Nov 092015
 

[3rd in a Series is presented as an item for education and research on the topic of fantasy global warming and man-made climate change]

Terence Corcoran: Canada’s brand new climate Boy Scout joins countdown to Paris

Terence Corcoran: One of Just Trudeau's first Boy Scout moves is to invite Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to join him and provincial leaders at the Paris meeting.
Patrick Doyle/The Canadian Press filesTerence Corcoran: One of Just Trudeau’s first Boy Scout moves is to invite Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to join him and provincial leaders at the Paris meeting.

Third in a series

Countdown_To_Paris
As the Paris climate summit approaches activists are gearing up for the final push through November and into December, although the movement suffered a bit of a downer over the weekend.

 

Hurricane Patricia, building as a major hurricane of unprecedented proportions, fizzled as a climate mega-disaster into a mere tropical storm, leaving behind no opportunities for media and negotiators to use it as a pre-Paris PR bonanza.

 

As news of Patricia reached Europe at a climate change negotiating session in Bonn on Friday, the head of the Mexico delegation, Roberto Dondisch, said Patricia was evidence the frog was already in the boiling water. A reporter for Climate House quoted Dondish saying “I don’t think I need to say more about the urgency to get this deal done.”

 

When the total death toll is near zero, the climate angle is also near zero. But the climate machine kept rolling. Reports from the negotiation front are garbled and inconsistent, but a major session held in Bonn ended last Friday without any clear proposals for the final Paris sessions. In all, 196 nations will try to come up with a plan to reduce carbon emissions over coming decades so as to keep the world from slipping into what the UN predicts will be climate catastrophe.

 

A so-called draft text of an agreement, now up to 55 pages, is an unreadable mash of clauses, options and parentheses. They are fighting over carbon targets, temperature targets and – above all — cash transfer targets, in recognition of the fact that the major objective of climate change policy makers has always been to orchestrate a massive transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations.

 

On Monday, Catholic bishops from “every continent on earth” (in the words of the official announcement) appealed to nations meeting in Paris to adopt a “legally binding” agreement to “strongly limit” temperature increases. To control the weather, forget prayers and get on with the business of “complete de-carbonization by mid-century.” Major new funding transfers will be necessary to develop new models of economic development “to put an end to the fossil fuel era.” The bishops, along with Pope Francis, are apparently unaware that fossil fuels are the source of most of the energy that has helped generate the world’s current level of economic development.

 

And now comes Canada, suddenly transformed from climate embarrassment under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to environmental Boy Scout under a new Liberal government headed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. One of his first Boy Scout moves is to invite Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to join him and provincial leaders at the Paris meeting. How long can that last?

The Trudeau game plan in Paris and at home is roughly equivalent to a moon shot. Canada aims to land on the surface, but has no idea how to get there or even where the moon is.

The Liberal election platform called for a price on carbon (set by the provinces) under national emissions targets to be determined by reference to the global objective of holding the world temperate increases at the Papal-instructed level of 2 degrees Celsius. Within 90 days of the Paris summit’s mid-December end, a provincial First Ministers meeting will be held “to work together on a framework to combat climate change.”

 

At the same time, the Trudeau Liberals promised to work with the United States and Mexico to develop an “ambitious North American clean energy and environment agreement.” Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, in recent media interviews, also supported negotiation of a major North American climate deal.

 

This Boy Scout flight to the moon is now gathering media attention. Reporters are busy describing how the provinces can be brought on side and how the various regions — despite different economic, carbon and energy-consuming structures — can be herded into a cohesive fight to help rid the world of fossil fuels.

Trudeau and the provinces will go to Paris, pretending the world can be rid of fossil fuels

Some say the provinces are already mostly onside. British Columbia has a carbon tax in place and Quebec has a cap-and-trade emissions regime that Ontario is set to join. The fact the B.C. carbon tax nor Quebec’s emissions trading system has had no impact on carbon emissions in those provinces is conveniently ignored. [Yes, conveniently ignored because when you belong to the fundamentalist evangelical global warming religion, you MUST never let the facts get in the way of massive socialist money transfer schemes.Both schemes are essentially demonstration projects that so far demonstrate that at current price levels nothing is accomplished by these carbon-price regimes.

B.C. fossil fuel consumption for transportation has not declined since its six-cent carbon tax was first imposed in 2008. Under Quebec’s cap-and-trade system, which gives a free ride to big industries, providers of gasoline and other fuels must purchase  emissions permits on a carbon market. At current prices (about $16 a tonne) the price of gasoline in Quebec is hypothetically higher by three cents a litre.   But since the price of gasoline has fallen dramatically, nobody notices the carbon price increase.

