Google+ Followers

Thursday, October 27, 2016

AL Gore: Panic! Global Warming Creating ‘Vast Deserts’


Image result for al gore Panic!






In what may be a new record in climate change hyperbole, an article inEsquire magazine Tuesday declares that man-made global warming is creating “vast deserts” out of once verdant lands, even as we speak.

Starting from the typical “conservatives-hate-science” leitmotiv, writer Charles S. Pierce goes on to make a series of ridiculously unscientific claims based on historical ignorance and bad math.
Climate change, Pierce asserts, “is piling up an impressive record of destroying the lives of many species, including our own.” One wonders: if climate change is on record as having destroyed the life of the human species, why wasn’t anyone told? Which scientific journal documented the destruction of the human race?
To back up his claim, Pierce notes that in various parts of the world, such as Madagascar, people are experiencing droughts and severe hunger, while failing to mention that famines have been going on literally for all of human history, even without the benefits of global warming.
Pierce also cites a New York Times article about China’s expanding deserts, which in turn cites “one recent estimate” that China’s deserts have grown by 21,000 square miles in the last 40 years (since 1975), and that the expansion may have been “accelerated” by climate change.
If this estimate is anywhere near correct, it suggests that the rate of expansion of China’s deserts has actually slowed dramatically since 1975. The New York Times admits that for many years, China’s deserts “spread at an annual rate of more than 1,300 square miles.” If they had been increasing at 1,300 square miles a year since 1975, desert land would have grown by 53,300 square miles—more than double the quoted estimate.
Moreover, later in the article, one reads that “generations of families have made a living herding animals on the edge of the desert” and that “overgrazing is contributing to the desert’s growth.”
So, if one takes the New York Times at its word, China’s deserts are growing far more slowly than in earlier decades, and much of that growth is due to “overgrazing.”
By any measure, that has nothing to do with global warming creating “vast deserts.”
Unwilling to let the facts get in his way, Pierce goes on to predict that the American west will also be facing desertification—just like what happened in the 1930s, he says. Once again he fails to note that the massive droughts that produced the dust bowl had nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.
“The next time it happens, it will happen in an era of profound ecological damage that by then may be irreversible,” Pierce ominously prophesies.

For a magazine devoted to combating the idea of “the Great Climate Change Hoax,”Esquire might want to look for a more convincing spokesperson next time. Or try fact-checking.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/26/esquire-panic-global-warming-creating-vast-deserts/

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Inconvenient Facts About Global Warming | Alex Epstein and Stefan Molyneux

The 97% Consensus? Global Warming Unmasked!

The Myth Of Al Gore 97% Consensus Of Scientists Believe That Global Warming Is Man-Made:



 Image result for The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%








Secretary of State John Kerry recently warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Report: Al Gore, Top Global Warming Center Faked Research to Bag Million$ from Taxpayers



FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images






seedy unscientific reality behind the trillion-dollar global warming industry has been exposed a little more after one of the world's leading climate change research centers was caught reportedly stealing millions of taxpayer dollars for fraudulent research.

The prestigious London School of Economics recently bagged about $11 million from UK taxpayers in research grant money for its Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP), an entity that has raised some $37 million since 2008. But after a little closer scrutiny, it appears that the research for which the center was awarded the massive infusion of dollars was actually not even conducted by CCCEP. Instead, it was allegedly "stolen" from rival researchers and some of it was conducted before the taxpayer money was handed over. 

Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren’t about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP," the Daily Caller explains. "The government never checked CCCEP’s supposed publication lists, saying they were 'taken on trust,' according to the report."

The fraud was exposed by The Daily Mail, who spoke with one climate economics expert from Sussex University whose work was allegedly plagiarized by CCCEP. 

"It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I've never come across anything like it before. It stinks," Professor Richard Tol told The Daily Mail.  "Our paper had no relationship to the CCCEP. At the time, the CCCEP did not exist, and it only came into existence after the paper was published. Fraud means deception for financial gain. That is what this is."

Several other damning realities of the climate change research funding racket are highlighted by the case, including the predetermined nature of the studies and the fact that as much as half of public sector funding depends on getting positive results. In other words, researchers have overwhelming financial incentive to "prove" their politically-charged, predetermined premises. ​As TheDC highlights, another particularly troubling aspect of research receiving public funds is that researchers do not have to disclose any ethical conflicts of interest.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10202/report-top-global-warming-center-faked-research-james-barrett?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=102516-news&utm_campaign=position2#

Al Gore New Claim: Air Pollution Linked To Blood Vessel Damage In Healthy Young Adult, No CRACK COCAINE Can Cause Permanent Damage To Blood Vessels Of Ear And Brain, High Blood Pressure, Leading Up Heart Attacks, Strokes And Death; So No Air Pollution Is Not Cause Of Blood Vessel Damage, It's Smoking CRACK COCAINE Claim Debunked:

