Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming President Donald Trump has been excoriated for his decision to have the United States exit the Paris Climate Accord. However, one very influential man � John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel � has his back. TAA reports: In a series of tweets and emails Coleman sent to Al Gore and various Democratic supporters and organizations, he called out climate alarmists with a barrage of facts based on actual science and not wishful thinking As it turns out, if you chart global temperatures back into the �70s, there are absolutely no signs of global warming. There�s been less than one degree temperature change since 1978 and no warming to speak of since 1998. So where is the government getting their information from? It turns out that the government has been manipulating climate computer models.

This means that the American tax payers are being charged $4.7 billion a year in taxes that are being used to fund organizations that carry out meaningless studies based on bad science. Basically, the American people are paying fake scientists to lie to them. Find out more in the video below. Government actions to counter �carbon pollution� have raised the cost of fuel, electricity and food by an average of $1000 per year for an average American family of four. If that family of four would only open their Internet browsers and see that the Antarctic Sea is at an all time high and sea levels are rising at an �alarming� rate of around 6 inches per century, they would feel outraged that they�re being taken advantage of, at least one would hope. President Trump was right to leave the Paris Climate Accord � they lie to American taxpayers and waste trillions of dollars..

 

5 Bad Reasons to Ditch the Paris Climate Agreement

Yesterday the President of the United States Donald J Trump decided to remove the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, something that was agreed to by basically every country on earth except for Syria and Nicaragua Syria in war and Nicaragua because they didn't think it went far enough. Now this just baffles me, I'm trying to understand the reasons for why you would do this, why withdraw from this agreement but none of the stated reasons make any sense to me so in this video I'm going to break down the top five bad reasons I've heard for why the US is withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. Okay, number one is because it is bad for the US economy. The U.S. set a target of reducing their emissions from 2005 levels by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, and they've already reduced the emissions by around 12 to 14 percent.

So maybe it's fair enough to say if you wanted to implement some really strict policies and really curb emissions there might be a way to do harm to the economy in the process but here's the thing, the Paris agreement is completely non-binding. So if the president didn't want to implement any policies to curb emissions that would be fine and he's not going to be president in 2025 anyway so I mean what does it matter there's a non-binding agreement there are no repercussions no one has to do anything it's mainly just a goal it's a target that target in itself is not going to harm the US economy and all of this ignores the fact that the world is moving towards cleaner, greener tech innovation there's going to be a lot of investment in that area, estimates of multiple trillions of dollars being invested in this so if you're a country that doesn't embrace reductions in emissions then actually you might miss out on investment opportunities new innovations and you might lose the opportunity to be a world leader and that might actually hurt the GDP and if you look at the Canadian province of British Columbia for example they implemented a carbon tax and reduced per capita fossil fuel use by about 20 percent compared to the rest of Canada meanwhile their GDP grew at the same rate as the rest of the country so there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest that reducing emissions, directly causes a downturn in the economy.

Which brings us to number two, well the free market should decide what technologies take off, what innovations happen the money, the smart money should go where the good investment opportunities are the government shouldn't be deciding who should win and who should lose and that we should change to a cleaner greener economy, that is a very American viewpoint on the world and I like it, I like this idea that markets are smart and they'll put money where it pays returns the problem is this market has never been fair and the reason why is because co2 has not been considered really a pollutant up until now and to be fair co2 doesn't really seem like a pollutant and if you're just emitting a little bit of it there's no problem the problem comes when we totally change the amount of co2 in the atmosphere and only then because co2 has this effect of trapping infrared radiation, something scientists figured out you know more than 100 years ago. So here's the problem, people have been emitting co2 which in small amounts is really not a big deal but in large amounts can cause some damage, damage in the form of more intense storms and droughts and people have to pay for that so there is a cost actually associated with emitting co2 except right now that cost is not being borne by the emitters of co2, it's being borne by the whole world and that makes the markets not on a level playing field.

I mean the analogy for this would be let's say there's one company that disposes of its pollution appropriately and that cost some money and so paying this company is more expensive than paying another company which just dumps its pollution in a river and you know leaves the rest of the communities downstream to deal with it. in that market it's not fair because people will go to the cheaper option and they're only cheaper because they're polluting for free, so in order for free markets to decide and make a fair decision all I'm saying is we need to factor in the cost of the pollution. This makes cleaner technology way more competitive and so yeah let's go for a free market solution but let's make sure the market is truly fair first. Number three, China and India don't have to reduce their emissions so why should the United States? Ok well the truth about this is that China and India are setting targets under the Paris agreement to reduce their emissions but that is per unit of GDP.

