Category Archives: Climate Change / Global Warming

UN Summit: Transforming Your Kids Into “Climate Change Agents”

download

UN Summit: Transforming Your Kids into “Climate Change Agents”

Source: TheNewAmerican.com

Written by William F. Jasper
Thursday, 06 December 2012

Do your children (or grandchildren) have nightmares about the Earth melting or exploding due to human-caused global warming? Do they believe they have no future because our planet is dying, the icecaps and glaciers are melting, the sea levels are rising, islands and coastal areas are disappearing, polar bears and children are drowning, plant and animal species are rapidly going extinct, and extreme weather will soon make human life unbearable, if not impossible?

Frightening, not Enlightening

Fear of an impending Climate Apocalypse apparently afflicts millions of children and adolescents worldwide, according to news stories in the mainstream media over the past few years (see hereherehere, and here).

Psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, and parents report that many children are depressed and fearful, have difficulty sleeping, and believe it is pointless to study or plan a career, since there is little hope for a livable future. As a result, many are experiencing serious psychological and physical health issues. This should not surprise anyone, considering that hundreds of millions of students have been captive audiences for Al Gore’s “documentary,” An Inconvenient Truth, (with many of them being subjected to multiple classroom showings) and other similar fare. After being continuously marinated in climate-change K-12 indoctrination in almost every subject area, it is little wonder that many kids suffer from depression and anxiety.

Classroom Child Abuse for a “Higher Cause”

However, many children turn their global-warming angst into activism, becoming little climate warriors who will work tirelessly to convert their peers, their parents, and local and national political leaders into supporters of “sustainable development.” And this, clearly, is what the proponents of “climate change education” intend. Climate change education, they say, must be “transformative” and turn young children and adolescents into “climate change agents.”

That is the message being delivered by officials of UNICEF, UNESCO, and other UN agencies and NGOs at the UN Climate Conference currently underway (November 26-December 7) in Doha, Qatar. Stephanie Hodge, education program specialist for UNICEF, was interviewed at Doha by Climate Change TV, a UN-funded television network dedicated exclusively to propaganda about the global warming and the supposed solutions to this “crisis” that can only be attained through UN-directed global action.

According to Hodge, our current climate change education is “antiquated” and in dire need of renovation. We should be asking, she said, “What is global citizenship? What are some of the global values that need to be imparted through local content?” Climate change education, says UNICEF’s Hodge, is “really about a process of change, about starting transformation through education.”

To help bring about this change and transformation, UNICEF, with help from its sister agency, UNESCO, has come up with a new curriculum guide, entitled, Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector: Resource Manual, which Hodge held up for viewers to see.

The UNICEF Resource Manual opens with this paragraph, which is sure to intensify any climatic stress already being felt by students:

“I am the present and the future. A victim of climate change, I live in a region that is constantly affected by disasters. Hurricanes and floods are my reality.” — Walter, a 12-year-old boy from Belize

Of course, “Walter, a 12-year-old boy from Belize,” is almost certainly a fabrication of the curriculum developers at UNICEF. Or at least the words attributed to him have been crafted by adults. How many 12-year-old boys do you know who speak like that? Or 16-year-olds, for that matter? But in UN materials even 6-year-olds and illiterate aborigines speak profoundly and poignantly in perfect poetic cadence.

In an article entitled, “Forcing Global Warming Nightmares on Children,” Tom DeWeese, the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, reproduced an impassioned letter he received from an elementary school girl who was upset with him for not accepting the global-warming “consensus.” The letter dutifully regurgitated the UN/Al Gore talking points. It is unlikely that it was composed by the girl who sent it. However, even if she did actually cut-and-paste the text herself without the prompting and assistance of her teacher and/or “facilitator,” it is obvious that she did not arrive at her state of mental agitation by calmly and maturely evaluating a balanced menu of data and perspectives in the heated climate “debate.” She, as with millions of her peers, has been force-fed a steady diet of climate-change hysteria disguised as scientific fact.

