Paris, $100 Billion PER YEAR, Climate Pledges, and Green Cool-aid

First off, I’ve noticed that in the last couple of years, Al Jazeera has decided to join the Climate Kool-Aid Bandwagon and gone off the deep ending to Climate Koo-Koo Land. Sad that. They had been more neutral on the subject. I guess one of the owners figured out that if they can convince the UE and USA to shut in their coal, the only real alternative is Oil & Gas, and the Arabs own a lot of it (and not just that in their own countries…)

While I like their world news coverage for political variety and more in-depth and on the ground in the Middle East / Muslim world; I’m finding it ever more difficult to “hold my nose” through the Climate Porn Coverage.

It is obvious in their shows, and it is “in your face” obvious at their site. So be advised when you “hit the link”:

This was a “crawler” under the news coverage, so I hunted it up. Looks like they are talking about emissions pledges, not money pledges, but it is hard to tell.

Missing: Pledges of 162 nations for UN global climate treaty

Though most missed soft deadline, nations accounting for 60 percent of world’s emissions have submitted pledges
April 2, 2015 7:30PM ET

by Renee Lewis

Scores of nations have missed a soft deadline for submitting plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the planned December signing of a global climate treaty in Paris to avoid the worst effects of global warming. But policy analysts said they remain optimistic because the nations that have responded represent 60 percent of global emissions.

Only the European Union, comprising 28 countries, as well as Switzerland, Norway, the United States, Russia, Mexico, and Gabon had formally submitted their pledges — known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) — to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) website by the March 31 set by the U.N.

So now you know “who’s your daddy” on the climate guilt front. I’m surprised to see Russia in the list. They seemed brighter than that. Then again, it is only a pledge and keeps a ‘marker’ in for them to ask for payola. Of these, I see the “Marks” as being the EU and USA, plus Switzerland and Norway. Just about everyone else is likely expecting payola as their fair share.

That means 162 nations have not formally outlined actions they intend to take under a potential global agreement. The INDCs will largely determine whether the world achieves a comprehensive climate treaty in Paris and is put on the path toward a low-carbon future.

“While this has been called the deadline and the U.S. and EU and others wanted it to be a firmer deadline, the actual requirement is soft — that’s why you see a lot of countries not meeting the deadline,” John Coequyt, director of the International Program for the Sierra Club, told Al Jazeera on Thursday. “Our expectation is that many countries will commit their INDCs well in advance of the (December) session.”

After the INDCs are submitted there will be an assessment phase to review the pledges and possibly adjust them ahead of the Paris Climate Summit (COP 21). Each country will contribute what it can, in the context of its national priorities, circumstances and capabilities. But the collective effort will be aimed at reducing emissions enough to limit the average global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, which many scientists believe would avert the worst affects of climate change.

Here we have the weasel words (bolded by me) that will let them claim victory when folks back out. Plus the necessary catechism to the ‘received wisdom’.

The U.S. pledge also represents an acceleration from its earlier plans for emissions cuts. Its target “will roughly double the pace of carbon pollution reduction in the United States,” according to its official INDC submission.

So hang onto your hats as your electricity bills “necessarily skyrocket”… And remember it is brought to you by the Democrats. Remind all your friends and neighbors too…

In addition to pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, INDCs will also include planned actions for climate adaptation and descriptions of what support they will need from, or would be able to provide to, other countries.

OK, there’s the ‘money quote’. The “support they will need from” will be answered by everyone else and the “provide to, other countries” will be coming from the EU and USA. At least, that’s what they want.

Developing countries that lack the capability to produce technology to speed the transition to a clean economy will buy the low-carbon technology such as solar panels or wind turbines in what is known as a “tech transfer,” Robertson said. Eventually, the plan is that China will use the technology it developed for others to reduce its own emissions, he added.

OK, the plan for China, to keep them bought in, is a free ride to 2030, and they get to sell crap to the rest of the world on subsidy. So much for that “solar jobs” in the EU and USA idea…

That’s the goal adopted by Pathway to Paris, an initiative by the Citizen Climate Lobby, a coalition of citizens, stakeholders, NGOs, scholars, and policy-makers working to coordinate a strong agreement in Paris.

