November 21, 2017

Critical Thinking on Climate Change

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Empirical Evidence to Consider Before Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing Economic Policies – September 4, 2014


When this report was first introduced in July of 2013, a number of important assertions were being made in the public forum, particularly on Capitol Hill, that were wholly factually and scientifically inaccurate. The original version of the report, as well as the expert scientific testimony provided to Congress in the interim, was meant to be helpful in limiting some of the more egregious claims that were being perpetuated. Unfortunately, much of the public discourse on important issues related to climate science has devolved into name-calling, including terminology such as “denier” or “dirty denier.”1 Both have connotations which frequent use of is counter-productive to an honest public discussion involving a matter of such incredible scientific and economic importance. No scientific discussion that requires precision, particularly when it relates to issues as complex as climate science, should utilize means to limit debate and understanding when critical evaluation is necessary.

Additional events that have transpired since the first version of this report was introduced clarify the need for providing some basic level scientific facts that are important to understanding carbon dioxide’s (CO2) role in our environment. Certain media figures have gone so far as to try and discredit the basic science of photosynthesis2 and our understanding of the impacts of anthropogenic CO2. Such mischaracterization does an additional disservice to the understanding of this important greenhouse gas and related policy making.

To rectify some of the challenges in ensuring additional factors based on empirical evidence were understood, this report has been updated to include the following:

1. A new section has been added on the benefits of CO2.
2. Wildfires and forestry management have garnered additional public attention of late, and so was split into its own section with additional information.
3. A new section has been added on the impacts European countries have seen as a result of their climate regulations.
4. A new section has been added on Polar Bear populations and claims of mass extinctions.
5. Nearly all sections have been updated with new information.
6. An addendum was added to provide examples of how the Obama Administration’s National Climate Assessment report ignores critical scientific evidence when submitted by top researchers and scientists.

Four former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrators testified before the EPW Committee in 2014 and provided important answers to questions for the record as it relates to basic CO2 science, economics, and EPA regulations:<<<Read Full Report>>>

  • alrem

    I predict climate change.

    The Son’s earth functions well. And the sun’s earth is always half covered in light/heat, (while the other half…, sleeps).

    It seems such a sad state of affairs, this global (pocket) warming. Most all the time, weathermen have tried and failed to predict the following day’s weather so how is a computer model going to be any different, other than fudging figures?

    I also predict this hoax is in the Report from Iron Mountain. I predict, should anyone curious enough read it, it will make them really angry they’ve been led astray and it’s origins are from the U.N. which is the Jesuit Vat of sin, Vatican.

    This country/nation causes those other nations to do the Vatican’s bidding. That includes taking on “global warming” which turns a nation poor. Old man Bush said in his Points of Light speech the US would play a major role in bringing in the NWO. He said, When we are successful, and we will be, …….. blah blah blah. So a nation is either “in” or “out” of the graces (delicacies) of the Vatican/US singularity. This nation speaks for Roman cult, the Vatican Jesuits.

    At least the Vatican reads the Bible. Pope Pervert Benedict already has a ten nation division.

  • GoldDust

    Weather Derivatives

    Weather Derivatives

    CME Group Weather

    Truth Sector:

    That there are insurance clauses for terrorism we already knew since Larry Silverstein made sure that that was included into his insurance policies for the WTC complex weeks before the new world‘s first major inside job – 9/11 – came about [1, 2]. At the same time we also learned that catastrophe and hybrid cat bonds were already being traded on 9/11, 2001, since various big rollers on the financial market indulged themselves in the trade of these products, with foreknowledge, as the events unfolded on September 11 in 2001.

    Also during HAARP’s Frankenstorm Sandy those financial products were eagerly traded. In both events they triggered handsome profits for those in the know of what was about to take place.

    AND there are various companies, in addition to multiple international military programs [1, 2], who earn quite a buck from altering the climate, it’s what they do. It’s their core business [1, 2].

    Add to this all other weather-related financial products – weather derivatives – and it becomes clear what the US military in the 90s also meant, aside from the military applications, when they stated to “own the weather by 2025“. After all, when corporations and banksters say ‘JUMP’ the US military asks ‘SIR, HOW HIGH SIR’! We see this happening in Ghana as well, through UNMEER.

    For those in doubt, the man made global warming scam can equally be boiled down to MONEY ONLY, since the lies that uphold the fabled narrative of man made global warming serve only those who control the cap and trade (CO2) and obviously yet unfortunately nature will NOT benefit from these trades in any way. On the other hand man made global warming shouldn’t be further discussed at all because even NASA has already admitted on their own site that THE SUN is the major driver of our climate, as if you didn’t know that already. That is 1st-grader stuff, yet Al Gore minions will continue to tell you otherwise.

    Easily proven is the fact that even the EU does not believe in man made global warming: “Tar Sand Oil: EU Alarmism on CO2 Pollution Phantasy Contradicts the EU’s Oil Trade Practices“