Leaked document: Europe’s climate change goals ‘need profound lifestyle changes’ to occur


European countries should prepare for a far-reaching debate on the “profound lifestyle changes” required to limit climate change, according to a leaked European commission document.

The commission will tell foreign ministers meeting in Brussels on Monday that a Europe-wide debate is needed on how to limit global warming to 1.5C, according to a staff working document for ministers seen by the Guardian.

It was written in response to last December’s Paris climate summit,which agreed a plan for cutting emissions to net zero after mid-century, and an intent to peg global warming to 1.5C.

Temperatures have already risen by 1C since pre-industrial times and slamming the brakes on climate change “is by no means an easy undertaking”, the document says.

“It will require exploring possibilities for realising ‘negative’ emissions as well as profound lifestyle changes of current generations.”…

Sen. Whitehouse says climate action need not be painful, trade your Mercedes for a Tesla


Speaking on climate change at the Munich Security Conference, Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse says that ‘mankind’ does not have to suffer in order to fight global warming.

Senator Whitehouse: “…I don’t want to leave the impression that mankind must suffer in order to make these changes. The changes in consumption can actually be enjoyable and beneficial. If you trade in your Mercedes for a Tesla, your quality of life just went up.”

Panel Discussion “Climate and Energy Security: Is the Heat Still on?”
Munich Security Conference 2016
Munich, Germany
February 13, 2016…

Here’s What Scalia’s Death Means For Obama’s Global Warming Agenda

Scalia was the fifth vote the conservative bloc of the court needed to finally strike down the Clean Power Plan, but without him (or any replacement) the court will likely be deadlocked in a four to four vote — meaning their decision sets no precedent, and the lower court ruling stands.

Indeed, without Scalia’s vote last week, the court would not have overturned the D.C. Court of Appeals’ decision not to issue a stay on the CPP, meaning states would have had to submit plans to the EPA on how they would cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Obama wants leading the world to sign a major climate deal a hallmark of his presidency, but to do that the president needed to promise the world he could get China to pledge to fight global warming.

Obama and Chinese leadership announced such a deal in 2014, but to get China to promise to peak its emissions by 2030, the president promised the U.S. would cut CO2 emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/heres-what-scalias-death-means-for-obamas-global-warming-agenda/#ixzz40GbzYNcb

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, MIT professor emeritus, and lead author of the “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks” chapter of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, attributes climate hype to politics, money, and propaganda. Lindzen particularly takes issue with the “97% consensus” claim that is being used to stifle debate and demonize skeptics.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT:


Question: How much warming do you expect for a doubling of carbon dioxide?

Lindzen: “Doubling is chosen for a very good reason. The dependence of the greenhouse gas effects what is called logarithmic. Which means if you double CO2 from 280 to 560ppm, you would get the same thing you as you would get from doubling from 560 to 10120. It’s a diminishing return thing.”

“There is no obvious trend for at least 18 years in temperature.”

Lindzen on ‘97% consensus’: 

Lindzen: “It was the narrative from the beginning. In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda.”

“So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2 etc.

If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?

If I look through my department, at least half of them keep mum. Just keep on doing your work, trying to figure out how it works.

MIT ‘has just announced that they see this bringing in $300 million bucks. It will support all sorts of things.’


Related Links: 

Academia Cashing in on Climate Scare: MIT announces $300 million five-year plan ‘for action on climate change’ – Each center will seek about $8 million in annual funding, or more than $300 million in total over the five-year period — which the plan says represents “far and away the greatest opportunity for MIT to make a difference on …

Greenie Academic Says ISIS And Global Warming Should Be Placed On Same Foothold

We should blame evolution for our inability to place climate action on par with the fight against terrorism, an environmental scholar argued Sunday.

Evolutionary responses tend to move toward real, imminent threats such as terrorism, not those that happen in the long term, Ruth Greenspan Bell, a scholar associated with Columbia University’s Center for Decision Sciences and the Environmental Law Institute, wrote in The Guardian.