The UNICEF Resource Manual makes frequent and reverential reference to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the authoritative scientific source on all things related to climate, notwithstanding the fact that the IPCC has suffered repeated scandals and has been exposed as a thoroughly politicized tool that has slaughtered science in the service of a politically-driven agenda.

Parroting the IPCC, the Manual declares: 

Climate change will generally increase disaster risks — not only through the increased frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events and sea-level rise. As water becomes scarcer, agriculture is strained, ecosystems are degraded, and societies will become more vulnerable to hazards.

“Climate Change Agents”

A major (or the major) purpose of the Resource Manual, we are told on page 11, is “to help children become agents of change.” The term “agents of change” is used five times in the Manual. In addition, it twice refers to “adolescents as climate change agents,” and describes “the role of youth themselves as change agents in sustainable development.”

The glossary of the Manual provides this UN-approved definition of sustainable development: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Therein, of course, lies the rub. UN officials and bureaucrats will determine what “meets the needs of the present” and what level of consumption constitutes “compromising the ability of future generations.” And they have already stated, in numerous pronouncements and publications, that U.S. consumption and lifestyles — energy, automobiles, single-family homes, food, travel, etc. — are unsustainable. The even more extravagant lifestyles of the officials and their NGO choir that attend these profligate UN moveable feasts — such as the current Doha conference— however, are considered “sustainable.” Naturally.

The Manual declares: 

Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction seek to manage uncertainty, reduce vulnerabilities and build resilience for communities at risk (see annex 1.1). Adaptation, by definition, will need to be derived from local solutions. The process can be similar across the education sector, but the outcomes must be specific, emphasizing an inclusive, bottom-up approach. Adaptation and risk reduction fall within the overall framework of sustainable development and should be viewed holistically through that lens. [Emphasis in original.]

Larded with all of the usual catchphrases and banal bromides, the UNICEF publication continues: 


In order to meet the rights of children and achieve sustainable development, we need systems led by young people and adults who think and act sustainably. We need these systems to permeate all levels of policy and planning, not just the national level. For quality education to be transformative, we need to see changes embedded in district, village and school development plans.

“The scaling up and mainstreaming of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction needs to be ensured throughout the education sector,” the Manual states. This will be done, it says, through:

• Sector planning and budgets

• Policies and legislation

• Governance and school leadership

• Learning and teaching processes

• Infrastructure and facilities

• Teacher capacity strengthening and pedagogical training.

That’s fairly all-inclusive, no? However, if the good folks at UNICEF have left anything out we can rest assured that it is covered elsewhere in the resource manuals and other materials produced by UNESCO, which we will be examining momentarily.

But, back to the UNICEF Resource Manual, which tells us:

The ultimate goal of the resource manual is to ensure that all children may equitably exercise their educational and environmental rights in totality, as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This goal includes increasing the number of children who are reached by the education sector and cultivating the knowledge, skills, values and ways of thinking that contribute to more sustainable and equitable development.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child referred to above is, of course, the same controversial treaty that American parents and the U.S. Senate have been opposing for decades, pointing out that accepting the principles enshrined therein will negate parental rights and ratify the collectivization of our children as property of the global state.

There is an interesting, self-indicting paragraph in the Manual, which if accepted in any sensible reading of the text, would prohibit the very programs the Manual proposes. It states:

In a protective framework, acknowledging that since children’s capacities are still evolving, they have rights to protection on the part of both parents and the State from exposure to activities likely to cause them harm. This framework imposes obligations on States parties to protect these rights. [Emphasis in original.]

Very clearly, climate change indoctrination of the type being advocated by UNICEF is already doing immense harm to children. The articles we have linked to above quote a number of psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors who attest to the unhealthy mental trauma children are experiencing as a result of global-warming propaganda overload. A much larger collection of sources, from studies and news reports worldwide can be accessed at Climate Lessons blogspot.