With the idea that these countries are still developing they're still going to grow a lot and so it seems pretty unfair to curb their emissions so strictly right now, whereas the US is the biggest historic emitter of carbon dioxide they've emitted about 30% of the total excess carbon dioxide that is now in the atmosphere Europe's also emitted about 30% and that has made those countries very rich and very capable of changing their economies into less polluting economies so the idea here is that what seems most fair is for the countries that contributed most of the problem to start to take action first and also because their economies can deal with it they're rich enough and also the economies of the US and Europe don't depend very much on just a lot of energy I mean a lot of the sectors like you know financial and technology and innovation they don't require tons of energy to to get going, not like building the infrastructure in in India and China are going to require in order to lift all of those populations out of poverty so I think it seems pretty fair for the US and Europe to go first I don't think this is a part where you point to a country that hasn't really contributed much the problem say well why aren't they changing first before we do it.

If you created the problem you need to be one of the first to try to fix it. Number four, the Paris agreement wouldn't do anything to help climate change anyway, now while it's true that under the current emissions targets that have been set we're not guaranteed to limit warming to under two degrees Celsius which is what most experts think is kind of a safe level but it is an important starting point it is all the countries of the world virtually coming together to agree to do something and I think once people start taking action to try to achieve these goals we're going to find that it just gets easier to try to lower our emissions so I think the Paris agreement is really a floor not a ceiling on what we can do in terms of reducing our emissions and it's really an important first step and I don't see how anything is gained by leaving it. Number five; he had to withdraw from the Paris agreement because it's politically unpopular here in the U.S. That is actually just not true depending on what poll you look at roughly seven out of ten Americans think that we should still be in the agreement and 60% of swing voters think that it's good to be part of the deal and even half of Republicans wanted to stay in so what really is gained here I think there's certainly a portion of Trumps base that wanted to see him withdraw from this agreement it's something he can point to is a campaign pledge that's been fulfilled and it'll definitely energize that base but beyond that it's hard to see how this is going to raise his approval ratings much which currently sit around 39% and that brings me to bonus reason number six which perhaps is the real reason that he did this and it was to piss off the opposition.

He wanted a whole bunch of environmentalists whipped into a frenzy so that he could point at them and say look how crazy these people are and how much they prefer the trees and birds and stuff like that over jobs and the economy and things that people really should care about. The problem is I mean that relies on people believing that you know these sorts of agreements would be bad for the economy which I think you can demonstrate from the evidence that they're not, so I think the best response to this decision is not to get angry or inflamed or you know go nuts about it because I think that's kind of maybe why he did it in the first place I think the best reaction is one that we're already seeing, that people around the U.S. cities, states, leaders business leaders are all agreeing to work with each other to make sure that the U.

S. meets its responsibilities under the Paris climate agreement whether the federal government actually, you know signs it, ratifies it or not and I think that might be the best outcome here if Trump becomes marginalized and people no longer look to his leadership that might just make him feel small which is probably the thing he would hate the most..

Trump pulls U S out of non binding Paris Climate Accord — Here’s why he was right to do it

Trump pulls U.S. out of non-binding Paris Climate Accord � Here�s why he was right to do it by: JD Heyes Far-Left Democrats and so-called �environmentalists� who still believe the global warming hoax are furious at President Donald J. Trump for keeping his campaign pledge to withdraw the United States from the �non-binding� Paris Climate Accords signed onto by the Obama administration. But perhaps after they calm down and allow their blood pressure to return to normal, they can take a rational, reasoned look at why the president made his decision; if they afford him that courtesy, there is no way they can conclude that his decision was wrong. In making the announcement from the White House Rose Garden Thursday afternoon, Trump stated that he felt obligated to withdraw from the agreement � which should have been sent to the U.

S. Senate by Obama to be ratified as a treaty, because that�s what it was, in both style and substance � because it is �a bad deal� for American workers, taxpayers and companies. (RELATED: The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants, forests and all life on our planet) Trump also knocked the cost of the agreement � which will rise to some $450 billion a year, much of which would have to come from the U.S. � while major polluters who are also signatories to the deal do not have to comply with the accords� emissions limitations for more than a decade. Meanwhile, the U.S. has to comply immediately. The president also lashed out at his critics who said pulling out of the deal would be a disaster for the country, noting that remaining in the agreement would cost American families and businesses billions per year. Also, he said, the agreement prohibited the U.S. from �conducting its own domestic economic affairs� by preventing the development of our own natural resources, like clean coal and natural gas, both of which create far fewer emissions than other forms of energy.

�I was elected to represent the people of Pittsburg, not Paris,� Trump said. �It�s time to pursue a new deal that protects� the environment, as well as the American people. Trump, according to various experts and analyses, was right to withdraw from the current agreement as written. �Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama has essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy,� Americans for Tax Reform noted Wednesday in a post on its website. �Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the country�s growth as a whole, but will trickle down to low-and-middle income Americans. As a result of the agreement, energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.

