The Greens are giving great thanks for how cooperative the Trump team of negotiators was at the Bonn climate conference. In reality, there was no Trump negotiating team. We noted earlier that one of the top negotiators was an Obama man with a deep green background, including working for the radical enviro-group Earthjustice.
Well, it turns out that the whole team has worked out that way. In fact, the green press has noted with satisfaction the “continuity” between the Trump team’s position on critical issues and the positions of the prior Obama teams. In short, these were Obama-era people with Obama-era ideologies. There looks not to have been a Trump person among them.
This is clearly the State Department’s fault, but it is easy enough to explain. The State Dept. is an “old boy’s” club, one that tries hard not to respond to Administration leadership. CFACT readers who are familiar with the British TV comedy series — “Yes, Minister” — will know just how this goes. It is very funny to watch the entrenched bureaucrats deftly keep the new Minister of their Department from making changes.
It is far less funny to see the US State Department supporting the UN climate agenda of world domination through energy policy. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Yes, Minister ran during the early Reagan Administration.
Here is how the green Climate Home news service sums it up:
“Negotiators inside the rooms pointed to a “less visible” US delegation. But the Obama-era diplomats remained “engaged” and made “judicious” interventions along the same lines they have taken for years.
A senior developing country negotiator said: “They are less visible than they used to be, but their priorities are clear. There’s a strong sense of continuity.”
This continuity of personnel and priorities is part of what insulates the climate regime from outside shocks. Countries work in blocks, meaning that national politics is diluted. The diplomats who conduct this work are mostly familiar faces, even friends. This community effect shouldn’t be underestimated. They have a lot of skin in this game and care deeply for each other and the process.”
In short, there was no Trump policy or position in sight. The so-called American team was completely insulated from the “outside shock” of the new Trump Administration. Blame the State Department, especially including Secretary Tillerson. Personally, I would fire him if I were President Trump. This is a very big ball to drop.
Fortunately, there is still a long way to go to for the Paris Agreement. The next summit is a year away when the Paris Plan rulebook is supposed to be finished. There will be several key meetings before then.
Let’s hope that some Trump people can find their way to the negotiating table, to finally stand up for America, because America was never there at the Bonn climate summit.
Read more at CFACT
Earth Justice is just like with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund or NRDc and Center for Biological Diversity just another bunch of phonies hiding behind the shadow of Eviromentalism their all Deep Ecologists pushing The Wild Lands Project of radical Eco-Wacko and Earth First Founder Dave Foreman
How is Sick Building Syndrome
Exacerbated by Higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels?
Brian Donovan, Chief Scientist at McVan Aerospace. (2004-present)
Written just now
How is Sick Building Syndrome Exacerbated by Higher Atmospheric CO2 Levels?
Today’s High CO2 levels have destroyed fresh air and increased the
aches and fatigue of billions of people while impairing our brain functions.
HVAC, (Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) engineers
consider 800 ppm indoor a sign of severe under ventilation
and complaints of fatigue and aches seriously start at around 600 ppm.
CO2 is one of the most common causes of Sick building syndrome.
Supporting Information Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
This Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Scientific Findings Resource Bank.
“ In studies performed in Hungary [99], subjects’ performance in proof reading tests, but not other tests, were significantly diminished with 4000 ppm and 3000 ppm CO2,
relative to 600 ppm CO2.
Subjects’ levels of satisfaction with indoor air quality also diminished as the CO2 concentration increased.
In the first U.S. study [100], each subject completed tests of decision making performance with CO2 concentrations of 600, 1000, and 2500 ppm.
Carbon dioxide was increased above the baseline level of 600 ppm
by injecting ultrapure CO2.
The subjects’ performance on most measures of decision making performance was moderately and statistically significantly diminished at 1000 ppm CO2,
relative to 600 ppm CO2.
At 2500 ppm CO2, relative to 600 ppm, the subjects’ performance
on most measures of decision making performance was highly and statistically significantly diminished.
In a second study from the U.S. [13],
a test of decision making performance was again used to assess
subjects’ levels of cognitive performance.
On average, scores on the various measures of cognitive performance decreased by about 15% with 945 ppm CO2 relative to 550 ppm CO2.
With 1400 ppm CO2 relative to 550 ppm CO2, on average scores decreased by 50%.
“
This is very hard for many people to believe or care about.
They mention submariners:
we aren’t all healthy young men in a war machine trained to ignore pain and discomfort.
It’s irrelevant.
(( and submariners are rigidly restricted when exposed to CO2 ))
The fatal concentration for CO2 is 50,000 ppm,
so we’ll live,
we’ll just suffer more and forget what fresh air was like.