As the Manual states, children “have rights to protection on the part of both parents and the State from exposure to activities likely to cause them harm.” Unless those words are emptied of all sensible meaning and twisted into something completely fraudulent, they acknowledge that children must be protected from the very activities that the Manual advocates, since said activities not only are “likely to cause them harm,” but, manifestly, already are causing great harm.

The global-warming indoctrination frenzy of the past several years not only has caused psychological harm, but it has also negatively impacted academic achievement simply by robbing students of class time and study time that should be going to real science, as well as math, reading, history, etc.

A major study last year, “Globally Challenged: Are U.S. Students Ready to Compete?” by Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, added to the stack of reports that have been piling up for decades documenting the abysmal state of American education.

All this considered, climate change education is causing serious harm, and by the UNICEF Manual’s own words, children have a right to be protected from such abuse. But don’t expect the UN, UNICEF, or any of the other climate activists at Doha to extract any sensible meaning from the text; they are already emptying and twisting in order to fit the text around the preordained agenda.

UNICEF isn’t alone in this endeavor; as mentioned earlier, UNESCO is a senior partner on the project. And UNESCO, as the UN lead agency, oversees a vast program, which includes the Climate Change Education Clearinghouse (CCE).

The CCE is comprised of many UN agencies, including:

UN Climate Change Gateway

UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs)

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)?UN-HABITAT (The United Nations Human Settlements Programme)

UNHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights)

UNHCR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees)

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund)

UNITAR (United Nations Institute for Training and Research)

WHO (World Health Organization)

WMO (World Meteorological Organization)

Among the U.S. agencies participating in the UNESCO’s Climate Change Education Clearinghouse (CCE) are:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Climate Literacy Network

National Oceanic and Atmopsheric Administration (NOAA)

National Science Foundation

United States Global Change Research Program

US Department of Energy/ARM Climate Research Facility

US Geological Survey (USGS)

One of UNESCO’s latest efforts is the newly released video, “Learning to Address Climate Change,” a snappy, professional production which shows in four minutes “why climate change education is important to shape sustainable development and how it works in practice.” UNESCO is also zeroing in on high-school students and the high-school curriculum with YouthXchange-Climate Change and Lifestyles Guidebook.

In addition, it has also published The Climate Change Starter’s Guidebook. “The aim of this guide,” says UNESCO, “is to serve as a starting point for mainstreaming climate change education into curricula lesson plans and programs.”

Moreover, the Guide informs us: 

The impacts of global warming are already apparent today in melting glaciers, increased frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, cyclones or heavy rainfalls, sea level rise, and changes in plant growth affecting agriculture and food production. These and other observed changes are expected to intensify and inflict a significant impact on human societies and the environment around the world especially if no drastic efforts are undertaken to reduce the emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere. [Emphasis added.]

Yes, UNESCO, UNICEF and the other would-be saviors of the earth demand “drastic efforts” that inevitably involve the individual yielding his natural, God-given rights to self-government, while national governments yield their sovereignty and dissolve into a UN-run global government. Of course, the UN and its agencies have been able to propagate this long-running child-abuse scandal thanks to the massive funding they receive each year from the U.S. Congress and the executive branch agencies under the direction of the White House.

United Nations Continue’s To Push Al Gore’s Carbon Hoax, 14 Years Later. Nothing From Al Gore’s Film “Inconvenient Truth” Came True.

Al Gore climate Change Game

Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 13 Years Later — None Happened!

By Alexander Light

January 1, 2018

Source: HumansAreFree.com

“The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Wake up before it’s too late!”

by Larry Tomczak (dates updated)

Soon we “celebrate” the 13th anniversary of former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” revealing the “grave” threat of global warming. On January 26, 2006 the Washington Post stated Al “believes humanity may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

My Tennessee neighbor won an Oscar and Nobel Prize for sounding the alarm in book and film as a Climate Control Caped Crusader.

Al crisscrossed countries waving his arms, passionately declaring, “We can’t wait… We have a planetary emergency… the future of human civilization is at stake! … Global warming is the greatest challenge we’ve ever faced!” This is no exaggeration.

