At the risk of being called a denier, and/or other names by the AGW mafia, I have to think that their fear driven, money grabbing, power based claims of the “world coming to an end”, might be just a bit premature, if not outright unfounded. As late as 2007, the chief AGW alarmist, Al Gore, predicted that the Arctic Sea would be ice free by 2014. Well considering this recent report, it seems as though he missed the mark:
……seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
That’s the problem with settled science based on consensus – it’s fact free, and based only on opinion and data. Two measures of which are easily manipulated and influenced by long sought after goals of centralized power and wealth distribution. Take for example, these “science based” conclusions:
- Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.
- Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’
- Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.
- Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.
- ‘Ice-free in 2050 is a possible scenario, but I don’t think it is a likely scenario,’ she concluded.
In light of these inconvenient worldly occurrences and shifting scientific opinions, which are resulting in rational people questioning the heretic and apoplectic predictions of AGW alarmists, the UN and our President are now choosing to bypass the rational based crowd and forge agreements on their own to resolve this manufactured crisis. Perhaps they see their window of opportunity to distribute and hijack huge amounts of wealth closing. And of course, championing this effort by our radical President to hurt America’s economy are the legions of leftists who believe that if America would just give up our jobs and wealth first, other nations will follow:
President Obama “is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement” but “without ratification from Congress,….the U.N. framework gives poor countries a voice, and hence a means for extracting aid in return for their consent to a climate treaty. As I’ve explained, you can have either climate justice (meaning compensation for poor countries hardest hit by climate change) or a climate treaty—not both……………By citing an international agreement, by contrast, government lawyers may be able to convince courts that our regulations will in fact accomplish something, by inspiring reciprocal action by foreign governments.
The left driven agenda of “climate change” has never been about rational, fact based concerns of staving off “the end of times”. It has always been a purely political driven agenda with goals of centralizing power and control over national economies and redistributing wealth into the hands the noble worldly elite. To date, these goals have been not as transparent, but considering that the world’s climate just isn’t cooperating with the “consensus models”, I think millions of people are starting to wake up and disagree with this agenda and see it for what it is. What millions of people will agree with I think, are sensible plans to carefully extract our vast reserves of natural gas and crude oil and lessen our dependence on unstable, violent countries, while at the same time incentivizing entrepreneurs and the private markets to find a sustainable, cleaner and viable greener energy platform, and that is a winning strategy the GOP should pounce on.