Green New Deal designed to bring down USA

The Master Plot

What else are we forgetting - money angle? Global Warming is another step in scheme to adopt globalization - read latest BS Green New Deal or Climate Change Hoax Revealed

Too many Dem candidates support the Green New Deal.  Please keep in mind that Green New Deal is based on the U.N. climate report.

A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels.

Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?

All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future?

Back in 2018, after much study of the U.N. climate report was tackled some errors have been revealed:

Earth's surface will almost certainly not warm up four or five degrees Celsius by 2100, according to a study released Wednesday (Jan 17) which, if correct, voids worst-case UN climate change predictions.

A revised calculation of how greenhouse gases drive up the planet's temperature reduces the range of possible end-of-century outcomes by more than half, researchers said in the report, published in the journal Nature

This is the most persistent myth advanced by climate change hysterics – that unless we do something now about global warming, we'll all be dead by 2100. That may have been the prediction a decade ago, but gradually, over the years, even the IPCC predictions have become less dire.

NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.

The question of polar ice growth or shrinkage – either the North or the South Pole – continues to bedevil scientists. But climate hysterics have accepted as an article of faith that the ice is disappearing. And then there are the poor, starving polar bears:

The narrative behind the viral photo of a polar bear starving, reportedly thanks to climate change, has been called into question by the National Geographic photographer who took it in the first place.

Try, try again, guys.

The issue of "coral bleaching" is a favorite of hysterics. This issue also can be dropped from the alarmists' agenda:

Coral bleaching has been a regular feature of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 400 years, with evidence of repeated mass events dating back to well before Euro­pean settlement and the start of the industrial revolution.

What runs through all these myths is the political calculation that people, scared to death, will hand politicians and bureaucrats enormous power to control our lives by controlling energy. It's really just a simple power grab played out on a planetwide scale. But as long as skeptical scientists aren't put in jail or burned at the stake for their beliefs, that power grab will be stymied.

Man makes dirty air, not global warming.

Also, after decades of alarm calls over the impact of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) on global temperatures and climate change, a glaring lack of factually demonstrated and scientifically proven evidence remains.

The evidence presented has been based on computer modeling of temperatures from global weather stations, a larger percentage of which are sited in towns and cities and no data, numerous studies show, for the 70% of oceans, seas and lakes; satellite measurements are routinely adjusted to take account of anomalies and sea level rise alarm, expressed in measurements of millimeters per century, does not quantify in that tidal gauges are subjected to landmass upheavals and/or subsidence, none of which can be taken to represent empirical evidence.

The very concept of a global temperature has been called into question by numerous studies and considering that there are no data for the 70% of oceans, seas and lakes the concept that a global temperature can be derived from a few thousand weather stations is rather dubious.

Observing the ever-changing high and low pressure patterns – specifically in this case with regard to the UK – it becomes clear that most of the measured temperatures on land are the direct result of the direction from whence the wind has come. Huge hot air masses are routinely blown from the Sahara/cold air masses from Siberia/temperate air from the Atlantic.

Nitrogen and Oxygen could also be seen to be greenhouse gases since they retain heat to some degree before cooling, whereas water vapor and carbon dioxide are actually cooling gases as they are the only gases that can emit the infrared radiation to the void of space.

Sending that same radiation back to the surface of the earth can not make the earth any warmer than it was in the first place – c/f the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Neither is there evidence of ongoing and catastrophic melting of ice at the Arctic, Antarctic or Greenland icecaps – the only evidence indicates a cyclical nature of melting and freezing.

The list of climate related alarm calls is endless, so suffice to ask for evidence that can stand the scrutiny of scientific investigation, not the incidental, subjective and emotionally charged evidence that is presented on an almost daily basis by those who seek to control our lives by demonizing the emissions of CO2 from human sources.

There remains a need to establish what forces were at play predating human presence when atmospheric CO2 levels were higher and temperatures 2-3 degrees higher than at present and the how and why creating that situation.

The UN IPCC* scientists sets human emissions contribution of CO2 at 4% of total atmospheric CO2 that is, only 16 parts per million of CO2 is of human origin. See graphic below.

Written by Hans Schreuder :  Principia Scientific International (PSI) is the only independent science body in the world that is legally incorporated to champion the traditional scientific method, as set out in the work of Karl Popper.


What are the cities with the dirtiest air - water ? What are the states doing about it?  Recently the Fed Govt put Calif on notice to clean up both air and water!  A private biz is stepping up to clean-up water - WOW!

How do the Fed and State Gov work together - HERE?  The Dems obstructing the passage of the infrastructure bill could be deadly.   Also, learn that the Greenhouse Gas Effect is Dem fake shIIt

Ample evidence suggests that the Obama era Environmental Protection Agency’s “Endangerment Finding” (EF) was devised in violation of basic scientific and transparency principles that ignored or excluded extensive evidence that contradicted its preordained outcome.


The EF was then used to justify anti-fossil fuel rules that seriously harmed the energy security, jobs, health and welfare of millions of Americans.

The Finding must be reexamined. If these contentions are validated, it must be reversed and demolished.

In its 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA must determine whether emissions of carbon dioxide and certain other atmospheric gases “cause or contribute” to “air pollution” that may be “reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

If the agency found the answer was yes, then it had to regulate those emissions. The Bush EPA failed to take action.

However, candidate and President Obama had promised that he would eliminate coal-based electricity generation and “fundamentally transform” America. It was thus a foregone conclusion that his EPA would quickly find a dire threat existed.

On December 7, 2009, EPA issued its Endangerment Finding (EF): that carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) were pollutants that did indeed “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations” of Americans.

The Obama EPA then promulgated its “Clean Power Plan,” which shut down numerous coal mines and coal-fired power plants, eliminated thousands of jobs and severely impacted factories, families, and communities across the United States. The CPP also spurred the shift to unreliable wind and solar power.

