As the Paris climate talks continue, scandals, hidden agendas, and an increasingly skeptical public are confronting those who seek to use faulty and biased data as an excuse to impose leftist social and economic policies on the United States.
Congress is being left out of President Obama’s drive to use international agreements as a way to avoid the legislative process regarding the implementation of his extreme environmentalist views. Examples of his bias include recently released information that the White House has refused to take out ISIS oil fields due to concerns about the environment, and his rejection of the Keystone Pipeline.
In a statement, House Science Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas) notes: “There is a reason the president chose to bypass Congress in order to negotiate a climate deal on his own. The president’s plan often times gives control of U.S. energy policy to unelected United Nations officials. This plan ignores good science and only seeks to advance a partisan political agenda. The President should come back to Congress with any agreement that is made in Paris on carbon emissions. He won’t, because he knows the Senate will not ratify it.”
The Obama Administration is adhering to a practice of excluding both full disclosure to Congress and an open examination of all federal data on climate change.
The Washington Post has reported that the Obama administration has also resisted efforts by Rep. Smith to subpoena Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to gain access to the internal deliberations of federal scientists who authored a groundbreaking global warming study the lawmaker is investigating.
As in so many other instances, it appears that the NOAA study, similar to reports by other agencies and institutions, has been doctored to reflect a biased point of view.
Much information contrary to views of environmental extremist has not been reported in the general media. An MRC report recently noted that evidence demonstrating the growth of Antarctic ice has been ignored by the major media. “In May 2015, Antarctic ice was at a record high level. Yet between Nov. 4, 2014 and Nov. 11, 2015, the broadcast network’s evening news shows never mentioned [the] study.”
It is even rumoured that guests are offered bowls of online sale viagra at his enchanting parties. It’ll not magniloquence to say that today, every person is best tadalafil prices directly or indirectly dependent upon computer, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and such similar gadgets. cheap levitra professional Instead, the children bore the emotional scars of a dysfunctional family and no amount of “sameness” in their lives could compensate for the endless fights they had to witness when they were within hearing distance of hostile telephone calls and visits. It breaks my heart when I see a father load the truck for a family vacation, cook all the meals, and be in charge of virtually everything while his teenagers fluff off, play video games, and complain cialis uk about the shoddy service they received from the online course and it remains fresh and clear in the mind.
The Christian Science Monitor describes a key finding of Antarctic research: “In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology… researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.”
The Heartland organization reports that it is not just those skeptical of environmental activism who are increasingly disturbed by the lack of scientific and public scrutiny of extremist environmental data:
“Patrick Moore … [has made a trek] from being a leader of Greenpeace, one of the most radical environmental groups in existence, to now being one of the most forthright critics of the view human fossil fuel use is causing catastrophic global warming, he has always followed the evidence where it leads. In a powerful lecture in London on behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Moore detailed his journey and the evidence increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are actually good for humans and the rest of the planet, perhaps even staving off global environmental collapse. The central premise of Moore’s lecture is carbon dioxide is the most important building block and central currency for all life on Earth. He says its central role in the creation and maintenance of life should be taught to our children, rather than having it demonized as a “pollutant” threatening human and ecosystem health…… when modern life-forms evolved more than 500 million years ago, there were nearly 15,000 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere, 17 times today’s level.”
A growing concern among scientists presents exactly the reverse of President Obama’s emphasis on global warming. Writing in The Nation, Sam Khoury reports:
The sun will go into “hibernation” mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society’s annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it – the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova’s model is said to have near-perfect accuracy…When it’s at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth. But that’s not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn’t deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail.”
As scientists refute the lack of disclosure and the influence of politics in climate studies, the public has grown increasingly skeptical. A BBC study finds that “Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries…Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan. Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.”