Further, the UK Guardian fails to mention more pertinent data about US climate. Which is that US CO2 has dropped steadily over the past 20 years, that the change “could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy,” and that our emissions are expected to go even lower. Meaning whatever weather the US had this year, human beings in the US today can’t possibly be the cause of it. Will the UK Guardian amend its articles in the interest of not misleading the public? Here is the excerpt:
11/8/12, “Can US business rise to Obama’s climate change challenge?” UK Guardian, Jo Confino
“The Sierra Club and 350.org, in an open letter, wrote: “In the wake of hurricane Sandy, as the warmest year in American history draws to a close, as the disastrous drought lingers on in the midwest, everyone is looking for ways to make a real difference in the fight to slow climate change.””
—————————————————————
Here is how 2012 data may have been misinterpreted:
11/9/12, “EPIC Data Tampering At NCDC,” Steven Goddard
“After a cold October, thermometers show that year to date (2012) temperatures in the US are third warmest – after 1921 and 1934.
NCDC reports that 2012 YTD is by far the warmest.
—————————————————————
They accomplished this by cooling 1921 almost two degrees relative to 2012.
The US government has beaten and abused the US historical temperature beyond recognition. These adjustments are about 4X larger than what is published in the USHCN literature.
At the end of the year, NCDC will announce that 2012 is the hottest year ever, and no mention will be made that this is not the measured thermometer data.
It is maddening paying taxes to a government which lies about everything.”
——————————————————
Ms. Goldenberg's article also contains the excerpt.
11/7/12, “Barack Obama stokes expectations of climate change action in second term,” UK Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg
==============================
350.org is funded by a fossil fuel billionaire:
4/21/11 Press release announcing Bill McKibben merger with oil billionaire Rockefeller Fund:
4/21/11, “1Sky and 350.org: Stronger as One,” rbf.org, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Jessica Bailey
“This month marked the exciting marriage of 1Sky and 350.org—two grantees of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Sustainable Development program.”…
============================
Forbes profile, David Rockefeller, Sr., net worth “$2.5 billion,” “Source of Wealth: Standard Oil, Banking”
===============================
Exxon was created from the Standard Oil Company of John D. Rockefeller:
“A Guide to the ExxonMobil Historical Collection, 1790-2004: Part 1,” University of Texas at Austin
“With the merger of Exxon and Mobil in 1999, the newly formed Exxon Mobil Corporation brought together a shared history that dates back over 120 years to their origins as part of the Standard Oil family of companies.
John D. Rockefeller and partners formed the Standard Oil Company of Ohio in 1870.”…
===========================
Below 350.org’s Bill McKibben with the Exxon logo:
============================
8/16/12, “AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low,” AP, Kevin Begos
“In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for “cautious optimism” about potential ways to deal with climate change….
In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy.”…
=============================
6/4/12, “Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006,” Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage
“Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord.”…
=================================
1/15/11, “Recession Special: Cleaner Air,“ NY Times, Matthew Wald
“What the government has not mandated, the economy is doing on its own: emissions of global warming gases in the United States are down.
According to the Energy Department, carbon dioxide emissions peaked in this country in 2005 and will not reach that level again until the early 2020s.”…
=================================
6/22/12, “U.S. cuts greenhouse gases despite do-nothing Congress,” CNN, Steve Hargreaves
“Even factoring in a stronger economy, forecasters see greenhouse gas emissions continuing to fall….Others take the U.S. success in reducing its energy sector emissions as a sign that its fragmented, state-based, regulatory approach has worked better than Europe’s market-based cap-and-trade approach.”
=================================
NRDC notes US CO2 drop and the fact that there has been minimal press coverage of it:
6/26/12, “The Incredible Shrinking Carbon Pollution Forecast – Part 2,” switchboard.nrdc.org, Dan Lashof
“While there has been some press coverage of these facts (see here and here) I continue to find that most people are surprised to learn about this progress.”…
————————————————
If US temperatures go up for a day, a month or 6 months, US human-caused CO2 is not, can’t possibly be the reason.
6/29/12, “US Carbon Output Forecasts Shrink Again,” American Interest, Walter Russell Mead
----------------------------------------------------
Pres. Obama referenced the 20 year drop in US CO2 emissions in a speech on Aug. 28 though didn’t discuss its stunning ramifications. In the speech he only used the term ‘greenhouse gases‘ though the recent AP report about the 20 year drop specifically cited CO2:
8/16/12, AP: “In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years.“…
From Pres. Obama’s speech:
8/28/12, at Iowa State: “We’re on track to emit fewer greenhouse gases this year than we have in nearly 20 years. You can keep those trends going.”
The NY Times noted Obama avoided connecting the meaning of these scientific findings to ordinary Americans on whose backs they were obtained.
The NY Times says:
8/28/12, “He did not note the role of the recession, with its attendant drop in manufacturing and car and truck trips.”
=====================================
Whatever weather the US is having, it can’t possibly be the result of excess CO2. Other countries’ CO2 hasn’t dropped despite hundreds of billions spent on cap and trade and extra taxes. This isn’t to say the US hasn’t become partners with the ‘climate’ industry.
Trillions have been taken from US taxpayers for climate expenses via outright agency budget allocations, tax subsidies, diversion of US military to climate or green projects, countless federal regulations, vast sums shipped out in foreign aid for ‘climate’ endeavors, etc. Devoting 13 federal agencies to ‘climate’ matters is hardly ‘lagging’ in 'action.'
Global Warming ‘action’ was institutionalized in US government in 1990 by George Bush the 1st in the “U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990.” (He mentions CO2 near the end). The US even exports fuel now.
=====================================
Why the stunning US CO2 drop is spoken of quietly or not at all:
Those invested in CO2 endangerment have been caught by surprise. No one expected the US to turn around it’s CO2 emissions as quickly and steadily as it has (whether they needed to be turned around or not).
Trillions have been gambled in the CO2 terror industry against the likelihood of this happening in the US. Fortunes have been made. Now technically other fortunes have been lost. The news is being ignored or glossed over as it was with Mr. Obama.
Media such as the UK Guardian face a professional loss and possibly a financial one.
But they should be happy nonetheless. They shrank the US and it’s over.
-----------------------------------
A note about the UK monarchy, CO2 terror, and the pressure under which UK media outlets operate:
The UK monarchy’s financial survival reportedly depends on the world believing in man-caused CO2 terror. That is the UK’s problem, not ours. We in the US aren’t interested in being ruled by a monarchy, or even an EU, a point we attempted to make
- in 1776. via Tom Nelson
.
No comments:
Post a Comment