There’s your Rogues Gallery. Now you know exactly what needs pruning. Lobby groups, “coalitions” whatever they are, NGOs, scholars, and “policy-makers”. Not sure exactly what they mean by “stakeholders” ether, as that seems to clearly omit those with the highest stakes, the utility rate payers and taxpayer saps.

This ought to have some kind of organized response, though “from whom” is a bit hard to see at the moment. It would be really nice if The Senate had clue on this.

Then, in other related news:

I don’t know who these folks are, just found the story via a search. It looks like some kind of conservative or christian oriented site (from the initials) but I could not find an expansion of their name anywhere and the “about” is just fluff.

UN Chief Wants Action on $100 Billion Climate Fund

April 20, 2015 – 4:34 AM
By Patrick Goodenough – More than five years after President Obama and other leaders agreed on a 2020 goal of raising $100 billion each year from public and private sources to help developing countries deal with climate change, the United Nations wants to see action. Ahead of Earth Day on Wednesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is pointing to a meeting next month in New York where he says he will be looking for clear indications from governments and investors as to how the ambitious goal will be reached.

The Moon-Bat wants his $100 BILLION (PER YEAR) and he wants it NOW!.

“Climate change is the defining issue of our times,” he told a conference hosted by Bloomberg New Energy Finance last week. “It is also an enormous economic opportunity.”

On Saturday Ban again tackled the subject, at an International Monetary Fund event in Washington. “We need a credible trajectory for realizing the $100 billion goal per year by 2020, as well as the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund,” he said.

So he’s hitting the money trail. Looking to talk it up on financial news (carbon futures anyone?) and certainly sees it as an “enormous economic opportunity” though seems a bit vague on just who will get to suck at this $100 BILLION per YEAR money teat. I suggest asking the Clinton Foundation if they have any “charitable” plans involving “climate change”; though you likely will find it called “Climate Justice” or something equally sick.

“This was a commitment which was made in 2009 during the Copenhagen climate change summit meeting. We have only mobilized $10 billion as an initial capitalization of this Green Climate Fund. I would really hope that there will be a trajectory, a path, which will be shown to the member-states.”

So they got their “taster” of ‘only’ $10 BILLION, and now they know the Mark is good for more… Don’t know what the rules are on the Green Climate Fund, but some kind of “follow that money” needs to be done. It’s the hot trail to who is running the scam.

Launched in 2011 as a result of that 2009 decision in Denmark, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is designed to help developing countries curb “greenhouse gas” emissions and cope with occurrences blamed on climate change, such as rising sea levels.

The aim is to reach $100 billion a year by 2020.

As of April 10, the fund had received pledges from 33 countries, totaling $10.2 billion. That includes a $3 billion pledge by Obama last November, by far the largest contribution promised to date. Some GOP lawmakers have signaled an intention to push back.

We need the names of those GOP lawmakers and we need to open our checkbooks to them. They seem to be the only line of defense at this point. We need to be asking every single person in America if THEY think we ought to be sending $3 BILLION to a left-wing-nut UN Climate Slush Fund.

Ban and U.N. climate officials want clarity on the financing issue, as a confidence booster ahead of the Paris gathering.

No doubt… It looks like Paris is shaping up as the money hoe-down show down.

The “soap” on this particular lube-job is the idea that oil is heavily subsidized and that the money from that ought to go to them, instead.

A coalition of eight countries – Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland – is targeting the subsidy issue in particular. The coalition, calling itself “Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform,” said on Friday governments spent more than $548 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2013.

The group noted pointedly that this was more than five times more than the $100 billion target for climate mitigation and adaptation by 2020.

Last time I looked at this, the “subsidy” was mostly a depreciation allowance, as all other industries get. NOT cash handouts. So they expect this money to flow in via higher taxes and to them as grants. Expect “necessarily skyrocketed” gasoline and Diesel costs if that happens.

At this point I really do have to point out the complete absence of the OPEC states from that list. Nice trick. Get your competition to jack up their cost structure and drive their customers into your waiting arms. Now I see why the Oil States (and Al Jazeera) are on board with the Green-Scam.