� (RELATED: UN official actually ADMITS that �global warming� is a scam designed to �change world�s economic model�) A study of the agreement by the Heritage Foundation, released in April 2016, found that the agreement would have resulted in the adoption of government policies that dramatically increased electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. In addition, the analysis found that American families would lose out on some $20,000 in income by 2035, regressive (not progressive) economic policies that no doubt would hit the nation�s poorest the hardest. [Meanwhile, we�re sure that Obama won�t have any trouble paying his electric bill, no matter what it costs] Other analysts, as Trump noted in his speech, noted that the loss of U.S. annual gross domestic product would be close to $3 trillion by 2035, while reducing employment in the U.S.

by about 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing. But perhaps most galling of all is the fact that even the far Left admitted that the agreement would accomplish virtually nothing � and certainly was not the global carbon emissions destroyer its principle advocates made it out to be. Politico Europe reported: In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth. As Trump said, �The agreement is a massive redistribution of wealth from the U.S. to other countries.� There is no good reason to remain in it, just as there was no good reason for Obama to have signed it..

 

Climate Change Wiped from White House Records

>> Kait: So Trump has held true to his word of denying climate change with his first stop being the White House Website. >> Chris: Which should not be a surprise what so ever. >> Kait: Not at all. So according to PRI, shortly after Trump was inaugurated all mentions of the phrase climate change have been wiped out. So, I actually tested this. I went to the White House website a couple of days ago and I typed in climate change and only two links came up for me. None of which were related to the environment. One was, like, the change of something, but I don't know what we are changing, and the other the climate of a state. Like oh it's a beautiful climate in the state. >> Chris: It's a good thing you don't work for the state of Florida. And we're, ah, right now in Washington because otherwise. >> Kait: Because you could be arrested. >> Chris: Ya, you could be arrested for mentioning climate change.

Maybe Trump will make the whole nation that way. You know. >> Kait: Oh great. Don't give him any ideas. He could be watching this. So, instead of climate change being on there Trump has put his own future plans on the website. Those include… In the proposal, Trump commits to elimination the Climate Action Plan, a sweeping set of policies aimed at cutting carbon pollution, including a number of President Barack Obama's executive actions. Trump also promises to eliminate the Waters of the United States rule, a technical document that defines which waterways come under the jurisdiction of federal regulations under the Clean Water Act. The 2015 rule is intended to protect smaller streams, tributaries and wetlands from development and has drawn sharp criticism from Republican lawmakers and from the farm and manufacturing interests. So, these are not the only ones that he put on the website. Those are just a few that we wanted to mention.

But, ultimately this really comes at no surprise. I mean he mentioned it in his campaign. But, he also nominated Scott Pruitt to be his head of EPA. And, we all know how much Scott Pruitt just loves the EPA. He loves them so much that he sued them 13 times. And when he was, you know, I think it was Oklahoma. >> Chris: Ya >> Kait: He actually removed the EPA from his own state. >> Chris: Well, it's funny because during his own nomination process that was a hot topic was the EPA. >> Kait: Yes. So, [laugh] this is really bad news. I mean ultimately Trump is, you know, is trying to make moves to shut down the EPA but the Washington Times spoke out about their joys of the fact that the EPA's trying, going to be shut down by saying….What great news for an agency with a history of executive overreach and lawlessness (using the Clean Power Plan to wipe out the coal industry, expanding its authority to lay claim on any pond or waterway, colluding with the environmental groups to expand their own power through rule-making).

So, some people are celebrating. >> Chris: Ya. Ya, definitely some people are celebrating. >> Kait: I'm not celebrating. >> Chris: It's not like the EPA does ton of stuff for us. >>Kait: Ya. >> Chris: They just sit around sucking us dry. >> Kait: I know. >> Chris: They're like the lazy people… >> Kait: With their 8 billion, you know. >> Chris: Ya >> Kait: Drain on our money, you know…. Blah blah blah. I mean it doesn't make sure we have clean water or that the entire United States doesn't turn into LA with all the smog and air pollution. >> Chris: Exactly. It's not like they have regulation that specifically states that we have to have clean air, clean water, clean lands. That we have to restore the lands that we have used for mining or for fracking. >> Kait: Or monitor and create Superfund sites so that more people don't get sick. >> Chris: Nah, they don't do any of that. Nothing.

>> Kait: Oh no. And they don't even hold the rules for the emissions of the cars so that we have more electric vehicles or anything like that. They don't do any good. Their just a drain. >> Chris: Completely. Completely a drain. >> Kait: So, I don't know what's going to happen if Trump follows through with this but ah, ya. >> Chris: Well, climate change is ah Chinese hoax. >> Kait: Oh I know right. >> Chris: At least that is what Trump tells me. Is that, and I believe everything that he tells me. Everything. He has pretty big hands. >> Kait: [laughing] So, ya, let's just keep an eye on this. I mean nothing has fallen through altogether. A lot of it, there is going to take a while to cut it all back. I mean at first he was just talking about cutting it back a little bit, maybe even just 10%.

I'm not really sure. I mean Scott Pruitt might be in his ear talking a lot. But ah, just keep an eye out. Heard though. and I don't know how accurate this is. If we have information we will put it on our website. But, there might actually be an Earth, a rally Earth march on Earth day. To help to protect the environment. So, keep a look out about that event. Try and see if there is anything in your area. But, um, that is definitely I think something we should do if this is happening. >> Chris: Definitely, definitely think so. >> Kait: And if you like this content and want to hear more please subscribe to us..

