February 18, 2013
Last week the Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned that the most dangerous threat to the US government through federal programs is man-made climate change.
According to the GAO “High Risk Series” (HRS) report, the ever increasing threat of global warming is overblown. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, head of the GAO, stated: “Limiting the federal government’s fiscal exposure to climate change is one of the new areas we have on the list. The federal government is terribly exposed to this change.”
Doraro is concerned about the buildings and defense installations owned by the US government; as well as the local governments who would ask for emergency assistance should a disaster like ruined crops or flooding come to fruition.
The GAO does not “budget for disaster and the record number of disasters hit above 90 in 2012.”
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has spent more than $80 billion to aid states after disasters as indicated between 2044 – 2011. An estimated $60 billion alone was requested by the Obama administration for the Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts.
The HRS report seeks to mitigate fraud, waste and abuse with regard to aiding disasters by:
• Understanding implications of climate change
• Adjust federal insurance on crops and disasters
• Research effects of climate change such as beach erosion and rising sea levels
• Develop federal plan to deal with climate change
• Encourage local governments to cooperate with federal government
• Empower FEMA with jurisdictional authority over acquiring federal aid
Satellite information provided by the Department of Defense (DoD) that assess forcasts and “warnings of extreme events” are not functioning properly with a measurable gap between data being contributed during the day. This compromises the DoD’s contribution to climate change understanding as well as “less accurate and timely weather forecasts and warnings of extreme events, such as hurricanes, storm surges and floods.”
House Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, concurs that the effects of climate change are effecting the planet and Congress should devise plans to combat the issue.
Issa stated: “We’re recognizing that we have under-appropriated and under-prepared for a wide variety of disasters. If they’re occurring more, not less, if we’re seeing an absence of indexing for inflation, those are all areas that legitimately put it at high risk. I hope all members of Congress on both sides of the issue recognize that it’s really not about where you are on climate change, how much CO2 is being emitted — which, by the way, has gone down, not up — it’s really about recognizing that Congress has not adjusted for the amount of money we are paying out.”
Issa asserted that natural disasters “are primarily the responsibilities of the cities and states. And I will point out that we can no longer assume that the federal government will come in with an emergency supplemental [funding] every time there is an [extreme weather] occurrence. We have a responsibility to be proactive: Proactive in asking the states and the cities to be prepared to meet more of these requirements. Proactive in making sure that we withhold the funds, either through insurance funds or through actual appropriations that are appropriate for the real anticipated events.”
In Obama’s recent State of the Union (SOTU) address, Congress was admonished to act against climate change because “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations” from the threat of climate change. I will.”
Obama threatened to once again circumvent Congress with an executive order demanding adherence to reduction of CO2 emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new guidelines for nuclear power plants with regard to mitigating their greenhouse contribution.
Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the President for energy and climate asserts that Obama will respond with executive power should Congress not; explaining that there “are 15 things we’re going to do, but I think the point here is that we have demonstrated an ability to really use our existing authority—permitting-wise, what we can do through the budget—to make progress.”
Through cutting off funding, and allocating federal land to renewable-energy development, the Obama administration will mandate higher efficiency standards for corporations to follow.
Zichal said: “The president demonstrated [in the SOTU] that his preference, his stated goal, is that he would welcome an opportunity to work with Congress on a bipartisan, market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Whether or not that’s a reality certainly remains a question.”
Alarmist ignore empirical data and coerce governments to reduce greenhouse emissions or else.
A third of scientists actually buy into the man-made global warming scheme that alarmists use in order to push their agendas which ultimately lead to total control over natural resources by a select few.
In the report entitled, “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” claim that climate change is man-made and not a natural phenomenon because “humans are the main or central cause.”
The document was based on only surveying 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists with 24% “believ[ing] that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the earth” while another 10% consider the “‘real’ cause of climate change” to be “unknown” and acknowledge that “nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.”
Those in the 24 percentile were labeled “nature is overwhelming” and “most likely likely to speak against climate science as being science fiction, ‘manipulated and fraudulent'” and is “least likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled, that IPCC modeling is accurate.”
“Fatalists” made up 17% of those surveyed who were most likely to “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused,” “consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life” and “are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.”
Last month, a study released by Norwegian researchers state that predictions made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were blown out of proportion; and that the assertions made previously were completely wrong. Climate change has turned out to not be as terrible as the alarmists claimed it would be.
According to a plethora of creditable scientific papers published by known scientists since 2010 show that there is an “overestimation” of the evidence allegedly proving that global warming is worsening and would continue through the 21st century.
According to a leaked document from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming of the planet is due to “solar variations on the stratosphere” as some studies suggest and this fact may be the reason for “regional impacts on climate.”
In Chapter 11, the IPCC buried the scientific findings concerning solar activity and climate change even though their own evidentiary conclusions come to the same summation. These facts do not fit the IPCC’s previous models and therefore the information was omitted from their documentation.
This leaked document from the IPCC supports the findings of the Norwegian researchers by confirming that the IPCC elaborated their findings with respect to the actual temperature of the planet as opposed to their predictive computer models.
Roy Spencer, climatologist at the University of Alabama explains: “Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted. Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row… what that means is that it’s time for them to re-evaluate.”