Obama Admin Vows To Sign UN Global Warming Deal Without Senate Approval
The Obama administration has vowed to sign a United Nations global warming deal in April despite intense opposition from the Senate and a Supreme Court ruling derailing the government’s green regulatory scheme.
“We’re going to go ahead and sign the agreement this year,” Todd Stern, the U.S.’s climate envoy told reporters Tuesday, brushing aside questions about last week’s Supreme Court ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) key climate regulation.
“It is entirely premature, really premature to assume the Clean Power Plan will be struck down but, even if it were, come what may, we are sticking to our plan to sign, to join,” Stern said of the EPA’s rule.
Impossible To Ignore …In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On Climate Science!
…Greens Prematurely Look to ‘Upside’ of Scalia’s Death
News of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was only minutes old when global warming alarmism advocates began cheering.
New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait notably tweeted in the wake of the news: “The most immediate political consequence of Scalia’s death: Obama’s climate plan will not be struck down.” And that was only the first of many tweets from alarmists looking to the “upside” of Justice Scalia’s death.
Only a few days earlier, Justice Scalia had voted to stop the EPA’s global warming rules (aka the Obama Clean Power Plan) pending completion of ongoing litigation. More than just a mere procedural determination, the 5-4 order was based on the fact that the states and industry suing to stop the EPA rules were likely to win on the merits of the case. But then the unexpected and unfortunate death of Justice Scalia was announced.
As expressed in Chait’s tweet, alarmists are hoping, if not assuming, that Justice Scalia’s death changes everything in their favor. Well, not so fast.…
Obama to sign Paris climate pact despite Supreme Court stay
The Obama administration will officially sign onto last year’s international climate change pact, despite its top policy being put on ice by the Supreme Court.
Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate diplomat and negotiator for last year’s Paris agreement, said Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s judicial stay last week of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan doesn’t change the administration’s plans.
“It is entirely premature, really premature to assume the Clean Power Plan will be struck down but, even if it were, come what may, we are sticking to our plan to sign, to join,” Stern told reporters in Brussels, Belgium, after he met with the European Union’s top climate official, according to Reuters.
“We’re going to go ahead and sign the agreement this year,” he said.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last week to put the climate change rule for power plants on hold while 26 states and various energy interests litigate against it in the federal court system.
It was the first time the high court has issued a judicial stay when a lower court refused, and the first judicial stay when the merits of the case haven’t not been heard by another court.…
Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/propoganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/
Lindzen if referring to the often cited statistic among environmentalists and liberal politicians that 97 percent of climate scientists agree human activities are causing the planet to warm. This sort of argument has been around for decades, but recent use of the statistic can be traced to a 2013 report by Australian researcher John Cook.
Cook’s paper found of the scientific study “abstracts expressing a position on [manmade global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But Cook’s assertion has been heavily criticized by researchers carefully examining his methodology.
A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.
A 2013 study by Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation found that Cook had to cast a wide net to cram scientists into his so-called consensus. To be part of Cook’s consensus, a scientific study only needed to agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.
“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” wrote Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”
Despite the dubious nature of the consensus, liberal politicians used the figure to bolster their calls for policies to fight global warming. President Barack Obama even cited the Cook paper while announcing sweeping climate regulations.
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest,” Obama said in 2013, announcing his new global warming plan. “They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/propoganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/#ixzz40M06N65Y…
Global warming has fried BBC’s brains over flights to America
‘Climate sceptics” have been entertained by the extravagant coverage given by the BBC to the finding of a Reading University computer model that, thanks to climate change, airliners will take longer to cross the Atlantic. The computer found that a “doubling of atmospheric CO2” will increase the speed of the “jet stream”, adding an hour or two to flight times between Britain and America, thus requiring more fuel and thus causing air fares to rise.
Apart from the curious assumption that “atmospheric CO2” could double from its current 0.04 per cent, and the fact that airliners can drop out of the jet stream if it is against them, the model predicts that it would somehow be speeded up by the growing difference between heat at the tropics and cold at the poles.
But air temperatures in the Arctic have been rising faster than in the tropics, thus reducing the difference, not increasing it. The computer’s finding thus contradicts one of the basic tenets of global warming theory. What the BBC also failed to mention is that even its predicted rise in air fares would be very much less than that air passenger duty, designed to halt global warming, which currently adds between £73 and £438 to the price of a ticket.…
Climate Models Botch Another Prediction
…Reuters: Scalia’s Death Boosts Legal Chances for Obama’s Climate Plan
Reuters: Scalia’s Death Boosts Legal Chances for Obama’s Climate Plan
http://junkscience.com/2016/02/reuters-scalias-death-boosts-legal-chances-for-obamas-climate-plan/
It is, of course, always very “legal” in nature when the political orientation of the judge is key. From Reuters:
— gReader Pro…