With that, I’ll leave you to ponder those bits and ponder how to put a pile of rocks on this railroad track to poverty.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Economics - Trading - and Money, Political Current Events and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Paris, $100 Billion PER YEAR, Climate Pledges, and Green Cool-aid

  1. Adrian Vance says:

    This is all so ridiculous and all so simple. The facts are:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover that traps heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces required for greenhouses. Molecules have to be in contact, as in liquids and solids like water and glass, to form surfaces.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was the longest period of peace and abundance for 500 years.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That means temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect; not the other way around. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming concept.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” depending on who is lying, but it is not per the absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Green vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against eating meat.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

  2. M Simon says:

    I have been passing this out left and right to some effect.

    Every tax, every regulation comes with it an army of bureaucrats and behind that an army (with guns) of enforcers.

  3. Adrian Vance
    You are correct on most of the subjects in your comment; except regarding Medieval global warming!
    1] at that time the ”global” temp was exactly the same as today! It’s a concocted lie, same as all the other lies regarding temp going up and down as a yo-yo. Honest people call those times as; ”the Dark Ages” It was the greatest oppression by the church – even the Muslims in Africa were more advanced B] .the Reinsurance, which you people call LIA, was the biggest prosperity in Europe. they introduced paper, invented printing press and brought lots of wealth from the colonies.(climatologist didn’t start lying in the 80’s, lying is always their bread and butter

    So: saying that the phony MGW was warmer; because somebody left record on a goat’s skin, for Buckingham shire, that the ”WHOLE” planet was warmer = is bigger lie that warmist lies. At that time people were scared to sail more than 20km west of Portugal – not to fall off the planet; because the planet was flat at that time – who was monitoring the temperature for you in Australia, Antarctica, both Americas AND on all the waters in between?!?!Learn the whole truth, here, read every sentence:

  4. Adrian Vance says:

    Sorry, but this is one of the best documented periods of climate history for one reason: plant records. Grapes were growing all the way to Scotland and have not since. Plants require certain numbers of “degree days” that are well known by agronomists. And, that sheep were grazing in Greenland means that area was far warmer than it has been since. Plus, Europe enjoyed huge recorded grain harvests, the documented birth rates increased and there were good times for 500 years because of the warmer than usual weather. Finally, the Vostok IGY ice core studies document this happened world wide. What you are saying is nonsensical gibberish.

  5. Larry Ledwick says:

    Makes sense that Russia is in the game, they want to see it succeed because they know it will injure the economies of their biggest competitors and help them with natural gas sales to Europe which is a big revenue source for them. No one ever accused them of following through on pledges which went counter to their interests.

    They are just in it to push the narrative to the gullible, and I am sure to push disinformation to EU and the US via their agent/provocateurs in the green (watermelon) crowd

  6. Adrian Vance
    ”documented on one goat’s skin” 150y before paper was introduced – half a millennium before thermometer was invented?!?! when the earth was flat?!

    First they started; vineyards in southern England – you are spreading it to Scotland WOW!
    grapes are versatile, they grow from the tropics, to southern Siberia and Canada, nothing to do with any phony global warming. climatologist didn’t start lying in the 80’s PLUS: Warmist built their fortress / lies, by using the lies skeptics warship, lots of them. if you wan’t the truth, read every sentence in the post, here it is; even a comment from English vineyard farmer:

  7. Adrian Vance says:

    If you want to predicate your case on one goat skin, be my guest. Much has been written about this period in many papers, studies and books. Just Google or Bing “Medieval Warming” and you will get thousands of citations, many with excellent citations, of which I see none in your voluminous writings.

    What I do not understand is that what I am saying supports your case and you argue against what I am saying? That makes you a nutcase.

    I did not say grapes were growing in Scotland, but “up to Scotland” and I do not know how long or how well, but they no longer grow anywhere in England now.