Complicating matters is the uncertainty over whether higher gasoline prices brought on by carbon pricing will actually promote a reduction in gasoline use. Much evidence suggests consumers will keep on driving as prices and/or taxes increase—unless, of course, the burden is raised to some astronomically destructive level.

How will it be possible for carbon pricing schemes, in a small country like Canada, to achieve the ultimate UN climate objective, a fossil-fuel free country in a fossil-fuel free world within North America? It’s not possible, but Canada and the world will be spending the next few weeks and all of the next decade pretending it can be done.

Topics: FP Comment, Countdown to Paris

 Posted by at 06:35
Nov 082015
 

[These articles help to explain the massive misinformation provided by people like Al Gore and Others. Therefore we include them for education and research. The global warming alarmists have convinced many that carbon dioxide is a poison and the more we produce the more the earth is becoming poisonous and hotter. Read this article with an open mind and learn.] 

[The TRUTH is that almost ALL the food you eat is PRODUCED by CARBON DIOXIDE!

Green plants from plankton in  the sea, grass, hay, straw, vegetables and fruits of all types PRODUCE the food we eat by their leaves TAKING IN carbon dioxide during periods of light and using it using the process of photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide and other nutrients into all types of food that we eat. And the meat we eat is produced by animals who also eat green plants. CARBON DIOXIDE! OUR FRIEND, NOT OUR ENEMY!!!

CARBON DIOXIDE is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY or we would have NOTHING TO EAT! This article addresses that truth!]

 

Indur Goklany: The great carbon boom

People walk on the Champs Elysees during the
AP Photo/Thibault CamusPeople walk on the Champs Elysees during the “day without cars”, in Paris, France, Sept. 27, 2015.

Second in a series

Countdown_To_Paris
On the eve of the UN climate summit in Paris, all delegates would be well advised to reflect on how the story of man-made global warming debate started.

 

Svante Arrhenius, winner of the 1905 Nobel Prize, hypothesized over a century ago that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) due to fossil fuel consumption would warm the world. He also hypothesized that higher CO2 levels would stimulate plant growth. These, he reasoned, would reinforce each other and increase the biosphere’s productivity to the benefit of mankind.

 

Remarkably, proponents of the notion that global warming would be catastrophic unless CO2 emissions are curtailed drastically (or, in short, “warmists,”) embrace the first, but ignore the second hypothesis. “Remarkably,” because both satellite and ground based data confirm that the biosphere’s productivity has increased in managed ecosystems (e.g., agriculture and managed forests) and in unmanaged or natural ecosystems.

The plant-productivity increase has been steady, large and ubiquitous: widespread evidence confirms that the earth is greener; terrestrial ecosystems’ productivity has increased 14% since 1982. Further, the IPCC estimates that the terrestrial biosphere productivity is 5% over pre-industrial times, that is, “carbon fertilization” due to rising CO2 levels has helped overcome any productivity loss from deforestation and other habitat loss. (Habitat loss is the greatest threat to terrestrial biodiversity and natural ecosystems.)

Carbon dioxide emissions over two centuries have produced massive benefits for humanity — and nature. Halting emissions could increase hunger and  habitat destruction

 

This productivity increase is to be expected: the results of thousands of scientific experiments indicate that at current levels of atmospheric CO2, crop yields should increase by 9-15% relative to pre-industrial levels because higher CO2 increases rates of plant growth (i.e., photosynthesis), improves the efficiency with which plants use water, increases their drought resistance and, possibly, increases resistance of crops to pests and weeds.

 

These increases in crop yields, in addition to helping feed a larger population, have limited the need to convert existing habitat to farming. The increased crop yields from higher CO2 levels reduced habitat loss by 11-17% compared with what it would otherwise have been. Consequently, more land has been left relatively wild.

 

Satellite evidence also confirms that increasing CO2 concentrations have resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types. Moreover, increasing CO2 concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems, and although this effect may be partially or fully offset by the effect of lower average pH on calcification rates in some marine organisms, the evidence of net harm in wild marine ecosystems remains sparse.

 

Equally important, contrary to warmists’ claims, since fossil fuels helped start the Industrial Revolution in the mid-eighteenth century and CO2 emissions skyrocketed, so have aggregate indicators of human well-being. Data back to 1750 show the dramatic escalation in measures of well being and, as the nearby graph shows, the bulk of the increase has occurred since 1900 as global carbon-based industrial development soared (See graph).