Image result for smoking crack Damage Blood Vessel


What are the short-term effects of crack cocaine?
Crack causes a short-lived, intense high that is immediately followed by the opposite—intense depression, edginess and a craving for more of the drug. People who use it often don’t eat or sleep properly. They can experience greatly increased heart rate, muscle spasms and convulsions. The drug can make people feel paranoid,1 angry, hostile and anxious—even when they aren’t high.
Regardless of how much of the drug is used or how frequently, crack cocaine increases the risk that the user will experience a heart attack, stroke, seizure or respiratory (breathing) failure, any of which can result in sudden death.
Smoking crack further presents a series of health risks. Crack is often mixed with other substances that create toxic fumes when burned. As crack smoke does not remain potent for long, crack pipes are generally very short. This often causes cracked and blistered lips, known as “crack lip,” from users having a very hot pipe pressed against their lips.
“The only thing on my mind was crack cocaine. And if somebody offers you any of it, you’ll jump at it and take it. It’s like offering a starving man a loaf of bread if he walks for miles....
“Things came to a head for me when I’d been smoking constantly for a couple of weeks. One day I just decided I’d had enough—I couldn’t live like this anymore. And I tried to commit suicide.
“I’m going to have to try and fight....I hope my survival instincts kick in.” —John
What are the long-term effects of crack cocaine?
In addition to the usual risks associated with cocaine use, crack users may experience severe respiratory problems, including coughing, shortness of breath, lung damage and bleeding.
Long-term effects from use of crack cocaine include severe damage to the heart, liver and kidneys. Users are more likely to have infectious diseases.
Continued daily use causes sleep deprivation and loss of appetite, resulting in malnutrition. Smoking crack cocaine also can cause aggressive and paranoid behavior.
As crack cocaine interferes with the way the brain processes chemicals, one needs more and more of the drug just to feel “normal.” Those who become addicted to crack cocaine (as with most other drugs) lose interest in other areas of life.
(Photo credit: courtesy infoImagination.org)
(Photo credit: courtesy infoImagination.org)
Coming down from the drug causes severe depression, which becomes deeper and deeper after each use. This can get so severe that a person will do almost anything to get the drug—even commit murder. And if he or she can’t get crack cocaine, the depression can get so intense it can drive the addict to suicide.
“I retired as a successful corporate exec who had put two daughters through college and had earned my retirement. My retirement party was, however, the beginning of five years of hell. That was when I was introduced to crack cocaine for the first time. Over the next five years, I would lose my home, my wife, all my financial resources, my health and almost my life. I also spent two years in prison.” —William

PHYSICAL & MENTAL EFFECTS

SHORT-TERM EFFECTS

Because it is smoked, the effects of crack cocaine are more immediate and more intense than that of powdered cocaine.
  • Loss of appetite
  • Increased heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature
  • Contracted blood vessels
  • Increased rate of breathing
  • Dilated pupils
  • Disturbed sleep patterns
  • Nausea
  • Hyperstimulation
  • Bizarre, erratic, sometimes violent behavior
  • Hallucinations, hyperexcitability, irritability
  • Tactile hallucination that creates the illusion of bugs burrowing under the skin
  • Intense euphoria
  • Anxiety and paranoia
  • Depression
  • Intense drug craving
  • Panic and psychosis
  • Convulsions, seizures and sudden death from high doses (even one time)

LONG-TERM EFFECTS

  • Permanent damage to blood vessels of ear and brain, high blood pressure, leading to heart attacks, strokes and death
  • Liver, kidney and lung damage
  • Severe chest pains
  • Respiratory failure
  • Infectious diseases and abscesses if injected
  • Malnutrition, weight loss
  • Severe tooth decay
  • Auditory and tactile hallucinations
  • Sexual problems, reproductive damage and infertility (for both men and women)
  • Disorientation, apathy, confused exhaustion
  • Irritability and mood disturbances
  • Increased frequency of risky behavior
  • Delirium or psychosis
  • Severe depression
  • Tolerance and addiction (even after just one use)
http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/crackcocaine/effects-of-crack-cocaine.html

Al Gore New Claim: Air Pollution Linked To Blood Vessel Damage In Healthy Young Adult: Researchers Discover Root Cause Of Blood Vessel Damage In Diabetes? So No Air Pollution Is Not Cause Of Blood Vessel Damage, It Diabetes Claim Debunked:

A key mechanism that appears to contribute to blood vessel damage in people with diabetes has been identified by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
Blood vessel problems are a common diabetes complication. Many of the nearly 26 million Americans with the disease face the prospect of amputations, heart attack, stroke and vision loss because of damaged vessels.
Reporting in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the Washington University researchers say studies in mice show that the damage appears to involve two enzymes, fatty acid synthase (FAS) and nitric oxide synthase (NOS), that interact in the cells that line blood vessel walls.
https://source.wustl.edu/2011/01/researchers-discover-root-cause-of-blood-vessel-damage-in-diabetes/

Image result for what causes blood vessel damage in diabetes



So their actual conclusion is a lot smaller than their headline. But even that is an obvious false claim.
If the little bit of PM2.5 inhaled from outdoor/indoor air damaged the blood vessels of health young men, what would massive amounts of PM2.5 do to sick, old men? Probably something serious, right? But consider the image, below.