    Given your very strange reaction to what I have said, and the bizarre, unbelievably long pieces you have on your website, which is the link you provide, I can only conclude that you have some serious emotional problems. Get help…

  8. Adrian; resorting to insults, doesn’t change the truth. No need for me to google, I know what Plimer collected crap, to brainwash the people that supposed to stand up for the truth… Those fairy-tales have being concocted by same dishonest people that are lying about warming in 100years, is not Ian’s invention.
    In a post, to explain all the past and present brainwashing, is impossible in 2-3 paragraphs. You are obviously upset that the truth is different, BUT:
    Warmist don’t have any legitimate proofs, because: proof cannot exist for something that doesn’t exist, global temp is the most stable thing in the solar system. They are prospering by riding on the phony Skeptic’s backs… and their fundamentalism..
    Not having patient, to read my couple of posts and get the truth = shows how much you have being affected… probably you are beyond help… pity..

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    One can grow wine grapes into southern Canada, Scandinavia and other cold places. Not all that hard, BUT, to make good wine requires degree days of heat for the vine to really prosper. Economic needs dictate how much effort will be used to make wine for sale. Do you want just any wine or Do you want Good Wine! Grain growing is a better test. Wheat is a warm climate grain relative to Barley, which will “make” in shorter cooler climates. Rye will produce in very cool short growing season areas, the most hardy of the emmer derived grains. Real farmers adjust their cropping to fit the climate that they must deal with. In those eras yeomen farmers adapted and prospered. Peasant farmers were forced to grow the crops dictated by the wants of their landlord, When things got tough they failed and starved. pg

  10. IF the Warmist can con the people with a simple lie – they deserve $100 billion a year reward.
    There was always conmen fleecing the Urban Sheep, and always will be. Tragically – western Reds are using CO2 and opponent’s ignorance as weapon, to impose oppression and anarchy.

    Only because: The phony Skeptics cannot ask themselves: ”how can they prove that is not going to be any global warming – by them spooking the public that global warmings and global coolings happens at a drop of a hat”?!
    Planet’s overall temp is always the same!! Interpreting localized warmings as GLOBAL, is the precursor of all evil. Shonks ”discovering” past GLOBAL warmings / coolings were not scrutinized – those lies are gone in the books, as ”Pagan Beliefs”… Warmist are exploiting skeptic’s fundamentalism… welcome to the circus…

    Warmist ”predicted” 90% possibility of global warming in 100years (the other 10% are as a backdoor exit) on the other hand; Skeptics expect another 7-8 global warmings from now until 2100. Saying that: ”the global warming has a ”pause” can come only from blind believer / called Skeptic… . THE TRUTH: what doesn’t exist, cannot ”pause”

    Global warming by year 2100 is 100% lie, all proven! ALSO:
    2] sunspots producing global warmings is just as big lie
    3] ”global cycles” were NEVER global – the honest laws of physics don’t permit that!

  11. Adrian Vance says:

    Like most people with serious emotional problems your writing is nonsensical, incoherent and rambling. Who is “Plimer?” “Ian’s invention?” “Not having patient?” Again, seek professional help and an editor.

  12. Adrian Vance says:

    I live in the wine country of California and know that the grape plant is very sensitive to “degree days.” You may get the vines to grow, but you will not produce any usable grapes. That is the point.

  13. p.g.sharrow says:

    @EMSmith; Socialists are always lusting after “others” wealth to fund themselves and their dreams of utopia. Various groups have hitched their wagon to this Great Rockcandy Mountain of funding as well as a ride toward their dream of world wide power. To force “contributions” taxes on the world to fund their dreams and lifestyles is their greatest ambition. Any disruption or loss that is visited on the people is justified for the greater good. Money can buy the media but forming public opinion is no longer under total control of centralized media and educators. Word of mouth, the internet, are winning out and this Human caused world wide Climate Change mime is losing the argument. The little boys have cried WOLF far too long and loud and even the Earth has conspired against them. pg

  14. p.g.sharrow
    They were growing vineyards in England, because they were in constant wars with France and Spain; cannot import (Dark Ages)
    During the Renaissance (which you call LIA) England was bringing vino from Rhodesia and south Africa, and were using their land, to produce perishable food. All that was twisted: prosperity in dark ages and misery in Reinsurance – opposite than the truth, like everything else, to suit the propaganda. (reason Vance is crapless scared to read my post)

    especially white grapes have no problem to grow in cold climate.- in England the problem is rain too often. When grapes start ripening – if it rains a bit -> the grapes split and attract bees and wasps and rot on the plant..
    Warmist are professional liars, they know about the Vikings and vineyards, they intervened the importance of those things, to spook the public – Plimer adopted those lies. Only the truth scares the Warmist, and I have all the proofs!
    You can repeat another few trillion times LIA, MGW, vineyards in England and vikings on Greenland -> that can only give hernia to the Warmist, from too much laughter, AND from carrying all the billions loot money…

  15. Adrian Vance
    prof Ian Plimer is the person who wrote the book ”Heaven on Earth” used as a bible by all the skeptics, including YOU, ask your friends who is Plimer! B] English is not my first, or second language – if you are so proud for succeeding to learn your own native language, so you are ridiculing me – congratulation.