It’s worth it to help those poor coal mine owners, right?
It was hard enough to get under 600 ppm with outdoor air at 280 ppm,
when the air outside is at 600ppm it’s technically impossible.
Now even in the country we are over 450 ppm.
I have a CO2 meter in the house is it’s regularly going over 600ppm,
and I have to open window to get to 470 ppm or so.
In cities typical daily ppm are over 1000 ppm. indoors
typical schools and offices go over 2000 ppm.
We have destroyed fresh air.
Humans evolved with co2 never going over 300 ppm.
Humans have never seen 400 ppm co2,
and
we are very sensitive the CO2 levels.
This is a bad experiment.
We have the highest co2 in 3–15 million years.
We can go massively CO2 negative with solar, wind, and hydrocarbons
from wastes as a backup and replacement for fossils in long haul,
military, reserve generators, and chemical feed stocks.
Solar and wind are available cheaper now (2 cents),
it’s been the majority of new power instills for the last 5 years,
Solar and wind have doubled ever 2 and 4 years for the last 30 years or so.
It is my philosophy to be respectful in my responses but this comment has more BS in one place that I have seen for some time. I also have bad news for you in that I’m pretty sure I have found one of your source articles.
https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/
The first warning light is many of those involve in the research, like NASA, have a long history of climate fraud. However, the most compelling reason to know that this is BS comes from understanding human physiology.
Of atmospheric gasses, it is the level of oxygen in the blood that most impacts cognitive performance. How fast we breath is not determined by the oxygen concentration, but by the pH level (acid level) of the blood. This can be influenced by lactic acid during strenuous exercise, but primarily is determined by carbon dioxide. The more carbon dioxide the faster we breathe and more oxygen in the blood. Obviously when CO2 levels get high enough there can be a problem, but this is unlikely at the levels you site.
The article is blaming in door levels as high as 2000 on climate change. We don’t have internal combustion engines or power plants running in doors. The only source of CO2 inside of a building is humans. If the levels are too high, blame the building’s ventilation system, not climate change.
The article that you probably got your information from said that the carbon dioxide level in major cities can be 100 ppm higher than the surrounding country side. Your post said 600 ppm times higher.
You made the statement that Solar and wind power are available and cheaper now. The reality is they are not cheap enough. The disaster of Germany’s energiewende proves this. Part of this disaster is the 330,000 homes that have had their power cut off because they can’t afford the bills made so high by renewable energy. If renewable energy is so cheap, why has a mandate to use more such energy increased my power rate by 15%?
With temperatures failing to rise as predicted by the climate models, this is yet another attempt to justify the climate change agenda.
Though the alarmists continue to search for excuses, there is no justification for forcing a decrease in carbon dioxide emissions.
Too many people would fall for Drewski’s BS. Why? General malaise in the work place. Add CO2 to the litany of grievances. It’s not that they’re getting old, bored and out of shape. It’s not their own CO2 that’s displacing oxygen, it’s industrial CO2!
Plot CO2’S concentration beside life expectancy since 1945. Draw your own conclusions.
I just realized something else. Over the course of decades hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives have been saved by mouth to mount resuscitation. We all know that is where one person exhales into the lungs of another who isn’t breathing. The carbon dioxide in the human breathe is between 40,000 and 50,000 pmm. You stated that 50,000 pmm is fatal. That can not be true and shows the reliability the other “facts” are that you presented in your post.
The climate change movement is politically motivated with the goal of supporting agenda’s that can’t be justified on their own merit. Climate change is only the excuse. When the climate doesn’t cooperate, it is unfeasible to give up all of those hidden agendas. When it became obvious that the climate wasn’t warming as expected, the alarmists came up with increasing natural disasters happening because of higher CO2 levels. However, this turned out not to be true and even the IPCC admits these are not increasing. They also created ocean acidification as an excuse. They picked 1988, the year where the pH level was the highest level (least acid) in decades, as their base line. This guaranteed that all years would be more acid in comparison. They hid data before 1988 that didn’t support their conclusion. However, this politically motivated claim is clearly bogus. With all of this carbon dioxide, the ocean has become less acid in recent times and we are well within what is normal for the historical average.
Now the attempt to claim people are being exposed to unhealthy levels of carbon dioxide is the latest excuse to try to force reductions in CO2. The article making these claims called for strong action to reduce emissions, clearly showing the political motivation. I wonder what will be their next excuse.
Whats ever become of Radon Gas we were hearing about so much of in the 1980’s and Acid Rain we no longer hear all this stuff anymore