However, any CPP climate change, health, and welfare benefits are at best undetectable, in part because the rest of the world – from China, India, Indonesia and Southeast Asia to Australia, Germany, and Poland– continue to build thousands of coal-fired power plants and put millions of vehicles on the road.

Recognizing this, President Trump pulled the USA out of the Paris climate treaty. His EPA has proposed to replace the Obama Clean Power Plan with an “Affordable Clean Energy” (ACE) plan that lets states take the lead in devising GHG emission reduction programs that best serve their individual energy needs.

These are important steps. But they are not enough, because they perpetuate the false claim that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide is a “dangerous pollutant.” Even worse, leaving the EF in place would enable any future anti-fossil fuel administration to impose new economy-strangling, welfare-degrading rules.

Worst of all, leaving the Finding unchallenged and ignoring the way it was concocted and implemented would sanctify some of the most fraudulent and dictatorial Deep State bureaucratic actions in history.

In devising its EF, the Obama EPA did no new research and made no effort to examine the full range of studies and evidence readily available on natural versus man-made climate change.

It just cherry-picked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports; deliberately excluded studies that contradicted its predetermined finding; and relied on temperature and extreme weather predictions by computer models.

The IPCC itself had long ago ended any pretense of trying to understand the interplay of natural and human influences on Earth’s climate.

Instead, for political reasons, it had decided to focus on human fossil fuel use and GHG emissions as the only important factors influencing modern climate change.

Its reports reflect that approach – and ignore the growing and readily available body of contrary studies and evidence, such as volumes of studies summarized by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

The Obama EPA team even removed one of its most senior experts, who had prepared a contrarian report. “Your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” his supervisor told him.

EPA consulted with alarmist scientists and environmentalist groups but ignored moderates and IPCC critics.

The computerized climate models relied on by EPA are programmed to reflect the assumption that rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the primary factor determining climate and extreme weather.

However, the average prediction by 102 models is now a full one degree F above what satellites are actually measuring.

In fact, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed well above the supposed 350 ppm “tipping point” (they reached 405 ppm in 2017), except for noticeable short-term temperature spikes during El Niño ocean warming events, there has been virtually no planetary warming since 1998 or at least 2002.

Moreover, Harvey finally ended a record 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes making US landfall. Tornados are no more frequent than in the 1950s.

Droughts differ little from historical trends and cycles. Seas are rising at just seven inches per century, and Antarctic and Arctic ice are largely within “normal” or “cyclical” levels for the past several centuries.

Indeed, reports of vanishing Arctic ice go back nearly a century and low ice levels were documented by Francis McClintock and other explorers long before that.

In many cases, older temperature records were adjusted downward, modern records got bumped upward a bit, and government-paid scientists relied on measurements recorded near (and contaminated by) airport jet exhausts, blacktop parking lots, and urban areas warmed by cars, heating, and AC vents.

Humans might well be “contributing” to temperature, climate and weather events, at least locally.

But there is no real-world evidence that “greenhouse gases” have replaced natural forces or are causing unprecedented climate chaos or extreme weather; no evidence that those emissions are “endangering public health and welfare” or that humans can control Earth’s perpetually fickle climate by controlling emissions.

Far from being a “pollutant,” carbon dioxide is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. The more CO2 in the air, the faster and better crop, forest and grassland plants grow, and the more they are able to withstand droughts, diseases, and damage from insects and viruses.

In fact, a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be tremendously beneficial for plants, wildlife, and humanity.

A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would greatly reduce arable land extent, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, crop production and our ability to feed humanity.

Equally important, over 80% of US energy still comes from fossil fuels – and the countless benefits of those abundant, reliable, affordable fuels (and their CO2 output) exceed the EPA’s alleged “social costs of carbon” and “human health and welfare impacts” by at least 50 to 1, and perhaps as much as 500 to 1.

On a closely related matter, contrary to the “97% consensus” myth, scientific debate continues unabated over recent and future global warming, cooling, storms, droughts, sea levels and other “adverse effects” from oil, natural gas, and coal use.

Computer models and alarmist climate specialists say the threats are serious. Real-world observations and moderate to skeptical climate experts vigorously disagree.

The Obama EPA’s Endangerment Finding ignored all of this. It likewise dismissed the extravagant raw material requirements of expensive wind, solar and biofuel “alternatives” and their adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitats. That makes the 2009 process even more suspect and fraudulent.

There is no demonstrable, much less dire or unprecedented, danger to American health and welfare from continued CO2 emissions. The danger is from anti-fossil fuel policies justified by the EF and IPCC.

Simply put, in concocting its Endangerment Finding, the Obama EPA violated the cost-benefit analysis policies and basic standards for honest, open, informed, replicable science.

With so much of America’s energy, economy, environment, health, and welfare at stake, this cannot be allowed to continue.

The Trump Administration must discredit the notion that “CO2 drives climate change” tautology and stop viewing the Endangerment Finding as “established” law and policy.

It is no more established or acceptable than the Supreme Court’s reprehensible 1857 Dred Scott and 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decisions.

It is time to reexamine the Endangerment Finding, give it the intense Red Team scrutiny it deserves, and relegate it to the dustbin of history.

By Paul Driessen, who is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, economic development and human rights.

Do we have a water shortage?  The U.S. population has doubled over the past 50 years, while our thirst for water has tripled.  What does the drought cycle look like?

Next - Biden's promise to eliminate student debt?  Good, bad or ugly?  The Democrats’ Push to ‘Cancel’ Student Loan Debt Completely Ignores the Real Reason College Is So expensive.  Democrats will never accomplish anything meaningful until they reexamine the root cause of the problem they’re trying to address.  Read complete article - HERE.