The full interview is available here…streamed live, June 26th, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj2He…
Watch the full interview and then may all 7 billion give it a thumbs down to show the evil ones of the world we won’t give them what they want.
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Seems the globalists can’t come to an agreement on C02 emissions………so in the meantime they’ll get the ball rolling by going after other emissions.
New front opens in war against global warming
The United States, Canada and Mexico will launch as early as this week a North American initiative to curb hydrofluorocarbons, which are used as industrial refrigerants, along with methane and the black carbon that comes from some diesel engines and wood-fired stoves. And U.N. negotiators in Cancun will press for the adoption of language next week that would ease the way for phasing out HFCs under a separate climate treaty.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 30, 2010; 7:28 AM
Many policymakers and business leaders have come to see the most basic method of slowing global warming – cutting carbon dioxide emissions through a binding treaty – as elusive for now. They are turning their attention instead toward a more achievable goal: curbing other greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.
As the annual meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change kicked off Monday in Cancun, Mexico, with the aim of laying the groundwork for a future pact, many experts focused on more immediate cuts in industrial chemicals, soot and methane, all of which contribute to short-term warming.
Rafe Pomerance, a senior fellow at Clean Air-Cool Planet, said a campaign to reduce these non-carbon dioxide emissions “can provide momentum that the world needs on significant greenhouse gas cuts.”
This is what the Secretary General of the United Nations had to say earlier this month.
We have just four months to secure the future of our planet. If we fail to act, climate change will intensify droughts, floods and other natural disasters. Water shortages will affect hundreds of millions of people. Malnutrition will engulf large parts of the developing world. Tensions will worsen. Social unrest – even violence – could follow.
This is a very serious message coming from the world’s highest elected official. But why did the Secretary General not address these climate change concerns within the wider context of humanitarian concerns instead of making it the greatest threat to our planet, which it is not?
Let me make one point abundantly clear. Since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 not a single person in South Africa has died as a result of provable climate change. But thousands have died from poverty-related starvation, malnutrition and disease. How dare those who call themselves scientists deliberately suppress this information? How dare they ignore the suffering of all these people? How dare they steadfastly refuse to participate in multidisciplinary studies where their alarmist theories can be demonstrated to be without foundation?
Also, there is also no statistically believable evidence of linkages between climate change, and increases in the occurrence and magnitude of floods, droughts and threats to water supplies.
Climate alarmist tactics are obstructing the right of these people to progress towards the normal lives that those in the western nations enjoy.
The CHART OF THE DAY shows a widening gap between power generated with renewable fuels and total consumption. That means coal-fired plants, which are cheaper and more polluting, will increase their share in the energy mix, discharging extra heat- trapping emissions that threaten to raise the planet’s temperature, the IEA said.
To supply ballooning consumption in developing nations such as China and India, new generators will be needed that can produce more than four times the total electricity potential now in the U.S., the IEA said. That will cost $13.7 trillion, the Paris-based adviser to oil-consuming nations said, basing its scenario on existing state policies for fossil-fuel use.
“We should expect coal to still be the primary generation choice in the future,” said Jose Garcia, senior associate at the consultant Brattle Group in Madrid. “It’s logical to assume that the least-expensive technology alternatives should become the likely choices for new generation capacity.”
Burning coal will contribute 44 percent of power by 2030 compared with about 41 percent now, the IEA said. Continue Reading