Believe it or not, there are many oxygen users who smoke. Despite that each cigarette delivers PM2.5 at a rate anywhere from 10,000 to 40,000 times greater than breathing typical air, and that sick people are supposedly more vulnerable to the alleged effects of PM2.5(according to EPA), smoking is not known to cause them any short-term harm.
The “results” of the new study just don’t jibe with the real world. That they don’t is not surprising considering that the lead researcher is C. Arden Pope, one of EPA’s main cheerleaders for the bogus notion that PM2.5 kills.
The media release is below.
###
Air pollution linked to blood vessel damage in healthy young adults
American Heart Association Rapid Access Journal Report
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
DALLAS, Oct. 25, 2016 – Fine particulate matter air pollution may be associated with blood vessel damage and inflammation among young, healthy adults, according to new research in Circulation Research, an American Heart Association journal.
“These results substantially expand our understanding about how air pollution contributes to cardiovascular disease by showing that exposure is associated with a cascade of adverse effects,” said C. Arden Pope, Ph.D., study lead author and Mary Lou Fulton Professor of Economics at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
Air pollution is known to contribute to cardiovascular disease and related deaths. In 2004, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement, updated in 2010, warning of the risk and recommending that people talk to their doctor about avoiding exposure to air pollution specific to their area. What remained unclear, however, was how air pollution actually affects the blood vessels to increase the risk of disease.
For this study, investigators analyzed the component of air pollution known as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) — the tiny pieces of solid or liquid pollution emitted from motor vehicles, factories, power plants, fires, and smoking. They found that periodic exposure to fine particulate matter was associated with several abnormal changes in the blood that are markers for cardiovascular disease. As air pollution rose, they found:
small, micro-particles indicating cell injury and death significantly increased in number;
levels of proteins that inhibit blood vessel growth increased; and
proteins that signify blood-vessel inflammation also showed significant increases.
“These findings suggest that living in a polluted environment could promote the development of high blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke more pervasively and at an earlier stage than previously thought,” said Aruni Bhatnagar, Ph.D., study co-author and professor of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. “Although we have known for some time that air pollution can trigger heart attacks or strokes in susceptible, high-risk individuals, the finding that it could also affect even seemingly healthy individuals suggests that increased levels of air pollution are of concern to all of us, not just the sick or the elderly.”
Study participants included 72 healthy, nonsmoking, adults in Provo, Utah. Their average age was 23, most were white, and more than half were male. During the winters of 2013, 2014, and 2015, participants provided blood samples, which researchers then tested for markers of cardiovascular disease. Due to the unique weather and geographical features of Provo, they were able to evaluate these informative blood markers with various levels of air pollution.
However, researchers noted that the third study year, 2015, was relatively unpolluted, which could have affected the results.
###
Other co-authors are James P. McCracken, Ph.D.; Wesley Abplanalp, Ph.D.; Daniel J. Conklin, Ph.D.; and Timothy O’Toole, Ph.D. Author disclosures are on the manuscript.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study.
http://junkscience.com/2016/10/claim-air-pollution-linked-to-blood-vessel-damage-in-healthy-young-adults/

Monday, October 24, 2016

AL Gore Global Warming Scam Is Finally Unraveling, SCIENTISTS CLAIM ANOTHER ICE AGE ON THE WAY?

Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooling'

Image result for al gore and hillary


THE Earth is heading towards another ice age as solar magnetic activity is set to drop by up to 60 per cent in the next 15 years.


“Experts say that 
solar activity as low as it currently is has not been seen since the mini-ice age that took place between 1645 and 1715 – a period known as the Maunder Minimum where the entire Thames froze over.While many in the science world have already come to the conclusion that global warming just isn’t happening, a group of Russian scientists is finding evidence of a much more distinct trend, and are warning of a mini ice age affecting the plant in less than two decades.
“A new model has allowed experts to predict solar activity with more accuracy than ever before and it suggests that magnetic activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040.
“The model looks at the Sun’s ’11-year heartbeat’ – the period it takes for magnetic activity to fluctuate. This cycle was first discovered some 173 years ago.”
The significance here is that liberal minds all over the planet have been exploring the global warming hoax to shape governmental policy and regulation, often times interfering with the free market.  Their cheap propaganda of swimming polar bears and natural glacial calving plays on the heartstrings of eco-warriors everywhere, and carries with it no scientific reality.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/723481/Earth-ICE-AGE-big-freeze-solar-activity

May 2015 Coffee Catastrophe Beckons As Global Warming. Threatens Arabica Plant Study: Fungus That Devastated Coffee Crops Not Caused by Global Warming.

