John Kerry's World Priorities: 1.) Climate Change, 2.) ISIS and Ebola

In a meeting with some foreign ministers on Sunday, just before the upcoming UN climate change summit, Secretary of State John Kerry said that climate change is creating "climate refugees." I'm not exactly sure what that means but you can bet if they're classified as refugees he'll be wanting to grant them asylum in the United States.

Secretary Kerry believes, and has been broadcasting to the world, that climate change is as important and should be addressed as immediately as ISIS and the Ebola outbreak. He really said that.

The term "climate refugees" is closely related to other terms that mean "people displaced by changes in their climate or environment due to natural disasters, droughts, rising sea levels, etc. There is a long list of so called climate/environment labels, including "environmental refugee", "forced environmental migrant", "environmentally motivated migrant", "climate refugee", "climate change refugee", "environmentally displaced person (EDP)", "disaster refugee", "environmental displacee", "eco-refugee", "ecologically displaced person" and "environmental-refugee-to-be (ERTB)."

Wait... environmental refugee to be? Really? And how many people do we have working on this kind of stuff that can come up with 12 different names for these so-called refugees?

It is said that tens of millions of people become climate refugees each year but the only examples given are in the drought stricken areas of Africa and Asia - in places that have had problems with droughts for centuries.

Environmental wackos, the ones like Al Gore and Lord Nicholas Stern, who continue to preach about global warming and ever-rising temperatures (which has yet to be proved since the Earth's temperatures fluctuate cyclically over time) causing the seas to rise, bringing with it massive coastal erosion. Yet they're silent about the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps growing at record rates. Or worse - they say that too is caused by global warming.

"We see people fighting over water in some places. There are huge challenges to food security and challenges to the ecosystem, our fisheries and ... the acidification of the ocean is a challenge for all of us," Secretary Kerry said.

"And when you accrue all of this, while we are confronting ISIL and we are confronting terrorism and we are confronting Ebola and other things, those are immediate," he added.

"This also has an immediacy that people need to come to understand, but it has even greater longer-term consequences that can cost hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars, lives, and the security of the world," Kerry continued.

Yeah - that's because climate change/global warming is killing people en mass every day, just like ISIS and Ebola. Only it's not. The sea levels aren't rising. The polar ice caps are growing. Winter this year is supposed to be a record cold and a record length. And Al Gore is still getting filthy rich selling his global warming malarkey.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that the Earth's surface temperatures this summer, including the oceans, have been at record highs. Yet hurricanes, the storms that are fed by warmer oceanic temperatures, have been minimal so far, with only 5 named storms so far. And September, the peak month for hurricanes, is nearly over.

I wonder how many people understand that global warming and climate change are products of computer models responding to data input from "climate scientists"? The models are like hurricane prediction models - they are computer generated and have multiple, conflicting outcomes. I have read several articles that say the way scientists get computer models to produce "accurate" results they have added extra CO2 to the equation, thereby causing the computer models to give them the results they wanted. That's how they came to the conclusion that man-made CO2 is causing global warming - because they fed CO2 data to the computer. Here's one of the paragraphs I read on skepticalscience.com:

So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.

I wonder if they injected extra cow flatulence into the equation instead of man-made CO2 they would get the same results? Or maybe they do that as well.

The UK Daily Mail last year published an article that said this: Predictions on global warming trends may not be as accurate as at first their studies suggest.

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming.

Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth's temperature rose.

The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred.

I guess it comes down to who you believe. Bottom line is the science is manipulated by the scientists and the models produce varying results. Yet the polar ice caps continue to grow. And terrorists and Ebola are killing far more people at a much higher rate than any climate change or global warming. Secretary Kerry - come back to planet Earth for a little while and deal with the realities of the world. You can join Al Gore in La La Land after the real crises are under control.