“Shrinking Arctic ice cover, erratic changes in winter snow cover or rapid shifts in heat and cold don’t provide the same sense of threat as our fear of terrorist attacks or other bodily harm.”…

Academia Cashing in on Climate Scare: MIT announces $300 million five-year plan ‘for action on climate change’

October 21, 2015

MIT is launching a multifaceted five-year plan aimed at fighting climate change, representing a new phase in the Institute’s commitment to an issue that, the plan says, “demands society’s urgent attention.”
Citing “overwhelming” scientific evidence, “A Plan for Action on Climate Change” underscores the “risk of catastrophic outcomes” due to climate change and emphasizes that “the world needs an aggressive but pragmatic transition plan to achieve a zero-carbon global energy system.”
To that end, MIT has developed a five-year plan to enhance its efforts in five areas of climate action, whose elements have consensus support within the MIT community:
research to further understand climate change and advance solutions to mitigate and adapt to it;
the acceleration of low-carbon energy technology via eight new research centers;
the development of enhanced educational programs on climate change;
new tools to share climate information globally; and
measures to reduce carbon use on the MIT campus.
The plan calls for MIT to convene academia, industry, and government in pursuit of three overlapping stages of progress.…

All Earth’s Evils Blamed on ‘Global Warming’

All Earth’s Evils Blamed on ‘Global Warming’

If you believe the headlines, virtually all of the world’s ills could be solved by stopping the planet from its alleged warming.

A review of the past couple of years of headlines from The Drudge Report shows how “global warming” is being scapegoated at every opportunity.

It’s being blamed for a variety of weather problems, including colder weather:

Then, there’s the flesh-eating bacteria claim:

Health Official Warns: ‘Global Warming’ Making Flesh-Eating Bacteria More Common…

Apparently, even efforts to stock up on stock up on dairy products prior to a snow storm will be impacted by global warming:

Loaves of bread ‘will shrink due to global warming’…

Humans will mutate, become stupider, less faithful and financially responsible – and even their pets will suffer psychological harm – the headlines warn:

Finally, this headline may be the most extravagant global warming claim:

FLASHBACK: Scientist Declared ‘Global Warming’ Caused Hitler…

So, while milder winters were once considered a blessing, they’re now vilified as a sign of the apocalypse.

Editor’s Add-On: Based on today’s headlines, we appear to be safe from the ravages of global warming – at least, for the time being:

Flashback 1903: Scientists were aware of Arrhenius’s theory but CO2’s effect ‘was assumed to be benign’

Via: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/15/3749652/climate-presidential-history/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds

Father Of Global Warming (Prof. Arrhenius) Believed That Doubling CO2 Was A Good Thing – Flashback 1910: It ‘has been called to our attention by Prof. Arrhenius….that the present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500. This would be about doubled, if it were not modified by vegetable life, by the consumption of the present known coal deposits, and it is stated that a doubling of the quantity in the atmosphere would more than double the rate of growth of plant life’

‘Electrified children’: 1911: The Father of global warming Prof. Svante Arrhenius thought exposing children to electricity would make them smarter – Rodney and Otamatea Times – October 25, 1911: ‘Electricity And The Growth of Children’: ‘At the suggestion of Prof. Svante Arrhenius, an experiment is being tried in Stockholm on fifty school children. The children are divided into two groups identical in point of health, height, weight, etc. and are placed in two class-rooms of the same dimensions, and similarly situated as regards exposure of light. In each class-room, exactly the same teaching is given, but one of the class-rooms is subjected to electricity, while the other is not. As yet, the experiment has not drawn to a close, but it is reported that the ‘electrified children’ have shown a greater mental and physical development than those in the other classroom.’

1910: Father of global warming Prof. Svante Arrhenius believed that doubling CO2 would be a good thing – North Otago Times – April 16, 1910: ‘As has been called to our attention by Prof. Arrhenius, the consumption of coal at present is returning to the stmosphere the carbon dioxide of which it was robbed when the deposits  of carbon were stored away in the coal beds during the carboniferious period…a doubling of the quantity in the atmosphere would more than double the rate of growth of plant.’