    P.s: Ian Plimer said in his bool: -”closed mind is like closed parashoot – not very useful to the owner” – you are perfect example…

    I gave links to two posts above: in one post proves the Warmist 100% wrong, global warming is a lie – proven beyond any reasonable doubt
    in the second link it proves that: ”what Plimer copied from the warmist, to brainwash the honest people that were suppose to stand up for the truth: are all cheap lies and exaggerated crap”
    Warmist are hiding behind the Skeptic’s fairy-tales, not to face my real proofs, that can put them in jail, if it wasn’t for the ”Skeptic’s fundamentalist – believing that they will win by: ”airport heat, LIA, MGW, vineyards in England and Vikings on Greenland (forgot to tell that: when the opportunist vikings were on Greenland, they were for 100y on Sicily also – to warmer Mediterranean climate) it proves why the Skeptics are born losers…Vance, read my two posts, open your mind, if not too late.. .

  16. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Stefan; I find your mix of fact and fiction interesting. Lighten up.
    I do know a bit about growing grapes and making wine as well as all the hazards entailed to save good wine from a field of grapes.

    Anyone that tells you the climate can not change is ignorant.
    Anyone that tells you that humans cause climate change is arrogant.

    Be nether and enjoy a glass of wine. :-)pg

  17. p.g.sharrow
    Climate is in constant change! I’m a global warming denier – I have proven over and over that climatic changes have nothing to do with the phony global warming!

    Human cannot produce global warming BUT: human can change the climate. Just by rubbing two sticks together for the last 40000y, human made all the deserts BUT: the ”global” temp is always the same. Deserts have hotter days but colder nights – if is taken the temp for every minute for 24h, would be same always’ (warmist won, when they tricked /convinced the skeptics that: the phony global warming should be called ”climate change”)
    Now they call us ”climate deniers” because they know that: any person not involved on the web knows that climate is in constant change

    P.s. I’ll have bottle of champagne, which is full of CO2 bubbles = I’m a carbon sink…? Cheers!

  18. Adrian Vance says:

    Good Lord this man is a nutcase arguing with someone who agrees with his major thrust! How crazy can you get?

    The “Medieval Warming,” sheep grazing in Greenland and great harvests of grain in Europe all attributed to the two Celsius degree higher temperatures of the period from 800 to 1300 AD is well-known, much documented and in agreement with Stefen’s basic hypothesis. What is the problem? Stefan!

  19. Power Grab says:

    I got stuck on the list “citizens, stakeholders, NGOs, scholars, and policy-makers” and wanted to take a stab at defining the terms.

    “citizens” – placeholder, doesn’t really mean anything; it’s the first thing listed, you’re not supposed to read past that
    “stakeholders” – banks and insurance companies
    “NGOs” – puppets of the gummint that don’t have proper gummint-style names
    “scholars” – others have called them “useful idiots”; they are probably the mouthpieces whose strings are pulled by the stakeholders and gummint
    “policy-makers” – gummint

  20. E.M.Smith says:


    Um, I think you need to check some of your facts…

    “Human cannot produce global warming BUT: human can change the climate. Just by rubbing two sticks together for the last 40000y, human made all the deserts ”

    Nope. Not even close. The Sahara, for example, comes and goes. It is highly variable, and has been since before modern man existed. Similarly the other deserts of the world. They form where descending dry air (tropical rising air that has given up its heat and water) in the temperate band compression heats and drys out even more.

    One other minor example: Cactus (or euphoribia on other continents). These are highly desert evolved plants. They have been around for millions of years. Therefor their desert habitat has been around for millions of years. Since before humans. The Sonoran Desert is full of them.

