Global Temperatures Global Troposphere Temperatures click here For full size []]
Providing Insight
Into Climate Change
Climate Policy
104 Articles

Who Cuts? Who Pays?

Energy economist Robert Lyman says that a new and legally binding international convention to be negotiated in Paris in December 2015 that forces countries like Canada to soon eliminate most uses of oil, natural gas and coal would impose extraordinary costs and societal changes; arguably, attaining this goal is not feasible in technical, economic or political terms. From 2010 onward 96% of emissions increases will occur in the developing countries, and especially in Asia. Previous conferences floundered on two central issues – who cuts and who pays. A “Green Climate Fund” of $100 billion per year by 2020 was proposed to pay for actions in developing countries to reduce GHG emissions.

Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States

Patrick Michaels and Paul Chip Knappenberger submitted these comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 8, 2015. The EPA's report, "The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment", and all other similar ones that have come before, is that the USGCRP simply chooses not to accept the science on human health and climate and instead prefers to forward alarming narratives, many based on science fiction rather than actual science. To best serve the public, this report should be withdrawn. By going forward without a major overhaul, its primary service would be to misinform and mislead the general public and policymakers alike. They write "it is readily obvious that Americans, across all climates, are well-adapted to the prevailing climate. ... for the entire collection of extreme weather impacts, mortality has greatly declined over the course of the past several decades, not only in the U.S., but for the globe in general. ... Mortality during the 2000s was lower than in earlier peak periods by 59%–81% for floods, lightning, tornados, and hurricanes, while mortality rates were 72%–94% lower. ... Americans have actively been moving to warmer climates. And there is every indication that they are continuing to do so."

The F-word in Quebec Premier's Climate Change Hypocrisy

All the Canadian premiers got together recently to come up with a Canadian Energy Strategy document which . . . curiously . . . does not mention the Alberta oil sands. Excluding a major national resource widely acknowledged to be a driver of at least one third of the Canadian economy from a national energy strategy document has to be a new low in the world of politically correct energy discussions. This was just after Quebec signed a multi-million dollar 10-year deal in support of the height of fossil fuel indulgence, the Formula-1 Montreal (Fossil Fuel) Grand Prix. The oil and gas industry is expected to create roughly 900,000 jobs by 2035, about 126,000 of which will be in provinces outside of Alberta. Quebec manufacturers made about $400 million supplying goods and services to the oil sands in 2009.

The Best Renewable Energy Investment - Solar is Heavily Subsidized

Marita Noon, policy analyst for CFACT, writes "When you read a headline such as one from CNBC touting “Solar power’s stunning growth,” realize that it’s thanks to you — even if you’ve never even thought of putting solar panels on your roof. If you live in the United States, vote, pay taxes, and get your electricity from a utility company, you’ve helped the solar power industry. You support the solar industry through a variety of tax and regulatory policies—voted in by politicians you elected—that favor it over other lower cost forms of electricity generation. ... With all the claims of renewable energy reaching cost parity with conventional energy, realize this headline is only semi-accurate because government regulation is driving up the cost of conventional electricity while ratepayers and taxpayers are underwriting the cost of renewables."

Global Warming - Science or Politics?

Calgary geologist Bill Bell published a detailed statement in the Calgary Herald on climate science and the politics associated with the global warming movement. He says action is needed or Canadians will pay $billion. Bill Bell calls upon Canadians to tell their government to stop wasting taxpayers' money on climate change which is a largely natural phenomenon driven by various influences, primarily the sun. Bell concludes that politics, not science is driving the global warming and climate change movement.

web design & development by: