Q: Global warming – What stance do you have regarding Global Warming and climate change?
A: We do not acknowledge global warming and climate change (although devastating), as a reality in contemporary times, but rather a shadow governmental agenda to bring in taxes and enslave societies. We specifically acknowledge natural seasonal and generational climatic fluctuations as normality. For example, we have seen cyclical ice-melts, climatic changes in temperature, seasonal flooding which are all a normal part of living in the Earth’s dynamic ecosystems and various geographic locations. We do not support a notion of anthropogenic climate change (human induced). We do not support climatic tax and will work to completely abolish this tax. We also want to rid the media with wasted climate change/ global warming advertisement material which is both fear mongering and non-productive to our society. We take a stance in line with Lord Monckton who shows vast evidence of falsified climatic warming data, charts and documentation. All of which completely nullify any logical or reasonable evidence for such climatic concerns. In fact they show the trend of global cooling in recent times. Note: Opposing climate change and global warming doctrine does NOT mean we will not work tirelessly to conserve our environment(flora and fauna).
Read the following article to find out that even the scientists are beginning to realise the “hilarity” of the situation.
Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report is ‘hilariously’ flawed
1:27 PM 09/29/2013
Read the followingNot all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”
A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.
“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”
“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.
The Associated Press obtained documents that show the Obama administration and some European governments pressured UN climate scientists to downplay or even omit data that shows the world hasn’t warmed in over a decade.
“Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries,” the AP report said. “The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.”
Global warming skeptics have exploited such data to show that the science behind manmade global warming is faulty and politically driven.
“[I]n attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about,” Lindzen said. “It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”
However, believers in catastrophic global warming have said the UN report should serve as a wake-up call to those who would deny the issue’s urgency.
“Those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire,” said Secretary of State John Kerry. “Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate.”
The UN is set to release its full assessment of the world’s climate on Monday.
Follow Michael on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/#ixzz2ghuNEY3l
Q: Israel – On which side of the fence do you stand regarding Israel, diplomacy and remaining allies?
A: We support the right for Israel to exist with Jerusalem as its undivided religious capital. We are in complete support for and will make moves to ensuring our relationship and loyalty remains strong to Israel. We will stand against nations who favour a notion to be anti-Semitic and nations who incite war against Israel. We stand vigorously with Israel through any and all circumstances given it is the biblical Holy land and holy peoples of God.
Q: One World Government Agenda – What are you going to do about shadow Government agendas, the International Monetary Fund, World Trade organisation, Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations and their heavy influence on domestic policy making and assets, especially the push for globalisation and a one world governing body? (e.g. United Nations, etc.)
A: We stand against all shadow government agendas that are aimed at bringing chaos to a host nation with the intent to divide and conquer. This usually starts with a move to push division into a society, tyranny, saturate it with hate media, and then steal sovereign rights off the host nation under the clause of national security measures. Currently we are under great threat with many international bodies pressuring Aussies to give up their sovereign rights, their right to freedom of speech and especially their land (assets). The UN and other bodies are pushing at every corner to infiltrate and impose its agendas on domestic policy and policy making. Many of these bodies are promoting a one world government agenda which has nothing to offer the average Australian other than an opportunity to be completely and utterly enslaved, paying endless insurmountable taxes into a well organised International (Global) governing body. We aim to expose and shed light upon such agendas, whilst maintaining an immovable stance upon the foundation of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which includes the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the 1215 Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights.
Q: The IPCC’s “Fifth Assessment Report” came out recently. What are your views on it?
A: The Wall Street Journal has answered this question particularly well and we attach their article as our answer.
Second Climate Thoughts
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its latest mammoth report recently, and the effort marks an improvement over the IPCC’s last such effort in 2007. That may not be saying much, but on climate change intellectual progress of any sort is worth commending.
The IPCC’s “Fifth Assessment Report,” or AR5, is generating the usual alarmist headlines: “Impacts on All Continents, Worse to Come” was typical. That’s partly a function of what the IPCC frontloads into the 28-page “summary for policymakers,” the only portion of the report that most politicians or journalists ever bother reading, and that is sexed up for mass media consumption.
So it’s worth diving deeper into the report, where a much more cautious picture of the state of climate science comes into view. Gone are some of the false alarmist claims from the last report, such as the forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 or that hurricanes are becoming more intense. “Current data sets,” the report admits, “indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.” Recall the false claims of climate cause and storm effect last year after Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines.
Absent, too, are claims such as the one made in 2005 that global warming would create 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010 (later pushed back to 2020). In its place, we have the refreshingly honest admission that “current alarmist predictions of massive flows of so-called ‘environmental refugees’ or ‘environmental migrants’ are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather events and predictions for future migration flows are tentative at best.”
The report is also more cautious about temperature predictions. It acknowledges that the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 “is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951,” and it predicts modest temperature increases through 2035 of between 1° and 1.5° Celsius. More importantly, it acknowledges that “the innate behavior of the climate system imposes limits on the ability to predict its evolution.”
All of this vindicates what we wrote about the 2007 report: “Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.” It also suggests an IPCC toning down the end-is-nigh rhetoric that typified its past climate warnings: “Vulnerability is rarely due to a single cause.” In other words, humanity has lots of problems, climate change being one of them. And as with other problems, humanity will cope and adapt.
All good, which makes it even more of a pity that the authors venture from cautious climate science into the most politically correct forms of political science. “Existing gender inequalities are increased or heightened by climate-related hazards,” says the report, while dilating on the deleterious effects global warming has on “discrimination based on gender, age, race, class, caste, indigeneity, and (dis)ability.”
The IPCC also turns out to have an agenda that’s less about climate change than income inequality and redistribution. What else given the liberal fashions of the day? “Recognizing how inequality and marginalization perpetuate poverty is a prerequisite for climate-resilient development pathways,” the IPCC insists, before suggesting that the costs for “global adaptation” should run between $70 billion and $100 billion a year from now until 2050.
So adaptation funding needs to be “orders of magnitude greater than current investment levels, particularly in developing countries.” If one Solyndra wasn’t enough, try underwriting thousands of them. Preferably in third-world countries. For those who suspect that the purported threat of global warming is really a vehicle of convenience for reviving the discredited economics of the 1970s, this IPCC report will serve as Exhibit A.
Then again, if you believe that the risks of climate change are sufficiently plausible that we should at least be considering an insurance policy of sorts, then the IPCC’s policy recommendations could hardly be worse. The best environmental policy is economic growth. The richer you are, the more insurance you have. Wealth is what pays for robust safety standards and prevents sensible environmental regulations from being ignored or corrupted.
Yet the IPCC supports the very regulation, income redistribution and politically favored misallocation of resources that will make the world poorer—and less able to adapt if the climate threat proves to be as real as the U.N.’s computer models claim.
Too bad that lesson hasn’t sunk in at the IPCC, a body that has neither the remit nor the expertise to advise on economic policy. But after this report, we’ll at least treat its views on climate science with a bit more respect. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579477222157281450