No, Republicans… God Won’t “Take Care Of” Global Warming

I REPUBLICAN LAWMAKER IN MICHIGAN BY THE NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE TIM WALBERG WAS RECENTLY TALKING TO HIS CONSTITUENTS ABOUT THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, EVEN THOUGH HE IS A RIGHT-LEANING POLITICIAN, HE DOES BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE EXISTS HOWEVER, HE DOES WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT IF WE START REALLY FEELING THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE, THERE'S ONE INDIVIDUAL OR ONE POWER THAT HAS EVERYTHING UNDER CONTROL. TAKE A LOOK. I BELIEVE THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE. I BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN CLIMATE CHANGE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. OKAY, WE'RE OFF TO A GOOD STARTÖ REALLY GOOD START. THAT'S A REPUBLICAN AGREEING TO REALITY. WONDERFUL. THAN HE CONTINUES. DO I THINK MAN HAS SOME IMPACT? YET, OF COURSE. CAN MEN CHANGE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE? NOTE. I BELIEVE THAT? AS A CHRISTIAN I BELIEVE THERE IS A CREATOR, GOD, WHO IS MUCH GREATER THAN US AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT IF THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM, THAT HE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT.

I'M AMUSED BY HOW MUCH GOD MUST'VE HATED THE DINOSAURS. I WONDER WHAT KIND OF SIN THEY CREATED. LAST WORDS ARE GUIDEWIRE HAVE YOU FOR SAKE ENOUGH. LOOK AT THE METEOR. MAYBE THEY WERE HAT OVER THERE WERE HAVING TOO MUCH TO RENT A SOURCE SEX THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT BEFORE THAT ANYWAY, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IN A WORLD RUN BY LUNATICS? SORRY, I KNOW RELIGIOUS PEOPLE GET SUPER UPSET AT ME, BUT YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES. YOUR FAIRYTALE, WHEN IT GETS YOU THROUGH THE NIGHT, PLEASURE HARD. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH AND I THINK FAITH IS DIFFERENT THAN RELIGION. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE FAITH, GOD BLESSED. IRONIC BUT TRUE. BUT IF YOU SAY NO, I BELIEVE IN RELIGION. THESE THINGS WRITTEN BY RABBIS 2500 YEARS AGO WHEN THEY HAD NO SCIENCE AT ALL. THEY BARELY KNEW THAT 2+2 EQUAL TO FOUR AND THERE LIKE I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE HOLES IN THE SKY AND I THINK THAT WANTS US TO DO XY OR Z AND LATER, WHEN WE'RE SETTING POLICY THAT ACTUALLY AFFECTS THE WORLD, CLIMATE CHANGE LEADS TO SEVERE STORMS AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, LET ALONE THE DROUGHTS, FAMINES, ALL THE THINGS ARE COMING AND HAVE ARTIE BEGUN TO ARRIVE, AND THAT UNFORTUNATELY AFFECTS AND ULTIMATELY KILLS MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

NOW YOU ARE TELLING ME KNOW, IT'S OKAY, MY IMAGINARY FRIEND IN THE SKIES GOING TO FIX IT. THIS IS NOT A RARE TALKING POINT AMONG SOME OF THE MORE FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY. I DON'T KNOW AND I DON'T THINK HE IS FUNDAMENTALIST, BUT WHAT THIS REMINDS ME OF IS WHEN SOME FAMILIES WILL HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR FAMILY WHO GETS EXTREMELY SICK AND NEEDS MEDICAL ATTENTION AND THERE LIKE NO, WE DON'T GO TO DOCTORS BECAUSE GOD IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT. IF THEIR KID GETS CANCER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY DECIDE NO, NO CANCER TREATMENTS. NOTICING A DOCTOR. IF IT IS GOD'S WILL FOR MY CHILD TO DIE, THEN IT IS GOD'S WELL. THAT KIND OF THINKING IS SO INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. NO, GOD IS NOT GOING TO COME IN AND SAVE THE PLANET. IF YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS PERSON, YOU HAVE FAITH, AWESOME. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THAT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU CAN'T ALLOW THAT TYPE OF THINKING EITHER DICTATE OR SWAY PUBLIC POLICY. POLICY RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO TAKE SAY THIS PLANET.

THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO SAY PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS. LIMITED WILL THIS FROM A DIFFERENT DIRECTION IF YOU'RE RELIGIOUS. THERE IS AN OLD STORY, THERE'S A PRIEST ON A SINKING SHIP AND THEY SAY, FATHER, GET ON THE LIFE PRESERVER, WE HAVE ENOUGH SPACE. HE SAYS THAT'S OKAY, GOD WAS IS GOING TO COME SAVE ME. THE SHIP CONTINUES TO SING, HE IS ONLY ONE LEFT ON IT, A GIANT SHIFT COMES BY AND SAYS YOU ARE THINKING. HERE, COME ABOARD OUR SHIP AND THE FATHER SAYS NO, GOD IS GOING TO SAVE ME. DON'T NEED YOUR SHIP, THANK YOU THOUGH. AND HE IS A MUST DONE, HE'S ALL THE WAY TO HEAR, AND HELICOPTER COMES BY AND THEY SAY OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO SAVE YOU FATHER AND THE PRIEST SAYS NO, IT'S OKAY, GOD IS GOING TO SAVE ME AND THE HELICOPTER LEAVES. AS HE IS ABOUT TO DIE, HE'S DROWNING, HE'S AS GUY WENT GOD WHY VIEW FOR SAKE OF ME? GOD SAYS ICQ THREE DIFFERENT WAYS TO SAVE YOUR LIFE. I SENT YOU ABOUT, SHIP, AND HELICOPTER.

WHY DIDN'T YOU GET ON? MY POINT THERE IS MY CHILD IS SICK, BUT GOD WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. YEAH, IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER, DOUBLE TAKE CARE OF IT THROUGH SCIENCE AND DOCTORS AND MEDICINE. HE GAVE YOU MEDICINE AND SCIENCE AND DOCTORS, USE IT. IN THIS CASE, AND CLIMATE CHANGE, HOW IS GOD GOING TO SAVE YOU? GIVE YOUR MIND, YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE IT. HE GAVE A SCIENTIST, 97% OF THEM AGREE THAT IT IS HAPPENING AND WE HAD TO FIX IT RIGHT NOW, OTHERWISE ALL THOSE CONSEQUENCES THAT I TALKED ABOUT WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN. THE DROUGHTS, STORMS, ETC. WILL HAPPEN TO OUR MILITARY SAYS IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. EVEN THE CORPORATION STATUS GOING TO HAPPEN. HOW MANY TIMES DID GOD HAVE TO SEND YOU SOMETHING FOR YOU TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT INSTEAD OF SITTING AROUND LIKE A JACKASS GOING I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS GOD WILL FIX IT WITH MAGIC. IF HE DOESN'T FIX IT WITH MAGIC YET, I GUESS IT'S ALL RIGHT. WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS LEVEL OF STUPIDITY SO AGAIN, SORRY IF YOU ARE IN THE CAMP THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN SCIENCE AND BELIEVES IN VOODOO, BUT THAT IS A STUPID POSITION AND TIM WALBERG IS SQUARELY IN THAT CAMP.

I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE BEING A LITTLE UNFAIR TO HIM. BUT, THE STATEMENT ABOUT HOW JESUS IS GOING TO TAKE A WELL EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY, IT MAKES PEOPLE LIKE US ROLL HER EYES, BUT IT IS ALSO THE KIND OF STATEMENT THAT PLAYS WELL WITH HIS CONSTITUENTS. I GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR ACKNOWLEDGING CLIMATE CHANGE AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THE FACT THAT IT IS CAUSED BY HUMANS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HEAR THAT FROM THE RIGHT. YOU DON'T HEAR THAT FROM REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES ESPECIALLY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. I GIVE HIM CREDIT I THINK HIS HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE. I THINK HE IS RELIGIOUS AND RELIGION TEACHES YOU TO HAVE FAITH THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY AND GOD IS GOING TO LOOK OUT FOR YOU. I COULD AT THE YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE ME GO HARDER. Ö I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN SOMEONE SEEMS REASONABLE BUT MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH THIS COMPLETELY TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS AND NOT IMMEDIATELY CAST THEM OFF AS LUNATICS.

LET'S ROLL BACK LUNATIC FOR A 2ND. MY NUMBER ONE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION IS THAT IT IS NOT TRUE. I LOVE YOU IF YOU THINK IT IS AND YOU HAVE FAITH. COULD THERE BE A CONNECTION? I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT ANYTHING I MIGHT BE A TRANSCENDENTALIST THAT'S A VERY AMERICAN RELIGION OR FAITH IF YOU WILL, BUT DID GOD COMMUNICATE TO MARRY AND SAY I'M GOING TO IMPREGNATE YOU? KNOW THAT MOSES DIDN'T EXIST. THERE IS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF HIM AT ALL. DID MOHAMMED MOVE A MOUNTAIN OR TALK TO GOT ON TOP OF ONE? NO. IT IS NOT TRUE. IF YOU KEEP BELIEVING IN FAIRYTALES, BUT THEN YOU MAKE WORLD CHANGING DECISIONS THAT ENDANGER THE REST OF OUR LIVES THEN I'M SORRY, I HAVE TO BE A LITTLE OFFENSIVE TO YOU AND POINT OUT YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRYTALES.