In an article highlighting his tireless service for humanity, The Washington Post labeled him “the world’s most renowned crusader on climate change.” Wow! And remember he almost became President of the United States were it not for a few “hanging chads” that didn’t go to his column.

President Obama subsequently picked up the “crisis” telling world leaders that “climate change (not Islamic terrorism or skyrocketing, unsustainable debt) is the number one issue facing us today.”

At the recent Global Paris Summit he pushed this agenda with urgency. The cost of his United Nations Global Warming Treaty came in at $12.1 trillion or $484 billion dollars yearly according to Bloomberg.

Al’s efforts made him an environmental hero but took a tragic toll on his marriage. His marriage of 40 years to Tipper ended in a shocking divorce.

Today, 70 year old Al alternates residence in two gorgeous, spacious homes in Nashville and California. He now has a youthful, wealthy girlfriend.

Al Gore’s Electricity Bill Reveals He Consumes 3,400% More Power Than the Average U.S. Home

Leaving his V. P. office with assets of $2 million, Mr. Gore now has wealth estimated at over $[2]00 million. Al’s movie cost $1million and brought in $50 million.

He hauls in $175,000 speaking fees, is tied to at least fourteen green-tech firms, sits strategically on certain (take a guess) boards, plus benefits from Obama grants and millions in tax breaks. He’s on his way to becoming what one congressional leader called “our first carbon billionaire.”

Al Gore Made Nearly $200 Million from the Global Warming Scam — Likely to Become the World’s First ‘Carbon Billionaire’

Here’s the Deal

Masses of people are misinformed or misled on issues like physician-assisted suicide, marijuana legalization, unrestricted abortion, wholesale immigration, socialism, a “war on women”, “free” entitlements, and “pandemic” Wall Street fraud.

Similarly, people are manipulated and deceived regarding dire climate change/global warming reports.

This hysteria and apocalyptic fear mongering reminds many of the 1970 Earth Day predictions that fizzled like a firecracker:

End of civilization in 15-30 years

100-200 million deaths to starvation yearly for 10 years

A new ice age by 2000

The good news is that many people are wising up! Because of long standing behavior that is suspect to say the least, multitudes view as con artists multimillionaires like Al Gore, Michael Moore, the Clintons and others who prey on the gullible and get rich off causes, advance their fame and live lavish lifestyles off the backs of the unsuspecting.

Hillary told us they were almost broke leaving the White House and this week she’s on Time magazine’s cover saying, “I know what it’s like to be knocked down,” all the while she and her husband have amassed over $120 million in speaking fees alone.

A January YouGov poll of 17 countries found that 91% of Americans are not concerned about global warming. Their number one concern – global terrorism. A recent Fox News poll revealed that today only 3% are concerned about global warming!

Patrick Moore, the legendary, past president of Greenpeace says:

“There is no definitive scientific proof through real-world observation that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of global climate which has occurred during the past 300 years.” He rejects the “science is settled” and “the debate is over.”

Recently even the Supreme Court weighed in with an extraordinary rebuke to President Obama’s attempt to control carbon emissions.

This is not to say that we should be unconcerned or uninvolved regarding legitimate environmental concerns.

Christians are compelled to be good stewards of God’s resources and the earth. We should all make a quality decision to reasonably conserve energy (it’s why we keep our thermostat low in winter/high in summer; turn off the faucet while brushing teeth; etc.).

As Christians we seek to obey His directive to care for and develop the earth’s resources while using them wisely and unselfishly (Gen.1:28; Ps.8:4-8), especially to help the poor and underprivileged.

We do not need to succumb to fear by doomsayers and scientists contradicting God’s promise to maintain stability in seasons and oceans (Gen. 8:22; Gen. 9:11; Jer. 5:22).

People grieve God when they fail to acknowledge His ultimate control of changing, cyclical weather patterns. In Jeremiah 5:23 – 25 God issues a strong rebuke for people not acknowledging His ultimate control over the weather.

