Dr. Calvin Beisner gives one view. He believes it will hurt the least among us, the poor, the most, as I do. One thing for sure if fully implemented it will make the cost of energy go up.
There are no teeth. It is a purely volunteer agreement. Will the U S congress vote to send our portion of the 100 Billion dollars per year to the poorer countries to pay for abundant wind and solar power? I seriously doubt it with an 18 trillion dollar debt all ready facing us.
Read the comments in Beisner’s post to see what the No. 1 and No 3 contributor of CO2, China and India plan to do.
Apparently the European leaders are quite excited. If they think Solar and Wind are so great why have the Investments in European Wind and Solar dried up. Could it be there previous investments in Wind and Solar are not economic alternatives to burning cheaper fossil fuels to generate electricity. See my Oct 12th, 2015 Post.
Before the U. S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness
This testimony by one of leading climatology experts in the world should be sufficient evidence to the Delegates of the 2016 General Convention to approve my two Petitions to remove the Seven Paragraphs from the Methodist Church Book of Discipline relating to Green House Gases(CO2) and global warming. It is a political issue not one that determines whether I go to Heaven on Hell and the science is not settled as many including President Obama would have you believe.
Further I hope the delegates would Reject the proposed changes in Resolution 1001 by The Board of the Church and Society and vote to remove it all together as I have proposed.
Thanks to Watts Up With That, here is a link to a recent article from Christopher Monckton of Brenchly, former Energy Advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Read carefully as he rebuts with facts a Global Warming supporter’s points on Global Warming/Climate Change. By the way the weather is always changing but the question is does mans burning of fossil fuels, ie CO2 contribute to this change?
Monkton’s title is
AP’s Seth Borenstein gets something right (but only the date)
Correction and Late Breaking News 12/04/2015 at 21:30
Today I want to shift gears and talk about oil prices. After I came back from Saudi Arabia, myself, Dick Martin, who had extensive Middle East oil experience, and Mac Stevenson, who had broad experience around the world with Exxon, published a couple of studies on world oil prices. As I made presentations of the study I would often get asked what I thought oil prices would be six months from now? My answer then was,” If I could tell you that I would not be giving speeches today I would be on my yacht, cruising like the then Saudi Oil Minister, Sheik Yamani. Today I am not sure if His Excellency Ali L Namie the current Saudi Oil Minister could answer that question.
In 1978 when I was the Chief Petroleum Engineer for Saudi Aramco my wife brought me home a small book entitled “Small is Beautiful” by E F Shumaker. As I recall he had an excellent Chapter on the inability of man to predict the future. I often remember two points he made. “ Man cannot predict the future because he doesn’t understand what is in minds of a few men that control it” but this does not mean you should not explore it. Second, “mankind will always appreciate most who say “Stop Look and Listen rather than Look it up in the Forecast”.
Having said this I recommend to you the following paper presented Friday December 4th, 2015 by The Telegraph. If you were one of the Saudi Princes who had his yearly income cut in half this year by the Opec leaders, principally Saudi Arabia not cutting back on Production in face of the oil glut, or Iran, Russia, and or Venezuela would not be just a bit angry.
Stay tuned to the OPEC meeting this Friday , December 4, 2015 in Vienna
Late Breaking News: OPEC Hold Same Production Levels. U S futures Sink to $39.60/Bbl but rebound to $40.14/Bbl at the close down $0.94/Bbl for the day
Dr. Neil Frank, Now retired Houston Weatherman addressed a Conroe group of men recently on the subject of Climate Change, Global Warming.
The Courier of Montgomery County, Texas wrote a nice summary of his comments. they are available in the following link,
Please read link below. Why is the world abuzz about imposing a solution to a problem that is not supported by recent and historical facts? Is it a disguise to take from the rich and give to the poor. Or will it make the poor poorer because of higher energy bills? Is your church involved in this fantasy. I hope not, but many our including my on Methodist Church. Please read my petitions in April 2015 blog, under news to remove seven paragraphs from the Methodist Discipline and Book of Resolutions that deal with this subject. This is a political issue and not a religious one in my opinion. http://TheWorldEnergyDilemma.com
The following article written by Dr. Legates supports this position.
David R. Legates, Ph.D., is Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware, Newark, DE, and a Senior Fellow of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
Under the influence of the current Pope the Catholic Bishops have fallen in line. Please read Dr. Calvin Beisner’s assessment from the Cornwall Alliance of what this means.
Information From Climate Depot
Top Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’ – ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ’Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?’
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’
In 2012 when “The World Energy Dilemma” was published I listed The XL pipeline as one of the major dilemmas we in America were facing. Here we are three years later and Secretary Kerry and President Obama vote to cancel the 7$ Billion project that would have allowed 800,000 Barrels per day of oil from Canada.
How dumb can we be, Mr. President ?
While the need for this oil has lessened over the last 5 years you delayed this project, with the sharp declines we are now facing, due to low prices, we will look back in the near future and say why did President Obama kill the XL pipeline, considering the jobs it would have contributed along with increasing energy Security for America.
By the way Hillary Clinton had the job of giving approval while she was Secretary and never did and now states she would not approve the XL pipeline if elected President. How dumb.