestrated deception, using science to impose a political agenda. It fooled a majority including most scientists. They assumed that other scientists would not produce science for a political agenda. German Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls finally decided to look for himself. Here is what he discovered. Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.…scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. This book uses the same approach used in investigative journalism. It examines the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How.https://www.amazon.com/Human-Caused-G… Dr. Tim Ball’s Curriculum Vitae http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ba…

Sierra Club says you’re RACIST if you don’t agree with “climate change” mythology

Natural News
24 June 2018
Isabelle Z

(Natural News) Climate change alarmists can’t really fight against science, so they’ve stooped to some old-fashioned name-calling instead. Now, if you don’t believe the climate change mythology, it must mean you’re racist, according to the Sierra Club.

Yes, you read that correctly. The long-standing environmental group has been latching onto a study that claims there is a strong correlation between “reduced agreement with the scientific consensus on climate change” and “high levels of racial resentment.”

The study, which was carried out by DePauw University’s Salil D. Benegal, used public opinion data from surveys like the American National Election Studies (ANES) and Pew to imply that racial prejudices and identification were correlated with climate change opinions during Obama’s presidency.

Specifically, Benegal said that Republicans who had high “racial resentment scores” were 84 percent likely to dispute the notion of manmade climate change. Moreover, Republicans with higher scores for racial resentment were found to be three times as likely to disagree with the sentiment that climate change was real than those white Republicans who scored lower on the racism scale.

Just how is “racial resentment” assessed? ANES has been interviewing national samples of voters both before and after every presidential election in the country since the 1960s. To determine racial resentment against African Americans, it asks people how much they agree or disagree, on a scale from one to five, with a series of statements like, “If Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites,” or “Irish, Italians, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.”

Backlash against climate change related to anti-Obama sentiment?

The Sierra Club sent out a provocative tweet saying, “The percentage of white Americans who said that they believed climate change is a very serious problem declined during the Obama administration. Why?”

Somehow, Benegal has decided that Obama’s skin color drove people’s skepticism of climate change. Of course, the rising doubt would have nothing to do with the growing body of evidence against the idea that global warming is caused by human activity, right? That’s far less sensational and requires them to admit that the science isn’t really backing their idea. When all else fails, the left can always just accuse people of being racist!

After all, it’s an approach that worked for Al Gore, as the Daily Caller points out. He has compared the global warming crusade to the civil rights and abolitionist movements, drawing sharp criticism from many groups.

Conservative Black Leadership’s Horace Cooper said at the time: “When Al Gore, Jr. associates these moral movements of history with one grounded in questionable data, he gives climate change activists unearned moral credibility they haven’t earned and don’t deserve.”

The facts are the real reason people doubt climate change

In recent years, research has shown that climate change predictions were completely exaggerated, overestimating the impact to the tune of as much as 45 percent. It has also come to light that “climate scientists” have been faking their data, altering recorded surface temperatures to make it look like warming occurred when it didn’t. They’ve also been “adjusting” tidal gauge data to support the climate change narrative. If people have been moving away from the idea that human activity is causing global warming, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the growing body of evidence that it’s little more than a hoax.

See Climate.news for more news coverage of real climate science.

Sources for this article include:

DailyCaller.com

DailyCaller.com

Metro.co.uk

NaturalNews.com

My Conclusion: I’m guess I’m Racist because don’t believe in the lie Al Gore tell us that we are blamed for global warming and climate change. We all know that the sun the main driver of climate change not Carbon Dioxide (CO2), not humans. People do not give into the lie that left are willing to throw at us; even if they’re going call us names, cyber bullying us on the internet just because we refuse to believe into their lies. Thing is it’s not just because we refuse to believe; we just think for ourselves; do our research to decide if it is true of false. I know thinking for ourselves may seen uncomfortable for many but at the end it’s worth it and it’s a win win.