The Contrarian

“In the investment markets, what everyone knows is usually not worth knowing.”

DiCaprio, Climate Change and Hollywood

The movie premier for DiCaprio’s documentary on climate change took place on the South Lawn of the White House. DiCaprio said that anyone who doesn’t believe in climate change caused by human activity should not be allowed to run for public office. Probably many non-believers wouldn’t want to run for office anyway. They have jobs, occupations, and businesses. This article below is interesting, especially as it explains the agreement the US president signed in Paris to comply with some arbitrary targets.

From American Liberty Pac:   http://bit.ly/2fjTrYz

DiCaprio was at the White House event, dubbed “South by South Lawn,” to premiere his climate change documentary film “Before the Flood.” Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, joined the president and the actor for a panel discussion.

“The scientific consensus is now in, and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio told the crowd. “If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts or in science or in empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”

The problem with such passion is that too few—including actors and politicians—consider the consequences of climate policies, said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“I like Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor. He seems like a great guy to have a beer with, but there is much he is not hearing from his conversations with Obama,” Lewis told The Daily Signal. “He thinks only climate change is a threat, but isn’t thinking about the threat of climate policy. To say we are going to bear any burden, pay any price, he doesn’t realize the cure can be worse than the disease.”

Lewis said poverty, not climate change, is the largest cause of preventable illnesses and premature death.  And, he said, fossil fuels have provided more energy and more food by making agriculture more efficient.

About 1.3 billion people in the world have no electricity, Lewis said, so energy should be made more plentiful and available.

“Obama and Leo don’t realize the potential for a humanitarian disaster” under strict carbon restrictions, Lewis said.

The Obama administration’s entry into the Paris climate agreement clearly violated what the Constitution considers a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, he said:

The Obama administration has called this the most ambitious agreement in history and it is. Other countries are talking about ratification. Obama does not want to use the R-word, ratification, because it would mean it’s the T-word, treaty.

In April, the United States signed on to the Paris agreement, which requires the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 2005 levels by 2025, which would be a reduction of 26 percent to 28 percent.

The same standards aren’t required of all 170 countries in the agreement. He also noted India’s recent action on the agreement.

“Now, not every country is doing the exact same thing because not every country produces the same amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases per capita. … The good news about the Paris agreement is that it committed everybody to do something,” Obama said during the panel discussion, adding:

I anticipate that this agreement will actually go into force in the next few weeks. India, just this past week, signed on and we are going to get a few more nations signing on. So, officially, this agreement will be in force much faster than I think many of us anticipated.

India will not be making the same sacrifices in limiting carbon dioxide emissions under the Paris agreement as the United States, said Nicolas Loris, a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heritage Foundation.

“India’s end of the commitment won’t force it to cut economic growth,” Loris told The Daily Signal. “They are cutting carbon intensity rather than CO2 emissions. It would be a ratio of carbon to the GDP [gross domestic product].  It will be business as usual without restrictions on coal-fired power plants in India.”

China likewise is not making the same sacrifices as the United States, he said.

How much man’s activity contributes to global warming has been a contentious issue during Obama’s two terms. While the administration and many scientists call for sweeping government action to limit what they view as catastrophic climate change, other scientists and business leaders contend that humans’ role and its results aren’t certain.

Above Commentary by Fred Lucas, the Daily Signal 

More on Global Warming:

A so-called “climate expert,” now a professor at Columbia, has been warning about man-caused global warming for the past 30 years. Sea levels will rise 8-12 feet, submerging coastal cities globally. He goes back 120,000 years and found a period where a 1 degree rise in global temperatures caused a big rise in sea levels. He now forecasts a 2 degree rise.

We are always open-minded. We look at the motivation of “experts,” especially those who dine at the public trough. Let’s assume that global temperatures are rising, although last year a major organization had to admit that global temperatures have declined the past 15 years. But let’s assume they are rising again.

The professor’s remedy is to impose a carbon tax. Is that a solution?

Even if global temperatures have risen a fraction of a degree over the past 100 years, where is the evidence that the cause is carbon fuels? It’s a fact that the sun’s cycle of solar flares, volcanic eruptions, solar orbits, and other astronomical factors cause long term climate cycles. They are much more powerful than all the SUV’s driving around the world.

The global warming crowd doesn’t even know that the axis of the earth changes and completes one cycle every 26,000 years. Yes, the axis is tilted. It’s called “precession.” That means that at times the earth gets more solar radiation than at other times.

What would happen if all carbon fuels are banned and temperatures continue to rise? What would be targeted next? Changing the orbit of the sun, or the precession of the earth?

The government’s of the world have a program to spray aluminum oxide nano-particles at high altitudes as part of a “geo-engineering” program. (please google this.) The program is kept under cover.


Government’s program to control climate
: Have you noticed the long “chem trails” high in the sky that last for many hours. Most people think they are condensation trails. But con-trails last only minutes. These are called “chem trails.”

There is a video where even the “climate czar” in the White House talks about it as a governmental program. He even says that we might find out that the consequences are worse than what we are trying to combat. Yet, he is a proponent of the program, not knowing the consequences.

My degree is in chemistry with a minor in physics. Therefore, please don’t write and tell me to stick to economics, which is another dismal science. The theory behind spraying this poisonous mixture is that the aluminum reflects sunlight back into space.

Is that desirable? First of all, aluminum oxide (especially nano particles) gets into your body through your pores and your breathing. They combine with the fluoride of your toothpaste and drinking water in many cities. Aluminum fluoride is very bad for the brain, and is thought to produce dementia and even Alzheimer’s. As you know, the incident rate of Alzheimer’s and dementia is rising “dramatically” according to some reports.

But there is another problem with this science. If the particles reflect sunlight coming in, don’t they also reflect the infra red (heat) reflecting from the oceans, keeping the heat in? Could that be the cause of ocean levels rising?

Could the geo-engineering program of what appears to be many governments around the world, and not reported in the media, actually be the cause of any global warming? And then we must ask, is this the goal for some other reasons such as monetary purposes. Remember, the slogan of some people in high place, “never let a crisis go to waste.”

Research this yourself. Don’t just believe an article, even this one, without confirming it with others. Search “long term climate cycles” and see that they have been in effect since the earth formed. But our politicians think they can rescind nature…of course, with your money. Al Gore says that all the countries should spend $100 TRILLIONS on this program. (That’s not a typo).