Slate Mag: ‘It’s Undeniable: Climate Change Made Hurricane Patricia Worse’
…NPR: ‘Why Hurricane Patricia Can’t Be Blamed On Climate Change’
…UN climate text adds ‘An International Tribunal of Climate Justice’
Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany resurrected the “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and inserted it into the text they are preparing for nations to agree to at the big UN summit in Paris in December.
The draft text will allow developing nations to sit in judgment over the U.S. and its allies, but not subject those nations to the tribunal’s jurisdiction themselves.
From the October 20th UN draft text (full text available at CFACT.org):
“[An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.
Over 130 developing nations led by South Africa and instigated by China and India are insisting that they will not sign a climate agreement in Paris unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations. Now they want the power to haul the U.S. and its allies before a UN Star Chamber to enforce compliance.
This is not the first time that a climate court has appeared in a UN 
climate text. In 2011 a nearly identical provision crept into the text at the UN’s climate summit in Durban. The provision was stripped from the text afterCFACT’s Climate Depot blew the whistle and Marc Morano’s exclusive was picked up by the media. This time they substitute the word “tribunal” for “court” and insist that the body will be “non-judicial.”
The slight edit to the terminology offers little comfort.
If the climate tribunal becomes the focus of public scrutiny, watch for the negotiators to pull a switch behind closed doors and try and accomplish the same thing by re-branding it an enforcement “mechanism.
Whatever you call it, countries who sign onto this agreement will be voting to expand the reach of the UN climate bureaucracy, cede national sovereignty, and create a one-way street along which billions will be redistributed from developed to poor nations, while the developed nations must slash their emissions while the poor countries expand theirs.
China and India are delighted. They would like nothing better than a world where the West cedes the competitive advantages their free market
Fighting AGW is a ‘mad obsession’ – New 195-Page White Paper by French Scientists Declare: ‘The battle against global warming is an absurd, costly & pointless crusade’
Selected Excerpts by the Mathematical Calculation Society, SA, a group that does mathematical modeling for the French government and others and touts its mission as providing “mathematical tools for fraud detection.” The group was founded by mathematician Dr. Bernard Beauzamy, former professor at the University of Lyon in France.
Dr. Bernard Beauzamy
Excerpts from the September 2015 white Paper:
‘The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade.‘ White Paper drawn up by SCM SA. | English summary.
Part 1: The facts
Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way =disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable. Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust
buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes. We are being told that =a temperature increase of more than 2ºC by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9ºC? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1ºC
every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.
Chapter 2: The crusade is costly
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as =virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of =energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we …
Mexican climate negotiator makes ‘tearful plea’ for climate consensus as hurricane nears
“In about four hours, Hurricane Patricia will hit the Mexican coast,” Roberto Dondisch said at the closing session of a fraught round of negotiations in Bonn. “I don’t think I need to say more about the urgency to get this deal done.”
“I ask you all to put aside your differences so together we can start working.”
Dondisch made the plea on the final session of a five-day effort to advance towards a post-2020 UN pact to tame greenhouse gases.…
WaPo: ‘Why record-breaking hurricanes like Patricia are expected on a warmer planet’
Warmists want courts to settle climate debate – But ‘When You Need Courts to Settle Science, Then Science Isn’t On Your Side’
“The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.
Courts can use scientific evidence to make a decision in a case, but courts don’t define scientific facts. A judicial conference which calls on courts to settle a scientific debate is troubling.…
MTV: ‘Obama Is Coming For Your Air Conditioner’: ‘Don’t worry — it’s for a very, very good reason’
http://www.mtv.com/news/2351952/obama-plan-phase-out-hydrofluorocarbons/…
MTV: ‘Obama Is Coming For Your Air Conditioner’: ‘Don’t worry — it’s for a very, very good reason’
http://www.mtv.com/news/2351952/obama-plan-phase-out-hydrofluorocarbons/…
In Their Zeal to Go after Exxon, Warmists Erase Scientists’ Early Caution on Global Warming
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425433/climate-mafia-rewrites-science-history
As ExxonMobil better at climate science than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? This is the bizarre position now being adopted by climate activists such as Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes and 350.org’s Bill McKibben. As early as 1977, Exxon researchers “knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously,” McKibben claimed in the New Yorker last month. “Present thinking,” an Exxon researcher wrote in a 1978 summary, “holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
…
Contrary to what Oreskes and McKibben believe, unearthing the thoughts of Exxon scientists from the late 1970s and 1980s illustrates a tendency among some scientists — even those in the pay of an oil company — to be prone to alarmism and to overstate what is known. Predictably, Oreskes and McKibben draw a different conclusion, one entirely unsupported by the evidence.
…
Even this assertion about tobacco smoking is historically inaccurate. Medical researchers in Britain and then America had first found the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer in 1949 and 1950; researchers in Nazi Germany had made the association before them. Notoriously, American tobacco companies in the 1950s had run campaigns claiming that their customers’ health was their overriding concern, a patently dishonest statement that subsequently put them in legal jeopardy. But smoking prevalence peaked and began its long decline shortly after the surgeon general’s first report in 1964 warned of the dangers of smoking.
…
Scientists were able to prove the threat to health from smoking because there is a very strong statistical relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The strength of those initial findings was further validated by passing a tough predictive test. In 1953, Richard Doll, one of the first researchers to have found the link, predicted that in 1973 there would be 25,000 lung-cancer deaths in Britain. In fact, there were 26,000. By contrast, climate models have been systematically over-forecasting temperature rises this century, demonstrating that climate scientists know much less about the climate system than they would have us believe. In the New York Times, Oreskes complains that climate scientists are ridiculed for predicting catastrophic climate change. If climate scientists’ predictions had been more accurate, they might be taken seriously
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425433/climate-mafia-rewrites-science-history
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425433/climate-mafia-rewrites-science-history
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425433/climate-mafia-rewrites-science-historyRead more at: …