The Truth About Global Warming: We’re Not Causing It, But We’re PAYING for It

Gore’s Predictions Fall Flat

13 years after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” guilt/fear producing predictions, let’s close by examining just how accurate his “science” proved to be on his way to the bank.

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered

purchasing a beachfront mansion!

2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.

9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10. The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.

Awhile back, the Washington Post stated in an expose’ that, “Al Gore has thrived as a green-tech investor.” Coincidental?

Was it also coincidental that at the recent Climate Summit in Paris, there was a red carpet debut of a dynamic new film “Climate Hustle” just down the street?

This groundbreaking film exposing the junk science of global warming will be seen on Capitol Hill, in theaters, then on DVD soon. Check it out: Climate Hustle.

Another excellent and humorous documentary I’ve enjoyed on this topic is “An Inconsistent Truth” by talk show host Phil Valentine of Nashville. It’s fascinating when Phil goes to Al’s gated home! Check it out on YouTube for a hearty laugh.

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. told us, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can.”

It’s films like the above and videos like those being seen at Bullseye Challenge (along with the Bullseye book) that are dispelling darkness by truth that’s only inconvenient to those refusing to listen.

United Nations says world may face ‘climate apartheid’ that pushes over 120 million into poverty by 2030.

BY JUSTIN WISE – 06/30/19 09:22 AM EDT

Source: TheHill.com

A United Nations report is warning that the world is risking a “climate apartheid” scenario in which the wealthy can pay to avoid the consequences of global warming while the rest of society suffers.

“Even if current targets are met, tens of millions will be impoverished, leading to widespread displacement and hunger,” U.N. special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, said in a report released last week.

The report says that extreme climate change threatens to push “more than 120 million more people into poverty by 2030,” according to Alston, who added that it will “have the most severe impact in poor countries, regions, and the places poor people live and work.”

“Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction,” Alston said.

“Perversely, while people in poverty are responsible for just a fraction of global emissions, they will bear the brunt of climate change, and have the least capacity to protect themselves,” Alston continued. “We risk a ‘climate apartheid’ scenario where the wealthy pay to escape overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer.”

The report also warns that many people will be forced to choose between starvation and migration as temperatures surge in the coming decades.

CNN noted that Alston used the aftermath of the Hurricane Sandy to describe how climate change would distinctly affect rich and poor communities. After the hurricane hit the New York region in 2012, many working-class people were without power or health care for an extended period of time.

Meanwhile, the Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan remained safe thanks to a private generator and tens of thousands of sandbags.

The report says that slowing down temperature increases to the “unrealistic best-case scenario of 1.5 (degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)” would still threaten poorer populations.

Almost 200 nations signed onto the Paris Climate Agreement in 2016 as part of a broad effort to combat greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in general. Countries signed onto a goal to limit the increase in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement shortly after becoming president.

President Trump Kicks New World Order In The Teeth And Removes U.S. From The U.N. Communist Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump Superman

Trump Expected to Pull U.S. Out of Unconstitutional Paris Climate Agreement.

Source: TheNewAmerican.com

Written by Steve Byas

Monday, 04 November 2019

Considering that President Donald Trump has been quite vocal in his intentions to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate agreement (which had been accepted as binding on the United States by then-President Barack Obama), speculation has it that he will now do so. According to the terms of the 2016 agreement — reached November 4 of that year — a nation could not pull out during the first three years.

Those three years are now up, and under the terms of the agreement, Trump can pull the United States out following a one year’s notice. Trump can start the process of withdrawal with a letter to the United Nations. Were Trump to invoke that part of the deal and withdraw today, the United States would exit the deal the day after the 2020 presidential election.

Not surprisingly, officials associated with the Obama administration are expressing opposition to any move by Trump to pull out of the deal.

For example, Andrew Light, a State Department climate negotiator, has said that were Trump to lose the 2020 election, the new president could simply get back in the deal in only 30 days. Light is now with the World Resources Institute.