Cultivation of the arabica coffee plant, staple of daily caffeine fixes and economic lifeline for millions of small farmers, is under threat from climate change as rising temperatures and new rainfall patterns limit the areas where it can be grown, researchers have warned.
Arabica, which has long been prized for its delicate and aromatic flavour, accounts for 70% of the global coffee market share. But it is particularly sensitive to temperature increases, which reduce its growth, flowering and fruiting and make it more susceptible to coffee pests.
With global temperatures forecast to increase by 2C-2.5C over the next few decades, a report predicts that some of the major coffee producing countries will suffer serious losses, reducing supplies and driving up prices
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/may/01/coffee-catastrophe-beckons-as-climate-change-threatens-arabica-plant

Image result for global warming will cause coffee crops in Colombia.


study published Monday in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B debunked reports that climate change is responsible for a plant fungus that devastated coffee crops in Colombia.

“Media reports have linked coffee leaf rust — also known as CLR or roya — with climate change, but the new research finds ‘no evidence’ for this,” an article published Monday in the Science Magazine stated.

The study titled, “Modelling coffee leaf rust risk in Colombia with climate reanalysis data,” stated: “We focus particularly on Colombia, one of the world's largest coffee producers with around one million hectares under cultivation, primarily of the high-value Coffea arabica species. CLR is endemic to the centre of origin of coffee in Ethiopia, but has spread to all coffee-growing regions, reaching Brazil by 1970, and Colombia by 1983.

“Since then, CLR damage has varied among countries and from year to year. Mean annual production in Colombia is around 60 000 tonnes, which declined by around 40% from 2008 to 2011, increasing again thereafter,” the study stated.

Researchers tested the hypotheses “that (i) the weather was responsible for a recent outbreak of CLR in Colombia and (ii) that climate change increased the probability of weather conditions favourable to CLR.”

“While CLR infection risk was elevated in 2008–2011 in coffee-growing regions of Colombia, we found no compelling evidence for a large increase in predicted infection risk over the period in which the CLR outbreak is reported to have been most severe, and no long-term trend in risk from 1990 to 2015,” the study concluded.

“Therefore, we conclude that while weather conditions in 2008–2011 may have slightly increased the predicted risk of CLR infection, long-term climate change is unlikely to have increased disease risk,” it added.

“We found a decline in mean daily LWD from around 2012–2015 and a resulting decline in daily CLR risk, suggesting that weather conditions have become less favourable for CLR in recent years. It is possible that this drying helped to bring the epidemic to a close,” the study found.
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/melanie-hunter/study-climate-change-not-linked-fungus-devastated-coffee-crops

Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015

GREENHOUSE GAS CULT TOTALLY EXPOSED!!! {NoSuchThingAsGreenhouseGas.com}

The Greenhouse Gas Myth

Lord Monckton Rips Into A Young Alarmist

Al Gore and David Suzuki lie about co2. It is 600% less effect then clai...

Godfrey Bloom slams global warming scam

The lies of global warming and green house gases!!! (In English)

EPA Chief: ‘People Have to Start Living a Life That’s Commensurate with Reductions in Greenhouse Gases’ , May 18, 2013 Greenhouse Effect Is A Lie

Recently, scientists at the CO2 monitoring station at Mona Loa Observatory in Hawaii announced that CO2 levels in the earth’s atmosphere have reached 400 parts per million. Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that CO2 levels haven’t been this high in 2 million years.
Image result for the lie of greenhouse gases causing global warming vadakayil


On the surface, it seems we should all be concerned with this high level reading rush to do whatever we can to bring the level down, based on their assumption that CO2is the main greenhouse gas responsible for causing global warming/climate change.However, nothing could be further from the truth, both from the aspect of the high reading of CO2 as well as the assumption that CO2 is the main gas which causes a greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.As with all other fantastic claims made by the global warming/climate change crowd, the latest claim of CO2levels being the highest ever recorded in modern times, simply falls apart when actual facts are examined.
http://politicaloutcast.com/more-lies-about-greenhouse-gasses/






(CNSNews.com) -“People have to start living a life that’s commensurate with reductions in greenhouse gases,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said while discussing the recent global deal to limit the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) used in air-conditioning and refrigeration.
During a social media discussion with Mashablelast week, McCarthy said that fighting climate change will “not have to be just what government does, but it has to be what people do.”
“People have to start living a life that’s commensurate with reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent they can,” McCarthy said. “But also, as you said- demand government to be responsive to this.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/eric-scheiner/epa-chief-people-have-start-living-life-thats-commensurate-reductions