    This circulation is intimately related to the trade winds, tropical rainbelts and hurricanes, subtropical deserts and the jet streams.

    Evolutionary history

    No known fossils of cacti exist to throw light on their evolutionary history. However, the geographical distribution of cacti offers some evidence. Except for a relatively recent spread of Rhipsalis baccifera to parts of the Old World, cacti are plants of South America and mainly southern regions of North America. This suggests the family must have evolved after the ancient continent of Gondwana split into South America and Africa, which occurred during the Early Cretaceous, around 145 to 101 million years ago. Precisely when after this split cacti evolved is less clear. Older sources suggest an early origin around 90 – 66 million years ago, during the Late Cretaceous. More recent molecular studies suggest a much younger origin, perhaps in very Late Eocene to early Oligocene periods, around 35–30 million years ago. Based on the phylogeny of the cacti, the earliest diverging group (Pereskia clade A) may have originated in Central America and northern South America, whereas the caulocacti, those with more-or-less succulent stems, evolved later in the southern part of South America, and then moved northwards. Core cacti, those with strongly succulent stems, are estimated to have evolved around 25 million years ago. A possible stimulus to their evolution may have been uplifting in the central Andes, some 25–20 million years ago, which was associated with increasing and varying aridity. However, the current species diversity of cacti is thought to have arisen only in the last 10–5 million years (from the late Miocene into the Pliocene). Other succulent plants, such as the Aizoaceae in South Africa, the Didiereaceae in Madagascar and the genus Agave in the Americas, appear to have diversified at the same time, which coincided with a global expansion of arid environments.

    Even the youngest burst of species diversity happened at latest about the same time that Humans were just starting to be formed from our ape ancestors. (And, in an interesting twist, it is likely that the same “expansion of arid environments” was what caused the forest of East Africa to change to Savanna and was the driving force in our evolution from climbing forest ape to runner-hunter of the plains.)

    So no, we didn’t “made all the deserts”, rather we were made BY them and the expanding aridity.

    Please take just a little time to check your assertions against the most obvious cross checks available. It only takes a minute or two and it “clarifies the mind” greatly. So, for example, if asserting people made all the deserts in the last 40,000 years; just check how old deserts are. And that we periodically have a hyper-desert phase (if a very cold one) at the end of each Ice Age Glacial. Deserts have been around nearly as long as life itself on this rock. Many fossils in fossil deserts demonstrate that.

  21. @ E.M.Smith 2 May 2015 at 2:02 pm
    Mr. Smith
    You guys depend too much on Wikipedia… reason the Warmist won every battle… I’ve done extensive research, before I say something, I cannot be wrong! Sahara was made desert by human regular uncontrollable fires, before Gibraltar opened, when savannas were more sensitive; because Mediterranean sea was a puddle of water. Human can deteriorate the climate AND human can improve the climate also! Confusing climatic changes with phony global warmings is grandmother of all lies, done by ignorant geologists! It will take 300 pages, to prove your sources wrong, but will try in couple of comments:

    Cactus, similar as eucalyptus; was covering some small side of a hill, where was rocky and no mulch available, exposed to dryer winds – after they used fires, to spread on large areas. (here in middle of rainforest exist small hills with semi-desert plants – exposed to wrong dry wind with no moisture. Therefore: cactus evolution doesn’t explain. B]Australia has the biggest coal deposits, not a twig from eucalyptus, but made from gigantic tree ferns… Aboriginal people screwed the climate by burning) Where is no mulch – rainwater doesn’t stay for dry days. C] clouds start to avoid desert and deserts grow and affect on great distances with their produced ‘’dry heat’’. California, Spain, Australian forest fires are because of desert’s winds from a distance. Human can improve the climate; if it wasn’t for skeptics relying on Wikipedia… don’t expect Warmist to talk about ”improving the climate”