NOTE. 2ND OF ALL, TIM WALBERG IS NOT A GENUINE ACTOR AND HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN ANY OF THAT STUFF. WHY HE HAS THAT POSITION, DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH RELIGION OR FAX OR SCIENCE? KNOW, HAS TO DO WITH HIS DONORS. THEIR STONE OF DONORS OUT THERE WHO SAY NO, I AM PROFITING, ME, DON'T CARE ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD, IF YOUR KIDS DIE AND MAYBE EVEN MINE, I DON'T CARE. I'M SO GREEDY I'M GOING TO PURCHASE TIM WALBERG AND SAY DO AS I TELL YOU. MAKE UP SOME LIE ABOUT HOW YOU ARE RELIGIOUS OR SOMETHING BUT YOU WILL VOTE AGAINST DOING ANYTHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE PAID TO DO THAT. THEIR WATER BOY AND DO YOUR JOB AND THAT IS WHAT WALBERG IS DOING. DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR FACT? I DID LOOK INTO HIS CAMPAIGN DONORS BUT MAYBE YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS FUNDED BY THE SAME OIL COMPANIES WHO TODAY ARE PANICKING A LITTLE BIT AND ARE SAYING AN OPEN ONE UP A LOT OF THAT BUT THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY AND THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE THE PROPAGANDA THAT THEY DO. BY THE WAY, THEIR THINK TANKS ARE ALSO FUNDED BY THE SAME EXACT COMPANIES WHOSE JOB IT IS TO TRICK YOU JUST LIKE THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.

JUST CREATE DOUBT. DOES IT CAUSE CANCER? SOME SAY THEY DO, SOME SAID IT DOESN'T I CAN'T TELL, LET'S LET JESUS SORT IT OUT AFTER YOU DIE FROM SMOKING IT AFTER THE PLAINTIFF THAT SOME CLIMATE CHANGE, LET JESUS SORTED OUT. NOW REPUBLICAN PARTY IN MASS GO, I AM PAYING YOU TO BE STUPID AND BY THE WAY, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND HE MAKE A GOOD POINT. IT'S NOT JUST THAT TIM WALBERG AND GUYS LIKE HIM GO HEY, I JUST WANT A BIT LATE I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT I JUST WANT POWER. I BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE IS TOTALLY REAL AND THE PLANE IS MELTING BUT I DON'T CARE DODGES GIVE ME THE MONEY. SOMEONE LIKE THAT, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. I WOULD GUESS THAT MOST OF THEM ARE. IT'S A COMPANY OF 330 MILLION PEOPLE THAT YOU WANT TO FIND A STUPID GUY WILL DO YOUR BIDDING? YOU SAY HEY, DO YOU BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE? KNOW, I GUESS NOT THAT I GUESS THE LORD JESUS IS GOING TO. YOU RUN FOR CONGRESS, NOW YOU ARE MY BOY.

YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? AND HE SAYS YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT IS HOW IT WORKS..

Bill introduced in Congress to “Terminate the EPA”

Bill introduced in Congress to �Terminate the EPA� by: Mike Adams (Natural News) The EPA was originally founded on principles of solid science and a commitment to protecting the environment. For many years, it actually did a lot of good by clamping down on corporate polluters and reducing the contamination of rivers and streams. But today, the EPA is better known as the �Environmental POLLUTION Agency� that spouts totally fabricated quack science while destroying the careers of honest scientists inside the agency who attempt to blow the whistle. To give you just a quick overview of the EPA�s outrageous crimes against the environment, consider these facts: * The EPA caused the Gold King Mine large-scale toxic spill into the Animas river, unleashing vast quantities of mercury and other toxic metals into sacred waterways of Native American communities.

In fact, the EPA�s extreme incompetence remains a grave threat to the safety of nature and our fragile ecosystems. * The EPA �legalized� the mass pollution of farm soils and children�s playgrounds across America with �biosludge,� a highly contaminated byproduct of raw human sewage and industrial pollution. This product � also called �biosolids� � is currently �recycled� back into the U.S. food supply (via �fertilizer� distribution) despite alarming scientific evidence showing its extreme dangers. See the trailer for my new film �Biosludged� at Biosludged.com and you�ll hear from a former EPA scientist whose career was destroyed by the EPA when he tried to sound the alarm. * The EPA routinely colludes with pesticide companies like Monsanto and Syngenta to grant approval to extremely toxic pesticides that are devastating the natural world (such as the neonics that are decimating bee pollinators). Thanks to the independent media like Natural News, we now know that the EPA actively covered up evidence for decades that linked pesticides to the death of pollinators. Just recently, the EPA approved yet another toxic herbicide (Dicamba) that�s been linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer.

And even when the EPA is forced to admit that toxic pesticides are killing honeybees, it still allows their widespread use on food crops. * For the last decade or so, the EPA has aggressively pushed the climate change science hoax, ridiculously claiming that carbon dioxide is a toxic poison that will doom humanity. In truth, CO2 is a blessing to the planet, giving rise to reforestation, more efficient food production and the more rapid growth of plants and trees in areas threatened by desertification. CO2 is a scarce resource, barely at 400 ppm in the atmosphere, and plant-based ecosystems are starving for it! (See more reports on the kind of fake science pushed by the EPA at FakeScience.news) * The EPA runs armed paramilitary �enforcement� teams that stomp around streams and ponds, threatening farmers and ranchers by claiming federal control over every last drop of water that might eventually drain into a river or stream. Quite literally, the EPA spends money on AR-15s, ballistic vests and other paramilitary gear in order to pull off its mission of expanding its power into an armed, unelected bureaucracy of dangerous science quacks.

