User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Hot Talk, Cold Science and The Dangers of Centralized Planning in the Name of Clima

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 736,621, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 76.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    472171
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    210,497
    Points
    736,621
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    136,880
    Thanked 123,155x in 79,520 Posts
    Mentioned
    2449 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Hot Talk, Cold Science and The Dangers of Centralized Planning in the Name of Clima

    History teaches us that centralized planning is a failure. Why do so many insist central planning is the only way to solve "climate change?"

    Hot Talk, Cold Science and The Dangers of Centralized Planning in the Name of Climate Change

    When former President Barack Obama says We are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of climate change, hes not talking about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The stated goals of the U.N. Paris Agreement that Obama, and other world leaders, embrace are properly viewed as a proxy for a larger agenda aimed at dismantling American independence and freedom.
    Right. I have long said that about the Warmists' agenda.

    After all, the U.S. already leads the world in reducing Co2 emissions thanks in large part to hydraulic fracturing that accelerated during Donald Trumps presidency. Forbes reports on the emissions reductions that occurred much to the consternation of the news media and its cheerleading for U.N. directives that raise energy costs without impacting climate.




    The U.S. Energy Information Administration has collected data that shows how innovative drilling techniques has unleashed natural gas, which in turn has been driving down emissions. This trendline has continued into the Biden presidency in part because natural gas has replaced coal and in part because of COVID-19 restrictions on travel and other activities.
    So, if Obama isnt talking about emissions, what did he actually mean while addressing the U.Ns latest climate change conference in Glasgow, Scotland earlier this month? The answer comes in the form of the $1 trillion infrastructure bill that President Biden signed into law on Monday, and other anti-energy initiatives, ostensibly advanced in the name of climate change. The directives and mandates included in the legislation make it evident that what Obama really meant during his talk at the U.N. is that centralized planners in Europe and America are nowhere near where they would like to be as it relates to implementing coercive policy measures.
    The climate change agenda initiated under Obama and reloaded under Biden is built around an anti-carbon mindset that seeks to replace fossil fuels with expensive, unreliable forms of energy that will raise household and transportation costs for the average citizens Lunch Bucket Joe claims to represent. The American Energy Alliance, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit group that favors free market policies in the energy sector, details the taxpayer-funded subsidies and slush funds for favored special interests now in motion in a recent analysis of the infrastructure bill.
    But the problem here is not just with the economics of what Team Biden has wrought, but with the science of climate change. A good source here is the late Fred Singer, an American physicist, who was also a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and a research fellow with the Independent Institute, a public policy research organization based in Oakland, California. The institute has just released an updated version of Singers book Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings Unfinished Debate that exposes how the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has peddled misinformation and alarmist rhetoric that does not hold up under scientific scrutiny.
    Singer, and his co-authors, document how the IPCC has had to walk back several alarmist claims. The book notes, for instance, that the U.N. panel was finally forced to concede that -- counter to its projections -- a 15-year period of no significant warming since 1998 despite a 7 percent rise in atmospheric Co2 levels. Singer viewed the IPCC as a political rather than scientific organization that deliberately and repeatedly hid uncertainty, and the absence of critical data while evading evidence that questions or contradicts its apocalyptic prediction. The end result, he wrote, is a terrible crime against science and the adoption of unnecessary and very costly public policies, and grave damage to the reputation and credibility of science.







    Inconvenient truths for the Warmists to absorb.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (11-22-2021),stjames1_53 (11-22-2021)

  3. #2
    Points: 113,269, Level: 81
    Level completed: 88%, Points required for next Level: 381
    Overall activity: 31.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger First ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    stjames1_53's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    53308
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    41,947
    Points
    113,269
    Level
    81
    Thanks Given
    83,842
    Thanked 24,326x in 17,010 Posts
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    History teaches us that centralized planning is a failure. Why do so many insist central planning is the only way to solve "climate change?"

    Hot Talk, Cold Science and The Dangers of Centralized Planning in the Name of Climate Change



    Right. I have long said that about the Warmists' agenda.



    Inconvenient truths for the Warmists to absorb.
    It's all a sham. We could no more stop the natural progression of climate change than we can pull the moon down to earth.
    But they want their stinking global tax and are starting to invent ways to procure that.

    Global tax to fight climate change my ass.
    For waltky: http://quakes.globalincidentmap.com/
    "The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
    - Thucydides

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" B. Franklin
    Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum

  4. #3
    Original Ranter
    Points: 736,621, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 76.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    472171
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    210,497
    Points
    736,621
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    136,880
    Thanked 123,155x in 79,520 Posts
    Mentioned
    2449 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stjames1_53 View Post
    It's all a sham. We could no more stop the natural progression of climate change than we can pull the moon down to earth.
    But they want their stinking global tax and are starting to invent ways to procure that.

    Global tax to fight climate change my ass.
    It isn't about the climate. It is about globalism.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts