In a goodly chunk of the 1st World, pushing climate change is primarily about seeking more governmental control over people, private entities, and economies, while also putting more tax/fee money in the pockets of the government, along with those who push the issue. Also, we can’t forget that this is a distraction issue from having to deal with real world issues that citizens care about. And a way to push to destroy capitalism. And so much more. Basically, everything that Progressives (nice fascism) have been pushing for almost a hundred years.
In the “developing world”? This is mostly about redistribution of wealth. They’re all about “show me the money”
Climate change reparations: What does the US owe?
The planet is on the edge of catastrophic climate change, a warming of the globe that is already creating a mind-boggling array of human suffering. The United States is leading an international effort to fix the problem, but no nation holds more historical responsibility for creating it.
We’re the top cause of global warming, the all-time leading source of the pollution that traps heat and drives extreme weather. So, as world leaders gather in Paris in hopes of striking a historic deal to curb that pollution, a large and uncomfortable question is bubbling up: Should the United States pay for the climate-related damage it’s already caused – and will cause in the future?
Personally, even if climate change is mostly/solely caused by Mankind (it isn’t), I won’t apologize for living a 1st World life in the greatest, most innovative nation in modern history. Warmists, of course, will apologize, they just won’t take steps in their own lives to atone for their actions.
Dozens of small, low-lying island nations think so, and on Tuesday they made their case to a sympathetic – but ultimately unmoved President Obama. His administration has fought hard against “loss and damage†payouts, as they’re known in the parlance of the United Nations, viewing them as a kind of unlimited liability for bad weather.
But such payouts could be a do-or-die component of the deal in Paris. The island nations show no signs of backing down, and their story is powerful. They’re often called “the moral voice†of climate change — because what they face is nothing less than national extinction.
They want money
Most of the developing world has already demanded that America – and other rich nations – pay for sea walls and solar panels and all the costs of mitigating climate change. And the richer nations have already agreed: At the last major climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, Obama himself brokered a deal to help cover these costs – a $100 billion annual fund.
In Paris, however, the demands have gone up. Developing nations are asking for money to help prepare for the ravages of climate change, but also compensation for the lost of lands, property and livelihoods that can’t be saved.
Mentioned, of course, is Kiribati, because they are supposedly doom. Yet, they have 23 airports. They push tourism heavily, which means people taking fossil fueled flights to the island nation, and using up resources. And, from the minimal data available (one would think that islands that are so concerned about sea rise would have better data), NOAA shows a measured rise of just .19 feet increase per century. Other data sources show the same minimal increase, which is much less than should be expected for a Holocene warm period. Reconstructions of various data points data shows just a .6mm a year rise, which matches the minimal NOAA data.
What all these countries want is money for nothing, taken from producers. Nations, especially the United States, have given developing nations money for a long, long time. But, climate change is a convenient way to demand money with no strings attached, of guilting productive nations into giving that money.
None of this is about science.
Yes.
First it was about the Kyoto treaty where the USA would be forced to buy carbon credits from the rest of the world, something we do need and that they can magically create out of thin air. But when we didn’t sign up for it, the whole project collapsed.
Then it was domestic carbon-based taxes to again buy fictional carbon credits or offsets, created by and marketed by climate insiders.
But the UN member states haven’t forgotten how close they came to being billionaires.
Teach might you expect an INCREASE in the rate ot of rise because we are now having record high temps 2 years in a row ? Teach is the sea level rise uniform across the planet ? Or are some place higher than others, say like NJ?
Teach doesn’t like to share with other human beings.
Our esteemed host hit the nail on the head:
Absotively, posilutely right! And then they get all offended when we point out their hypocrisy.
Well, they are either hypocrites or liars; there’s no third option. Either they really do believe the things they say, but don’t practice what they preach (and demand of others), or they don’t believe what they are saying, and are lying deliberately. There might be a few warmists who are doing everything that they can to cut their waste, but those are just the individuals, and not the group as a whole.
Well, now, John, interesting question. So far, there has been no acceleration of sea rise really anywhere around the world, this century or last.
And it wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation to start with. Just typical Holocene warming.
Hundredths of a degrees are not anything to freak out about. Furthermore, if you actually read anything involving science, you’d know that they aren’t sure if 2014 was even as warm as they first stated.
Let me ask you, John: is it science when people declare a year to be the warmest ever when the data for the entire year isn’t even in? When this proclamation is being made in July? How about when they proclaim that 2016 will be the warmest ever, and the year hasn’t even started? Sounds more like the game is being rigged by those who are in control of the data.
So John uses the qualifiers “might and “expect”. In other words, nothing. John, it “might” get colder and we could “expect” the rate to decrease.
Teach that goal of 100 billion? that is the pledge for 2020
According to NOAA there is strong evidence that sea levels are rising at an increased rate http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Typical holocene warming ? wellin the past that has always been attributed to such things as volcanic activity or change in orbits. Teach to what do YOU believe we should attribute that “typical”warming to be coming from? Certainly not our Sun which is actually cooler now than in 1960. Weird huh? cool Sun and warming temps???https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming#Relationship_to_global_warming http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
Weird huh? solar going dim temps still going up ?
Teach “science” does say that 2014 was probably the warmest year and that 2015 is probably going to best that record. Science also does say that the total amount of frozen water is decreasing because it is warming
Teach even small changes in the AVERAGE temp are very significant. Please remember that if the temp drops 6C we have another ice age. That is how significant small changes are.
Teach believes that there is some giant HOAX being played here by ALL the nations on the planet.
Dana we are already as a nation practicing what we preach. As a nation we have already reduced our carbon footprint to what it was in 1995 when our population was 266. Now even though our nation has 330 million. So Dana a big thanks and a personal gold star for you to the USA for doing what those greenies preach!!
Now for jl
Teach in view of the last 2 years being record highs we will have a
n increase in the rate of sea level rise, don’t you agree?No might or expect
No qualifiers
And NO JL it will not get colder in the years I cited. 2014 is over not much chance and only a fool would expect 2015 to be colder with less than 4 weeks left in 2015. We are already through 95% of the 2015 year
I mean really jl do are YOU expecting 2015 to get colder?
According to NOAA there is strong evidence…
johnny, this would go quicker if you assume there are satisfactory answers to your stupid questions, which you have already heard and desperately ignored or misconstrued, and go from there. Nobody really cares what you think,so delaying tactics like “NOAA says this” or “Skeptical Science says that” is recognized and scorned for the bullshit it is.
Anyway, when we answer you, you don’t care, so why bother?
Oh Johnny boy, what can I say? Look up “reading comprehension”. Please. First you use qualifiers, then you don’t. Here’s the thing, John- you actually look more intelligent in the former, as no one knows what will happen. You can’t say it “will happen, because you don’t know that (except if you’re a climate astrologer). The point, John, is that I don’t know if it will get warmer, or colder, or seas will rise or fall. Neither does anyone else. That’s why when you (or anyone) uses the qualifiers “might” and “expect”, it in reality means nothing, because we don’t know. That’s why I said one could just have easily said it “might” get colder or we could “expect” seas to fall, and it would have been just as accurate- I never said I thought they would happen (this is where the reading comprehension come in). Maybe an analogy would help you. You, John, say to me; “I’ll flip a coin, and it “might” come up heads.” (it might get warmer). I say to you: “ok, but it “might” come up tails.” ( might get cooler). Just as accurate.