Opposition to Trump leaving the Paris climate agreement also comes from academia. Jake Jacoby, an economist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was a co-founder of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, predicted that were the United States to leave the deal, it would discredit U.S. leadership, and lead to “shame.”

Another academic, Gregg Marland of Appalachian State University, said, “We’re the second biggest player. What happens to the game if we take our ball and go home?”

When asked what the U.S. government intends to do on the Paris deal, James Dewey, a spokesman with the State Department, said in an e-mail on Friday, “The U.S. position with respect to the Paris Agreement has not changed. The United States intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.”

What exactly is involved in the Paris agreement? It calls for those nations signing the agreement to develop increasingly ambitious anti-CO2 actions every five years, beginning in November 2020. Advocates of the deal argue that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, and that it has already caused weather extremes, melted ice across the world, and is expected to get worse. Among the problems these climate alarmists predict are a jump in world temperatures by several degrees, leading to a rise in sea levels of up to three feet.

Of course, all of these dire predictions are assertions that lack scientific proof.

But beyond the issue of alleged industrially-caused global climate change, the Paris deal raises certain constitutional questions that are simply not being asked by the mainstream media, most members of Congress, law-school professors, or even the Trump administration itself.

After all, presidents — including both Obama and Trump — took oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States. So did every member of Congress. The Constitution is quite explicit in giving the president of the United States the authority to make treaties with other nations, but it is just as explicit in requiring that any such treaty agreed to by the president be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before it is considered law in the United States.

Nothing of the sort was done with the Paris agreement. President Barack Obama simply agreed to its terms. Without the ratification by two-thirds of the Senate, then, it is not legally binding upon the United States. In other words, President Trump could withdraw from the agreement today, without any letter or even a tweet to the United Nations.

In fact, Trump could have withdrawn from the deal the day he took office in January 2017, because, since Obama had not gotten any ratification from the Senate on the deal, it was not a law in the United States, and neither he nor the U.S. government was bound by it.

With all the talk of impeachment over matters that are trivial in comparison, why is there so little concern about a president — Obama — entering into an agreement, on his own, without following the Constitution? For that matter, why has Trump either not already pulled out, or submitted the agreement to the Senate for ratification?

Has Congress, which has essentially surrendered its power to declare war to the president, now surrendered its role in the making of foreign policy to the president as well? Each member of Congress took an oath to the Constitution, which requires that the Senate agree to any presidential agreement with other nations if it is to be considered law.

Whether one agrees with the Iran Nuclear Deal, it also should have been submitted to the Senate for ratification.

Members of Congress have meekly given up their constitutional powers to the executive branch, an action that they had no legal right to take.

And the trade deals that the United States has entered into over the years clearly are what the framers of the Constitution would have considered treaties. If President Trump takes his oath to the Constitution seriously, then his USMCA should not be subject to a simple majority vote of each house of Congress, but should be sent to the Senate, where it would require a two-thirds vote to have any legal standing at all.

The Mexican government considers the USMCA a treaty. Why shouldn’t the United States?

This issue — following the Constitution’s checks and balances on treaties — is far more important than a stained blue dress, a third-rate burglary in the Watergate building, or the firing of a secretary of war. It is certainly of far greater importance than what Trump said in a phone call to the president of Ukraine. Yet, the mainstream media and members of Congress say little to nothing about whether a U.S. president can make law through a simple executive agreement.

Crazy Environmentalists In Minneapolis, Mn Bans New Drive-Thru Windows From Being Built To Reduce Carbon Emissions.

Drive-Thru_840x480

Minneapolis Wants to Ban New Drive-Thru Windows to Reduce Carbon Emissions

Source: Tennesseestar.com

May 20, 2019

Minneapolis wants to ban all new drive-thru windows citywide in order to cut down on carbon emissions produced by idling cars.

The City Planning Commission has been considering a drive-thru ban since 2017, but the idea didn’t really start to come to fruition until the 2018 conversations surrounding the “Minneapolis 2040” comprehensive city plan.