    2] states west AND including Texas dried when Gibraltar and English channel opened, (shonky geologist blame Maya people)… Because of high evaporation in Mediterranean and no tributaries – deficit of water was supplied by the new ‘’Gulf stream’’ – as soon as water warmed in Mexican gulf-> by the stream was going to Mediterranean, wasn’t giving enough time to produce enough WV as before, to flow west -> cactus spread. Hypothetical: if you can close Gibraltar – Texas would become rainforest again, and west would be good climate. B] if you chop the trees in Amazon and drain the swamps –will turn into semi-desert. If you turn Congo river flood-waters north, Sahara can become savannas again. C] if saved storm-water in Australian dry tropical rivers, the driest continent can re-vegetate itself in no time. (Warmist are against dams, because dams improve climate / Skeptics are their servants…) Human cannot produce global warming; because of Earth’s Temperature Self Adjusting Mechanism (ETSAM) and because most ‘’Skeptics’’ are crapless scared to read my post ‘’every sentence’’ and defeat the Warmist. P.s. cactus and other desert critters evolving before human, doesn’t prove anything! Warmist are hiding behind skeptics, because I have all the real proofs! Warmist put everything on Wikipedia, knowing that: Skeptics will fall for any trick, as long as it sounds ”official”

    Smith, why don’t you read my post; answer to yourself on that question. Because I know the correct answer: ”you people are scared to realize that: Santa is not for real / global warmings / coolings were NEVER GLOBAL and will not be in 100y from now!!!!

  22. p.g.sharrow says:

    Now, that was entertaining. Is stefanthedenier real or stefanthetroll? Perhaps stefantheactor playing the part of the deranged anti-Global warming nut. Will we ever know? ;-) pg

  23. Mr. Smith
    Cactus evolved in Gondwanaland, most interior of the mega continent was too far from the sea AND because of that, most of it was desert. Subspecies of cactus that evolved after splitting, were surviving on the most unfavourable places for other vegetation, on very, very small patches; similar story with eucalyptus! Rainforests and other vegetations improve the soil and are aggressive; cactus and especially eucalyptus destroys good soil.
    Most of the Warmist &skeptics are from big city sleekers; let me explain to you guys about topsoil: only topsoil has all the trace elements for good vegetation. For million years, every tree pulls from deep down some of it to the surface and improves the soil (when excavator digs from 10 feet deep soil; in that dead soil grass refuses to grow for 10 years, until winds bring some of organic and trace elements) So: uncontrollable fires turn the mulch into ash – winds and floodwater take it away – after 20-50 bushfires, trees say: kiss my ass, we are not coming back = becomes desert, without roots to hold it and vegetation to attract rain. If occasionally cloud gets over desert -> goes very high and not produce any rain

    3] Cretaceaus, Eocene, Crapocene and others was created by the failed geologist, that were not good to discover minerals for mining companies – without being scrutinazed – they created themselves a new profession! When alluvial soil was found on 50m2, because of a freak flood – was pined on a phony global warming for a millennium, for the whole planet. When some extinctions -> was pined on phony ‘’global cooling’’. The good Lord made different temperatures on different places, latitudes and altitudes – plants and critters to diversify and move to different climates. Extinctions were because: by changing the ration of oxygen to CO2, different bacteria and viruses evolved. Most viruses are smart and kill only 90% of the host, BUT some were stupid and were killing the lot, then themselves, without the host. Those shonks didn’t know about the ‘’Earth’s Temperature Self Adjusting Mechanism (ETSAM)’’ and were creating lots of misleadings, to get on the front page and funds – they made that crap official in the school books – now you guys are prisoners into those phony ‘’global’’ warmings / coolings AND the Warmist are exploiting those pagan beliefs

    So: first was most deserts – desert critters evolved – became forest after splitting on smaller chunks – new vegetation squeezed the old desert one – human burning was helping for DESERT critters / plants to fight back. Smith, I know the evolution you are explaining to me, without going to Wikipedia, BUT: I know that on most they were wrong and defiantly back to front!!! When you acknowledge that: ‘’the honest laws of physics were SAME in the past, as they are today AND will be SAME in 2100’’ = Pagan beliefs that ‘’Skeptics’’ use and Warmist exploit are 101% WRONG! In 100y from now will be exactly the same ‘’overall’’ temp, as it is today! Some places will be dryer and hotter days on the ground, BUT nights and higher altitude cooler = overall same temp! Unfortunately; high altitudes and night temp for the Warmist & skeptics doesn’t belong to this globe and they keep confusing each others…

  24. p.g.sharrow
    You keep wetting the bed, from fear of a non-existent global warming, your choice. But calling somebody a nut, because you use ostrich tactic, will not change the truth.

