Recently, even global warming alarmists are admitting it is rather cold in the Northern Hemisphere this late spring. We are getting another frost tonight and there was snow in Canada and the northern states. I was listening to NPR interview this climate ‘scientist’ who admitted it wasn’t getting hotter and hotter but when asked about where this heat has gone, he said, ‘In the oceans’ rather than admitting, finally, the SUN has a great deal to do with the ‘puzzling’ decline.
Other climate alarmists have finally admitted the sun has a role (but won’t say this is the key role in global warming) and are eating their words trying to talk about our planet and its intimate relationship with the cosmos. At least more and more supporters of taxing CO2 and making a derivatives game out of this are admitting temperatures aren’t going up and up at all: Hay Festival 2013: global warming is ‘fairly flat’, admits Lord Stern – Telegraph
“I note this last decade or so has been fairly flat,” he told the Telegraph Hay Festival audience.
He said the reasons were because of quieter solar activity, aerosol pollution in certain parts of the world blocking sunshine and heat being absorbed by the deep oceans.
Lord Stern pointed out that all these effects run in cycles or are random so warming could accelerate again soon.
“In the next five to ten years it is likely we will see the acceleration because these things go in cycles,” he warned.
Note how this man still has to lie! The sun’s cycles are NOT random at all. Far from it. The sun has various cycles some run 20 years, some are 500 year cycles and then there is the mysterious but obvious Greater Ice Age Cycle which has the sun shutting down energy production somewhat for 100,000 years and then revving it up suddenly for 25,000 years.
And then there is the wobbly planet’s rotation problems. The earth is tilted relative to the sun and we think this is due to the interplanetary crash about 3 billion years ago which created our moon. The earth’s poles are not pointing in the same direction relative to the sun at all times. The poles create this ‘circle’ which has the pole pointing at various different stars from Draco to the North Star which has greatly agitated our distant ancestors who made many myths and stories explaining this terrifying insecurity.
Our planet isn’t stable. It never was. Evolution is driven mainly by instability and the fact that life forms have evolved over and over again due to these many cycles with the added game changing mass volcanic eruptions or asteroid strikes stirring the pot. Right now, the main danger the earth faces is human overpopulation due to lack of birth control.
Back to Sir Stern: Nicholas Stern, Baron Stern of Brentford – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is a British economist and academic. He is IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE), and 2010 Professor of Collège de France. From 2013, he will be President of the British Academy.
Because he was wrong about global warming he should definitely not be allowed to run the British Academy of Sciences. We know for a fact that sun spot activity and global warming go hand in glove. Totally and completely. There is no other factor that looms as large a driving force in global warming than our very own local star.
The Review states that climate change is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen, presenting a unique challenge for economics. The Review provides prescriptions including environmental taxes to minimise the economic and social disruptions. The Stern Review’s main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting…
The Review proposes that one percent of global GDP per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. In June 2008, Stern increased the estimate for the annual cost of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550 ppm CO2e to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.
The tax on first world nations would utterly destroy their economic systems! Euro Area GDP Growth Rate | Data | Chart | Forecast | News
Imagine a 2% GDP tax on England in the last 5 years! It would make the shrinkage in economic activity -8.1%! And almost all the gains of the last three years would be zero or negative except for one quarter. I still vividly remember the global warming rich guys rubbing their hands with undisguised joy at the thought of a huge energy tax on the little people which would be used in this stupid CO2 derivatives futures betting game run by rich guys.
One chap actually said, ‘This derivatives market will dwarf the energy markets!’ and his expectation was for a grab at a 2% GDP tax on first world nations pouring trillions into his offshore bank accounts. This alarmed me so much, I came out quite forcibly against a CO2 pollution business calling this a scam and a rip off of consumers and entire nations.
What I do propose is a Billionaire Pollution Tax. We tax all global billionaires at 20% of their entire wealth to pay for CO2 pollution. They, in turn, since they own all these polluting systems, will be motivated to change. Then we can tax them another 70% for all the economic woe they spread across the planet, the wars, the exploitation of workers, the tax evasions of home states they exploit. Then we will have a happier world indeed.
P.O. BOX 483
BERLIN, NY 12022
Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’
Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.