Now, according to a report prepared by the planning commission, a new ordinance wants to take language included in the comprehensive city plan and “expand the prohibition of new drive-through facilities to all zoning districts citywide.”

“A text amendment that specifically addresses regulations is timely given the number of proposals for new drive-through facilities that have been considered by the City Planning Commission in the last few years and the undesirable impacts these uses have,” the report states. “Said impacts include noise, extended idling, proliferation of curb cuts, conflicts with pedestrians, and traffic generation.”

The report lists seven pending proposals to build new drive-thru windows within city limits for businesses such as banks, pharmacies, coffee shops, and fast-food restaurants.

Some, however, think the ban would have an adverse impact on the most vulnerable residents, such as the elderly and disabled, or even parents with young children. But City Planning Commission President Sam Rockwell dismissed those concerns during a Thursday meeting, according to WCCO.

“You go to a city like London, Paris, New York or Boston. Neighbors help their elderly neighbors up the stairs with their groceries. They know them, they help them, they run errands. So creating that community can be a boost,” Rockwell said.

“Drive-thru [windows], traffic lanes, parking facilities … they all create induced demand, which is ‘if you build it, they will come,’” he added.

Tom Steward, an investigative reporter for the Center of the American Experiment, agreed in a recent article that the “latest anti-automobile edict” would “once again harm the most vulnerable members of society.”

“Yet the big shots at city hall never seem to let the personal impact on the people they’re supposed to serve get in the way of imposing their vision,” he said. “It seems Minneapolis has a future with all sorts of places to go, but no practical way to get there. The sort of place you might choose to ‘drive-thru’ and keep on going.

Federal Government Program Energy Star Recommends Keeping Your Thermostat At 82 Degrees While You Sleep In Summer Months.(Laughing Out Loud).

download (5)

Video Source: KFYO – Lubbock, TX

Source: Primepatriot.com – August 21, 2019

LOS ANGELES – To keep your home cool with central air conditioning while also optimizing energy efficiency (and therefore cost), keep the temperature at 78 degrees Fahrenheit or higher.

The suggestion comes from Energy Star, a federal program managed jointly by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency that provides information to consumers about energy efficiency practices that not only save consumers money, but also improve air quality and protect the environment.

With record-breaking heat waves becoming the norm, finding ways to beat the heat without busting your budget might seem mystifying, which is why Energy Star provided consumers with a set of energy-saving recommendations on how to best manage central air conditioning in warmer spring and summer months.

According to Energy Star, keeping your central air thermostat set to 78 degrees is optimal for both cooling and energy efficiency, but this recommendation only applies to the times when you are home.

While you are away from the house during the day, you should keep the thermostat set to 85 degrees or higher.

While you sleep, Energy Star recommends keeping the temperature set at 82 degrees or higher.

For those who hate to sweat in summer months, keeping your home temperature set at a minimum of 78 degrees during the day and 82 degrees through the night might sound awful, but the benefits are significant.

For every degree you raise the set temperature of your central air, you’ll save about three percent on your utility bill, according to the Department of Energy.

On top of running air conditioning, Energy Star also recommends opening windows to fill the house with cool air at night and then shutting all windows and blinds in the morning to trap the cool air inside. Additionally, air sealing your home and installing window treatments can help prevent heat gain via your doors and windows during the day.

The Department of Energy also stresses keeping the heat coming from within your house to a minimum as well to keep efficiency high and costs low. Small adjustments like turning off appliances and lights when they aren’t being used, only washing full loads of laundry and dishes, taking shorter showers and running fans while you do things like shower and cook can also help reduce the heat build-up in your home.

Climate Change Science And Politics: It’s All About Creating Fear.

Merchants-of-fear-432-
TheNewAmerican.com
Written by James Murphy
Wednesday, 12 June 2019

With the climate hysteria movement, fear is everything. How much fear can they ignite in the population is the key to their future governmental plans. Unfortunately for them, people like freedom, and it turns out and they have to be petrified in order to give it up.

