Al Gore Should Be Arrested For Making Millions Off The Fake Man Mad Global Warming.
A $240 PER GALLON GAS TAX TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING? NEW UN REPORT SUGGESTS CARBON PRICING
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.
Tree Hugging Idiot.
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.
Political Correctness Gone Amuck.
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.
Nuff Said!
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, the stretch goal of the Paris accord.
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.
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, 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]-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 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-consistent cost-effective pathways.”
The city is suing BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, according to The Associated Press.
New York alleges the five major oil companies have played a role in global warming, the AP reported and is seeking to recoup billions of dollars spent preparing for climate change.
The city previously said it was going to divest its five pension funds from fossil fuel companies, according to the AP.
In a statement about plans to divest, de Blasio said New York City is “standing up for future generations by becoming the first major US city to divest our pension funds from fossil fuels.”
“At the same time, we’re bringing the fight against climate change straight to the fossil fuel companies that knew about its effects and intentionally misled the public to protect their profits,” he said.
Yes Climate Change is really real.
“As climate change continues to worsen, it’s up to the fossil fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient.”
“ExxonMobil welcomes any well-meaning and good faith attempt to address the risks of climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue and requires global participation and actions,” the company said in a statement. “Lawsuits of this kind — filed by trial attorneys against an industry that provides products we all rely upon to power the economy and enable our domestic life – simply do not do that,” they added.
Hypocrites Mayor Bill de Blasio and Deputy Mayor Richard Buery getting off Helicopter.
A spokesman for Shell said the issue of global warming is not one that should be handled in the courts. A spokesman for BP declined to comment to the AP.
Last year, San Francisco and Oakland sued the five major oil companies, blaming them for the effects of climate change. The cities in September each filed a lawsuit in their respective county courts against the oil companies.
These 2 Metro-sexual Punks Think They Can Tell Us About Climate Change.
As Christian Toto reports in Washington Times, all the movies with environmental themes flopped.
These included:
Bladerunner 2049, where eco-systems have collapsed – presumably because of man’s selfishness, greed, and refusal to amend his carbon-guzzling lifestyle – and food can now only be grown under hermetically sealed pods.
Stupid Liberals Think We Are Killing The Earth Because We Are Greedy And Selfish. This Coming From Dumb As Self-Centered, Drug Addicted Morons.
Mother!, where the Jennifer Lawrence character apparently symbolizes Mother Earth. According to the director Darren Aronofsky: “America is schizophrenic. We go from backing the Paris climate [accord] to eight months later pulling out. It’s tragic, but in many ways, we’ve revealed who the enemy is and now we can go attack it.”
They Want You To Believe That This Skank Jennifer Lawrence Is Mother Earth!
Geostorm, where the world is all but destroyed by the weather-controlling satellites which were designed to save it. (So: quite accurate, actually by Hollywood standards. A fine and plausible depiction of the unintended consequences of idiot, well-meaning scientists who think they have the power to ‘combat’ the natural process of ‘climate change’).
Liberals Have Been Saying That This Would Happen For Years And They Have Been Wrong.
Downsizing, where the eco-friendly Norwegians develop an ingenious way of coping with overpopulation: a ray which shrinks you to a fraction of your normal size, thus enabling humans to live more sustainably and deplete scarce resources at a much slower rate.
Matt Damon And These Perverts In Hollywood Want To Tell Us About Downsizing To Save The earth When They All Fly On Private Jets And Own Several Large Homes.
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which opened at a measly four theaters in its first weekend and grossed $124,823.00.
Al Gore Needs His Ass Kick For Lying About Climate Change.
By its seventh week, it was doing so badly that even Captain Underpants: the Movie — released six weeks earlier — was outperforming it at the box office. Its takings were a fraction of its predecessor’s, An Inconvenient Truth.
Perhaps audiences had simply had enough of Gore’s scaremongering, as summed up in this scathing review in the Australian by Maurice Newman:
It continues the scaremongering of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Like the first, it’s full of scary weather videos and features, Gore reminding us that we are at a tipping point with the result that our children will inherit a world of “stronger storms, worsening floods, deeper droughts, mega-fires, tropical diseases spreading through vulnerable populations in all parts of the Earth, melting ice caps flooding coastal cities, unsurvivable heat extremes, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees”. Facts don’t stand in the way of a good story. But, then, most who consider this movie a “must see” will take delight in having their fantasies and prejudices confirmed.
The movie shamelessly promotes green tech, a field in which Gore is a successful investor. His advocacy and political access are believed to have made him the world’s first “carbon billionaire”. But that’s the self-serving nature of climate-change politics. It confers wealth and privilege on its boosters. Doubters are banished.
The dire performance of these movies would seem to confirm what many of us have long suspected about the misplaced priorities of the liberals inside the Hollywood bubble.