    Instead on such an extensive post – you cannot point one thing that I’m wrong, so are resulting to insults instead; it proves your fear from the truth; because you feel comfortable in your outdated pagan beliefs… pity..

  25. p.g.sharrow says:

    stefanthedenier, I see that you have proved my points very well. ;-) pg

  26. punmaster52 says:

    Big City Sleekers sure is a good name for a big band.

  27. E.M.Smith says:


    Um, I don’t “depend” on Wiki at all. Zero. I do quote it, when is is known to be right, as a readily available source without the pain and suffering of format issues from PDFs. I “depend” on what I learned in my life. Some of it, like the geology and wine topics, in classes at U.California (where I had both Geology and Viticulture & Oenology classes). Some of it from a life lived with eyes wide open. Also, a life spent “keeping a tidy mind”. I’m very careful about what is allowed to move in and take root. It must play well with others and have a strong foundation on good soil. Much of what you assert has none of those. And no, I don’t have time to spend on setting straight what you have made so crooked.

    People simply can not and do not control the weather nor change climate. Might as well as one ant to build a skyscraper.

    Per grapes: The Old World Grapes (vitus vinifera) of the M.W.P. were not very cold hardy. N. American grapes are cold hardy, but also had a pest on them (phylloxera) that on introduction to Europe decimated the wine industry and many grape varieties were threatened with extinction.

    Now, substantially all wine grapes in the world are grown on root stock that has N. American ancestry, but with grafts of the old world varieties. (One of the most widely grown comes form my Alma Mater who developed most of the wine grape plants in California today). The world has “moved on” and is busily making ever more cold tolerant grapes. But it isn’t easy.

    So first off, any comparison of “grapes today” to “grapes then” has to allow for the fact that these are entirely different grapes. Wine made in places like Florida and Kentucky are usually made from N. American (Vitus Labrusca or sometimes Muscadine). In particular, there are now hybrids that have only some of the “welch’s grape juice” character of the N. American grape so make a better wine, yet are phylloxera resistant and cold hardy.

    “Hybrid grapes also exist, and these are primarily crosses between V. vinifera and one or more of V. labrusca, V. riparia or V. aestivalis. Hybrids tend to be less susceptible to frost and disease (notably phylloxera), but wine from some hybrids may have a little of the characteristic “foxy” taste of V. labrusca.”

    Now instead, go get yourself a nice Pinot cultivar and try growing it in Scotland. Outdoors. I’ll wait…

    PTW, Pagan Beliefs have zero to do with any of the climate stuff. You are using that word as a slur with no semantic content. I know Pegan beliefs. I have a “Master Of Druidry” degree and I have studied the Pegans. (They are not the same, BTW… Hope you know the difference…) Oh, and I picked up a PhD. Religion along the way. I’m most fond of Buddhist thought (also not Pegan) but do find a certain attraction to Hermetic thinking and Horus (they ARE Pegan) as often much more grounded than some “western” religions. But I digress…

    Let me once again Make Very Clear: It is not my job, nor anyone else’s, to “show where you are wrong”, you do that well enough yourself with internal lack of self consistency and disconnect from fundamental physics, geology, and biology. I will not waste my time chasing your fantasies. That does NOT in any way ratify any assertion on your part. It only means I find it a waste of my time.

    BTW, Gondwanaland was between 500 and 180 MYA. Sonora was formed about 75 MYA in the late cretaceous, so you are a few million years off. Also, the high prevalence of “bean trees” in that desert show that it evolved from a tropical forest ecosystem. Yes, the lush forest evolved and those desert cacti are their descendants. It’s that kind of disconnect on many (most?) of the stuff you have posted that I just don’t have the time to catalog for you. Please, take just a little while to fact check your assertions. Otherwise you risk the bit bucket.

    I’m willing to allow folks to express most any opinion, but once you stray into endless advocacy for things that are demonstrably not so, and in a style that promotes discord, it starts to get old “right quick”…

Comments are closed.