On Monday, radio’s Rush Limbaugh spoke about a good example from the not-too-distant past that shows the depths to which the climate alarmist community is willing to go to instill fear in the public about climate change.

On his show, Limbaugh said, “it illustrates just how wrong and fearmongering the entire climate change, global warming (now ‘extreme weather’) crowd is.”

Back in 2015, the good folks at the Media Research Center uncovered an excellent example of the type of sky-is-falling propaganda and deceit that the climate alarmist community is capable of. In 2008, ABC News presented a documentary style program called Earth 2100, a feature that made several predictions about a dystopian future, in which mankind fails to act on global warming in time to forestall climate disaster.

The full film wasn’t actually broadcast until 2009, which makes its failed prognostications of 2015 one year more ridiculous. But in June of 2008, ABC’s Good Morning America aired a trailer of the film and interviewed reporter Bob Woodruff about the upcoming film. Woodruff narrated the film, telling then-GMA anchor Chris Cuomo that it “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”

The film follows a fictional character known as Lucy through her life. In the beginning of the film, Woodruff is careful to say that events shown in the story are not “a prediction about what will happen, but what might happen.”

Lucy’s 2015 was a pretty awful place, with a gallon of milk costing just under $13.00. Gasoline was over $9.00 per gallon with lines stretching for blocks to get it. In fact, gas stations were forced to close due to lack of product. Miami, where Lucy lives, is wilting under the worst heatwave in history and then, on cue Miami is hit by the largest hurricane in history.

Interspersed throughout the film are “climate experts” such as Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and CNN’s Van Jones giving their “expert” opinions on the climate crisis. Though, technically a work of fiction, the show is presented in a dishonest documentary style.

And, of course, America is the villain in all of it. Led by America, the world doesn’t act to cut greenhouse emissions. In fact, in one of the more ridiculous prophecies contained in the film, America acts to build dozens of new coal-fired energy plants.

Had the show been promoted as a comedy with a laugh track, it would have made more sense. As some sort of prophecy based on climate science, it failed miserably, at least for its 2015 prognostications.

In the actual 2015, you could buy a gallon of milk for about $3.40. Gas at the time was selling at an average of $2.75 per gallon — no supply shortages noted. Today, in 2019, the average national price for a gallon of gasoline is only $2.72.

And, of course, Miami and indeed all of Florida rode out what storms it did see, as the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico were in the middle of a 12-year-drought of serious hurricanes, which ended in 2017 when Hurricane Maria hit Texas.

Much like their failed climate models, the climate hysterics behind this show couldn’t get anything right. ABC’s Earth 2100 was nothing but fear-porn based on misunderstood science. Though it claimed not to make “predictions,” the scientists, politicians, and journalists involved with the show were clearly hinting that such things were going to happen.

Despite being continually wrong, the climate alarmist movement persists. Any extreme weather event is treated as “proof” that the climate is changing for the worse. And those claims are always anchored to calls for the governments of the world to “do something.” It must be terrible being a part of a movement which has to root for disaster and death to occur in order to make their point.

And even if any of this were true, the governments of the world would be the last entities we should trust to do anything about it. Especially any corrupt “global” government based out of the United Nations.

Climate hysterics like to claim that their assertions are all about “science.” But the ironic reality shows us that it’s true scientific inquiry that the movement fears. When President Trump, an anthropogenic global warming skeptic, suggested a special White House panel to study the issue and determine if climate change (so-called) is truly an existential threat, climate hysterics went predictably bananas. NASA climate scientist Katie Marvel said such a panel was “like assembling a panel of gravity skeptics who insist it’s safe to jump off tall buildings.”

Marvel’s reaction is not that of a true scientist but more like a religious fanatic whose beliefs are challenged. Real scientists welcome review of their work, especially skeptical review. If the science is truly “settled” and conclusive, why the fear of another climate panel?

Photo: Meindert van der Haven/iStock/Getty Images Plus

« Older Entries