They’ve deluded themselves that they’re in the consciousness-raising business. (Hence, e.g., the new woke Star Wars installment).
We still think they ought to be in the entertainment business.
Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).
But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.
The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for Earth Systems and Environment.
The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi and Mumbai.
Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone reports:
The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.
The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.
Here is a before/after from Karachi:
The authors do not mince their words. They refer to these adjustments as “highly questionable” and “suspicious.”
That’s because they can find no plausible scientific explanation for the adjustments.
As they explain at the beginning of their paper, it is hard to put together consistent sea level records covering a long time period. This is because tide gauges are often the result of multiple sets of data, taken over different time periods using different instruments, which are then spliced together.
What is proposed as a single record in databases such as the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) (PSMSL 2017a) is often the composition of data collected by different instruments, sometimes in different locations or over different time windows, with significant gaps in between one measurement and the others. This is the case of the Aden, Yemen tide gauge that is the only tidal location of the Arabian Peninsula spanning a time window long enough to infer a trend and acceleration of the relative sea level (assuming there was continuous measurement and no quality issue). In Aden, similar to Karachi and Mumbai and other tide gauges of the area, a single-tide gauge record is the result of multiple sets of data subjectively coupled together. While a new tide gauge is recording since about 2007, the alignment of the previous data is continuously changing.
So there is nothing per se wrong with PSMSL making adjustments in order to make the different datasets align.
What is wrong is the way that the scientists at PSMSL have adjusted them. In every case, they have revised them in order to make them produce a sharp upward trend in sea level rise – despite the fact that global records do not support this.
The truth, Parker and Ollier conclude in their paper, is that sea level has changed very little in the three sites examined:
The reconstructed tide gauge records of Aden, Mumbai and Karachi are perfectly consistent with multiple lines of evidence from other key sites of the Indian Ocean including Qatar, Maldives, Bangladesh and Visakhapatnam. The sea levels have been stable since the start of the twentieth century in Aden similar to Karachi and Mumbai.
But the official PSMSL data – as used by other global data-keeping bodies such as NOAA – claims that there has been a sharp increase.
In Aden, for example, the alarmists have turned a modest 1.21 mm/year rise into a 3.02 mm/year rise.
In Aden, with data 1880–1969, the trend was + 1.21 mm/year.
Per the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Centre for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (NOAA 2017a), with data from an intermediate version of a single-tide gauge record by PSMSL we may call (n-1), the sea-level trend in Aden is + 3.02 mm/year based on the monthly average mean sea-level (MSL) results 1879–2011, Fig. 6a (image from NOAA(2017b) downloaded on September 13, 2017).
Using the online analysis tool of Burton’s sealevel.info (Sealevel.info 2017a), with data from the latest update of the PSMSL database that we may call version n, with 2 more years of data, but also with some other corrections, see the data before the year 1900 shifted up, the sea-level trend in Aden is + 1.35 mm/year based on the MSL results 1879–2013, Fig. 6b (image from Sealevel.info (2017b) downloaded on September 13, 2017). Worthy of note, the acceleration is now large and positive.
Again, there is no plausible scientific explanation for these adjustments.
As the authors put it:
“It is always highly questionable to shift data collected in the far past without any proven new supporting material.”
Indeed, but it is perfectly consistent with the behavior of alarmist scientists in other fields, notably those concerning surface temperature data records. As we have reported here before, there is copious evidence to suggest that the gatekeepers of global warming have consistently and shamelessly cooked the books and rigged the data in order to give the impression that “climate change” is a major and unprecedented phenomenon.
A major part of the global warming scare narrative is that melting ice caps will cause sea levels to rise at a dangerous and unprecedented rate, enveloping low-lying Pacific islands, flooding vulnerable countries like Bangladesh and perhaps one day drowning even places like Manhattan.
There is little if any scientific evidence that this is actually happening.
What’s extraordinary is the desperation of scientists at what ought to be impeccably neutral and trustworthy institutions such as NASA, NOAA and PSMSL to pretend that it is.
When alarmists in charge of surface temperature datasets make dishonest adjustments to exaggerate the appearance of global warming, it looks like corruption.
When alarmists in the entirely separate field of sea level measurement make precisely the same sort of dishonest adjustments in order to accord with the same global warming narrative, it starts to look like a conspiracy.
Yes I Believe In Global Warning You Damn Idiots. The Fuhrer Was A Tree Hugger.
The Great Global Warming Scam Began with the Nazis…
If you really want to understand the great global warming scam you must listen to my podcast this week with Rupert Darwall.
In his new book Green Tyranny, Darwall tells a story so extraordinary and implausible that it’s no wonder most of the mainstream media has been too scared to touch it.
