According to the Daily Signal in their article entitled, “The Fraud Factor of Obama’s New Climate Agenda,” the current president in his recent visit to Alaska, was seeking to scare up support for his climate agenda. In proving that man-made climate change does exist, the president sought to emphasize a major proponent of climate change: When the weather is warm, ice melts (that’s powerful stuff, y’all).
The current president even had a photo op in front of the retreating Exit Glacier. However, there is one little fact about the Exit Glacier. It started retreating more than 100 years before the start of significant man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Another interesting point to note is that the Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska shows that there has been no warming trend in Alaska since 1977. In fact, the trend is slightly negative.
The president is promoting an agenda whose most prominent part is the Clean Power Plant (CPP). But, the agenda and the CPP are based on three bits of fraud.
The first is the assertion that carbon dioxide is dirty. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, and non-toxic gas. The president and his supporters keep referring to it as “carbon pollution.” The also assert that, until the CPP, there were no regulations on the amount of “carbon pollution” power plants could emit.
Carbon pollution does exist, but it is not carbon dioxide. The common name for carbon pollution is “soot,” and there have been regulatory limits on soot for decades. Due to these limits and the general improvement in technology, a modern coal-fired plant cuts soot emissions by more than 99 percent compared to plants without the new technology. In spite of the phenomenal increase in power production since the late 1970s, total air pollution has actually declined significantly.
Second, virtually all current extreme weather is blamed on global warming/climate change, with the inevitable prediction of worse to come. However, data from NOAA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contradict this fear-mongering. No trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods show. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, we were warned by the global warming/climate change alarmists that we would be seeing numerous stronger hurricanes.
According to NPR, yes, NPR, no major hurricanes have hit the U.S. since 2005. Well, what about “Super Storm Sandy that caused major destruction in the northeast in 2012? Sandy was a Category 2 storm when it was hugging the northeastern coast. It was also a large hurricane. It swept through the most densely populated areas in the United States. Of course, since it was in the northeast, it got boatloads of media attention. If Sandy had made landfall in Mississippi, Alabama, or the Florida panhandle, it wouldn’t have received near the media attention it did, nor would it have reeked the devastation that it did.
On April 27, 2011, the state of Alabama witnessed the worst tornado outbreak since a 1930s outbreak. Mississippi, Tennessee, and Georgia were also hard hit. This was also caused by global warming/climate change and it was George Bush’s fault. Prognosticators indicated that outbreaks like the one of 4/27 were a taste of things to come. We’ve had some tornadoes since then in Dixie Alley and in the Midwest. This year, though, in the spring, Dixie Alley was quiet. November is secondary tornado season in Dixie Alley. We’ll have to see what November brings. The tornado outbreaks of 4/27/2011 plus the 1930s outbreak, and the outbreak of 1974, are generational. Again, there appears to be no evidence of increase in tornadoes and their intensity.
The third bit is that the CPP is a climate change policy. Using the EPA’s own climate model, climatologists at the Cato Institute calculated the impact of the CPP on world temperature. Results showed that by the end of this century, the CPPs maximum impact would reduce world temperature by 0.019 degrees, well within the margin of error. The projected impact on sea level rise is equally ridiculous, just 0.01 inches by 2100.
Furthermore, according to the Daily Signal’s article, the CPP’s climate benefit may be negligible and distant, but the CPP’s economic cost will be large and immediate. According to the Energy Information Administration, in the decade of the 2020s, lost GDP will total $1 trillion, and total employment will fall by as much as 500,000 jobs.
This should be so obvious to anyone with a breath of air left in them that the CPP is just another plan to grab power and money, your money. Just like the ACA? Absolutely.
Every time I hint that man-made climate change is a fraud, liberals come out of the woodwork indicating that there are so many more articles by scientists confirming man-made climate change than there are scientists who refute man-made climate change. It appears to me, though, more and more articles are being written refuting it.
If the liberals/progressives are the staunch supporters of middle and low income earners, you would think that they would be searching for facts that would support man-made climate change as not real. Instead, liberals/progressives desire to eliminate fossil fuels in favor of green energy sources. Fossil fuels provide inexpensive and reliable sources of energy which certainly benefits the middle and lower classes. To date, green energy has a long way to go. It’s expensive and not reliable.
The direction that liberals/progressives are taking us doesn’t make sense, unless they have a hidden agenda. And, of course, they do. As I said above, it’s to simply snatch up, from the private sector, as much as possible, and place it under the government umbrella. Thus just another power and money grab.