Here�s a depiction of what the EPA�s armed �enforcement� teams might look like (not an actual photo, just a dramatization) See this Natural News article which describes the terrifying rise of �militarized federal agencies� including the USDA and EPA: The USDA has used its new military power to threaten people who grow lemon trees; force large fines on people for selling bunnies; confiscate raisins for no real reason; and ruin the livelihoods of small farmers. One USDA SWAT team even seized bees privately owned that were proven resistant to Monsanto�s GMO Roundup and killed all remaining Queens. This shows the incestuous relationship between crooked corporations like George Soros� Monsanto and government agencies. The USDA is not alone in its abuse of power.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have recently used their swat teams to bully Americans for lobbyist interests or to punish political enemies. I could go on, but the bigger point here is that the EPA is a quack science ministry of environmental B.S. that must be stopped. Introducing H.R.861 � �To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency� Fortunately for our future, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has introduced a bill to terminate the EPA and end its reign of anti-science terror over America. Via Congress.gov, here�s a glance at H.R.861: The bill is cosponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Steven Palazzo and Rep. Barry Loudermilk. Beyond its introduction, no action has yet been taken on the bill.

It rests in committee at �House � Energy and Commerce; Agriculture; Transportation and Infrastructure; Science, Space, and Technology.� With President Donald Trump having now nominated Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, it begs the question: Will Pruitt actively seek to dismantle or even shut down the agency�s he�s running? If so, it would be an historic victory for liberty in America. The EPA no longer serves the interests of the American people. It exists primarily to serve the profit interests of poison-pushing corporations while pumping up the climate change hoax for political purposes. While poisoning America and selling out to corporate interests, EPA leaders pay themselves inflated salaries and bonuses while collecting lucrative government pensions paid by future taxpayers. It�s all such a massive, evil scam that the EPA must be shut down to save the environment. This doesn�t mean we don�t need some level of government regulation of polluters, but this EPA as it exists today has zero interest in pursuing that goal anyway.

It�s time to bulldoze the EPA and start over. Stay informed about the EPA at EPA.news and EPAwatch.org. And read the book �Science for Sale� by David Lewis, PhD..

The Greatest Threat to Existence as We Know it

imagine its a beautiful day in April of 2017 three children in different parts of the world are going about their daily lives as they do every day and as their parents have done for countless generations meet Hiro in Japan Hiro wants to be a successful banker one day just like his father but right now he is more interested in spaceships and planets Abasie lives in Kenya with his parents and grandparents one day he wants to travel the world in his own little sailboat akash lives in india with his big happy family when Akash grows up he wants to be the world's greatest chef and so life goes on hiro becomes an astronaut much to his fathers suprise Abasie travels the world in his sailboat and Akash opened his own restaurant in his home town they grow old and pass on having lived fulfilled lifes their children follow and thier children's children until one day in April of 2100 Akoh and his family are crammed with thousands of other people at Haneda Airport hoping it's not too late sadly the people of Tokyo never had a chance the once-proud city is reduced to rubble by tsunami the likes of which has never been seen Anassa lyes in the dark of his quiet home and he knows his time has come it hasn't rained in months all the crops and livestock have died and the well dried up long ago the people of Kenya suffer the slow death of starvation and dehydration oni draws ragged breaths in his hospital bed his body ravaged by disease is the last living member of his family the population of India has fallen drastically these are a few hypothetical scenarios from various parts of the globe while they may seem unrelated they all share a common catalyst climate change as 2017 begins and the United States presidency changes hands it has become increasingly apparent that the new regime is full of climate change deniers and fossil fuel advocates it is more important than ever to spread real information regarding climate change and the catastrophic effects it can produce within the next 100 years let's start with the common misconception when some people hear the term global warming they'll point to an instance of colder than normal weather like the Sahara Desert recently and say that's ridiculous it's snowing here this objection stems from a misunderstanding of how weather differs from climate weather refers to local changes over short periods of time such as minutes hours days or weeks typical examples of whether include rain clouds snow wind and thunderstorms climate refers to longer-term averages and maybe regional or global in scale and can be thought of as weather averaged over an extended period of time typically years or decades an easy way to remember the distinction is weather is what you get climate is what you expect now that we have a good understanding of how climate and weather differ let's look at the scientific consensus over ninety seven percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past 100 years are extremely likely to have been caused largely by human activity that number goes up to over ninety-nine percent if you include climate scientists who have not recently published scholarly articles most of the leading scientific organizations around the world have issued public statements endorsing this position there are too many to list in this video so i put a link in the description of organizations and their statements climate change deniers tend to latch onto studies that disprove the trend but you always notice that the studies are either not peer-reviewed come from a known anti-science publisher or come from a scientist in a completely unrelated filled with an agenda of their own so where does this problem come from the largest contributing factor to climate change is the burning of fossil fuels oil coal and natural gas all release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when burned carbon dioxide is considered a greenhouse gas which simply means it sticks around in the upper atmosphere and traps heat the more carbon dioxide is released the more the atmosphere heats up this temperature increase then causes other problems such as melting glaciers and polar ice as arctic ice melts it releases co2 and methane a more potent greenhouse gas compounding the problem by making the atmosphere even warmer the smelting morais it's a vicious cycle ok but where do we stand right now what's the damage as of the end of 2016 carbon dioxide levels are up by nearly 405 parts-per-million the highest in 650,000 years global temperatures up by one point seven degrees since eighteen eighty and nine of the last ten hottest years on record happened since 2000 the tenth being 1998 Arctic ice is shrinking at a rate of 13.