The bottom line: it all started with the Nazis.
Yes, I know. It sounds so click-baity, doesn’t it?
That’ll be why even those journals and writers that have reviewed the book favorably have tended to steer clear of the key chapter in Darwall’s book. The one mischievously titled ‘Europe’s First Greens’.
Europe’s First Greens were, of course, the Nazis.
The documentary evidence provided by Darwall is irrefutable, for this is a considered, well-researched and scholarly work not a potboiler.
What Darwall demonstrates is that the ideology driving the current climate scare originated in Hitler’s Germany.
Angela Merkel’s Energiewende, the brainwashing of your kids in school with green propaganda,the Climate Industrial Complex, the black outs in South Australia, Solyndra, Obama promising that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket”, the bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes destroying a skyline near you, the real reason Trump just had to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord – it’s all basically the fault of the Nazis.
Americans Are So Damn Stupid. I know Climate Change Is A Joke But I Still Gave Them Solyndra $535 m. I’m A Pimp Damit
That’s because Nazis – though similar in so many ways to their fellow totalitarians the Communists – had at least one major point of difference with Marxist ideology: they feared and loathed industrial progress and they worshipped nature.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man.
The Fuhrer, in other words, was as big a Gaia worshipper as even Naomi Klein or Emma Thompson or Leonardo di Caprio.
As Hitler thought, so did the Nazi intelligentsia. Many of them were vegetarians and, like Rudolf Hess and Agriculture Minister Walter Darre were big fans of organic farming. The party was fiercely anti-smoking (even though the Germans continued to smoke fanatically so long as tobacco was available). They were also massively into “renewable” energy, especially wind, tidal power and hydroelectric.
Hitler said in a dinner party conversation in 1941:
“We shall have to use every method of encouraging whatever might ensure us the gain of a single kilowatt…Coal will disappear one day.”
He then speculated on renewable solutions to this ‘peak coal’ problem:
“The future belongs, surely, to water – to the wind and the tides.”
(This isn’t mentioned in the book but Hitler’s favorite SS commando – Otto Skorzeny – who miraculously survived the war and retired to live in Spain spent his later years campaigning on behalf of the wind industry.)
Darwall doesn’t mince his words:
The Nazis’ profound hostility to capitalism and their identification with nature-politics led them to advocate green policies half a century before any other political party. As an approximation, subtract Nazi race-hate, militarism and desire for world conquest, and Nazi ideology ends up looking not dissimilar to today’s environmental movement.
What Darwall goes on to demonstrate is how this mindset, unabated by the defeat of Nazi Germany, continued to dominate European political thought. This was especially so in the two countries most responsible for promulgating the climate change scare: Sweden and Germany.
In Germany, the Nazis’ green ideology became linked inextricably with that of the Peace movement – which, with a certain irony, was largely sponsored by the Soviet Union.
Sweden, meanwhile, did most to get the global warming scare up and running in the early days. Bert Bolin, the first chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a Swede.
You’ll have to read Darwall’s book for the full, rather complicated story. By the end you’ll have an answer to perhaps the most puzzling of the many questions about the global warming industry: why, given the scientific evidence is so flimsy, does it carry on pushing its cause so fervently?
The answer is simple: because “global warming” is not about “the science” and never was about “the science.”
Like the “acid rain” scare and the “nuclear winter” scare, the man-made global warming scare is a fake news story designed to push a political and economic agenda.
At the bottom of that agenda is the same superstitious fear the Nazis had: that industrial progress is morally wrong because it is against Nature.
Hence the greenies’ obsession with renewables. Despite all the evidence that renewables do at least as much environmental damage as fossil fuels, only much more expensively, and without making any meaningful difference to “climate change” the green ideology persists in pretending that renewables are the “clean” “natural” alternative to “dirty” fossil fuels.
It’s about emotion not logic; about the narrative, not reality.
For decades we’ve been gulled by a compliant (and invariably ignorant) media into believing that the global warming scare is about scientists doing clever sciencey stuff and reaching important conclusions which the world can only ignore at its peril.
But actually, all along, the tail has been wagging the dog.
The scientists are a virtual irrelevance in this story: merely the useful idiots of a political agenda.
That agenda is part religion – a kind of pagan nature worship expressed through opposition to Western industrial civiliation and the embrace of retrograde technologies like wind power.
And it’s part leftist politics and economics: a way by which Europe can destroy and overtake the United States’ economic hegemony by neutralising one of its greatest competitive advantages – the abundance of fossil fuels which have now made it the world’s number one energy superpower.
Donald Trump probably hasn’t a clue about the intellectual and ideological undercurrents which created the great global warming scare. But he’s a businessman and saw what was happening through gut instinct.
Global warming is a scam – the biggest the world has ever seen.