3 percent per decade and land ice is disappearing at a rate of 281 gigatons per year Greenland ice loss doubled between 1996 in 2005 and finally the global sea level has risen seven inches in the last 100 you're probably thinking well that doesn't sound too bad let's look at the consequences by category first the melting of polar ice of course we've all heard that global warming affects the poor polar bears but it's true and it's severe at the current rate of melting which is likely to increase the Arctic is projected to see its first ice-free summer by 2050 imagine that all of the ice gone and yes that likely means extinction for the polar bears within a hundred years and it's not just polar bears some species of ice dependent seals will die off if they can't adapt including harp ringed ribbon and bearded seals then there are the ivory goals and ox ivory goals have already suffered a ninety percent population reduction in Canada over the past 20 years then there's the walrus the arctic fox small plant eaters like ground squirrels hairs lemmings involves large planters like moose caribou reindeer and musk ox and meat eaters like weasels wolverines wolves foxes bears and birds of prey the melting ice is likely to cause a domino effect knocking out species that other species depend upon for food melting ice brings us to our next category rising sea level over the past 100 years the global sea level has risen approximately seven inches the more alarming fact is that the rate of rise in the last decade is nearly double the rate of the entire last century at this rate rising sea level puts coastal cities and islands at great risk SC water reaches further inland it can cause destructive erosion flooding of wetlands contamination of aquifers and agricultural soils and lost habitat for fish birds and plants most projections show the sea level will rise between point 8 and 2 meters by 2100 which would be catastrophic for many low-lying islands and much of the eastern coast of the United States more dire predictions based upon the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet project a rise up to seven meters that's enough to submerge London the third category is the one with which most people are familiar global temperature rise as CO2 accumulates in our atmosphere the temperature creeps steadily upward the annual increase is measured at roughly 1.

7 degrees Fahrenheit this increase in temperature could cause the most drastic immediate effects of all three categories the list is long and distressing so here we go global warming will cause droughts and heat waves which are already responsible for killing more people per year than floods hurricanes lightning and tornadoes combined it will aggravate the spread of disease warmer weather allows disease bears to be active longer and further abroad warmer ocean temperatures will allow pathogens to flourish as we've already seen with the widespread coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef this coral houses twenty-five percent of all marine diversity and the reef is already declined by fifty percent in the last thirty years when the coral goes we'll lose hundreds of thousands of species dependent upon it for shelter which will collapse much of the marine food chain back on land fishing will suffer droughts will destroy crops and livestock and create a water scarcity pushing farmers and people in rural areas into the city this will cause overcrowding and help spark civil wars that killed hundreds of thousands like it did in Syria GDP is expected to plummet by twenty-three percent by 2100 caused by property damage from flooding droughts wildfires storms loss of productivity loss of tourism and illness you can see how quickly the situation can snowball wildly out-of-control it seems very dire but what can we do is it too late to stop the changes we put in motion it's hard to say for sure but the affect humans have had on this earth is severe and the changes have indeed been set in motion even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today global warming would continue for at least several more decades since carbon dioxide can linger in the atmosphere for up to centuries some experts believe we're approaching a tipping point a point at which abrupt perhaps irreversible changes would tip our climate into a new state however it may not be too late to limit some of the worst effects of climate change two important steps are required one mitigation the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and two adaptation learning to cope with and adapt to the climate changes that have already been set in motion recycling and driving fuel-efficient cars are important steps in the right direction but not sufficient on their own it will take a globally coordinated response such as clean energy agreements between nations as well as local efforts on the city and regional level such as sustainable City Planning public transportation upgrades and energy efficiency improvements so yes climate change is the biggest threat to existence as we know it and is deeply troubling that the United States government seeks to normalize ignorance of good science so if you're concerned for the future of the planet and generations to come do your part help spread this information because the earth truly is worth saving if you enjoyed this video please leave a like or a comment and subscribe to keep up with the latest content thanks for watching and we'll see you in the next video.