Carbon

Since 1750:

  • Carbon dioxide emissions increased from the relatively imperceptible (3 million tons) in 1750 to 9.5 billion tons in 2011;
  • Population increased nine-fold from 800 million to 1.6 billion 1900 and 7.3 billion in 2014;
  • Average GDP per capita, perhaps the best measure of economic and material well-being, increased thirteen-fold, from $650 to in 1750 to $1,261 in 1900 and $8,500 in 2014 (in 1990 International dollars);
  • Average life expectancy, probably the single best indicator of human well-being, has more than doubled from 26 years in 1750 to 31 in 1900 and to 71 years in 2013.

These indicators show no sign of a sustained downturn.

Empirical trends indicate that climate-sensitive indicators of human well-being have also improved markedly over recent decades, notwithstanding the gloomy prognostications of warmists.

The above-noted increases in crop yields reduced chronic hunger in the developing world from 24% of population in 1990–92 to 14% in 2011–13, despite a 37% increase in population. The increase in GDP per capita reduced the absolute poverty level in developing countries by almost three-quarters between 1981 and 2012 (from 54% to 15%). Between 1990 and 2012, more than 2 billion additional people obtained access to better sanitation and safer water. The global mortality rate for malaria, which accounts for about 80% of the burden of vector-borne diseases that may pose an increased risk due to global warming, declined by 95% since 1900. Deaths from extreme weather events have declined by 93% since the 1920s and, once the increase in the amount of wealth-at-risk is accounted for, there has been no increase in economic damages from extreme weather events.

The wide divergence between dystopian warmist claims and empirical reality can be attributed to the fact that those claims derive largely from unvalidated models. Empirical data, however, indicate that these models have overestimated the rate of warming.

A recent study compared projections from 117 simulations using 37 models versus empirical surface temperature data. It found that the vast majority of the simulations/models have overestimated warming, on average by a factor of two for 1993–2012 and a factor of four for 1998–2012.It also estimated that the observed trend for 1998–2012 was marginally positive, but not statistically significant; that is, notwithstanding model results, warming has essentially halted.

Impact models, likewise, have underestimated direct benefits of CO2, overestimated the harms from climate change, and underestimated human capacity to adapt which enables the benefits to be captured even as it also reduces the harms. Consequently, these models overestimate net negative damages.  Not surprisingly, dire prognostications of increasing death, disease, and decline of human and environmental well-being from global warming are not reflected in the empirical data.

To summarize, compared with the benefits from CO2 on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of CO2-induced warming on the frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, accelerated sea level rise, vector-borne disease prevalence, and human health have been too small to measure, are non-existent or swamped by other factors.

It is very likely that the impact of rising CO2 concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. No compelling case has been made that the net impacts of climate change will be negative by the end of this century, particularly given the gradual rate of warming observed recently.

In fact, the more gradual the rate of warming, the greater the likelihood of successful adaptation, and the cheaper that adaptation.

Empirical data confirm that the benefits of CO2 are real whereas the costs of warming are uncertain, dependent as they are on the results of climate models and impact methodologies that tend to overestimate negative impacts.

Halting the increase in CO2 concentrations abruptly, or reducing them, would immediately halt or reverse improvements in plant growth rates, increasing hunger and habitat destruction. On the other hand, any consequential change in warming would happen much more slowly. Thus, any reductions in CO2 emissions would deprive people and the planet of the benefits from CO2 much sooner and more surely than they would reduce any costs of warming.

Financial Post

This op-ed is derived from CARBON DIOXIDE: The good news, a paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Indur Goklany, an independent scholar and author, was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a U.S. delegate to the IPCC, and an IPCC reviewer.

 Posted by at 21:10
Nov 082015
 

[Note: Since this topic is one of the hottest topics ever discussed in modern times, we have included it here as an educational resource for research.]
Peter Foster: Paris’s scary climate agenda

The earth dome at France's environment ministry has been built to promote the Climate Change Conference 2015.
The earth dome at France’s environment ministry has been built to promote the Climate Change Conference 2015.

First in a series

Countdown_To_Paris
Details of two international agreements were released on Monday. One, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which reduces trade barriers between 12 signatories, including Canada, got lots of ink. The other, which purports to control global weather, end the era of fossil fuels, and place all human activity under bureaucratic control, got very little.

The pretensions of the latter text, released by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, ADP, which is assigned to come up with an agreement to put to the vast UN climate meeting in Paris in December, are mind-boggling.

The fact that they attracted little attention means either that the media and public have no idea of the climate agenda’s implications, or that nobody takes the agenda seriously. Probably both. After all, the UN has been promoting the “urgent threat of climate change” for more than 25 years.

 

While the text of the TPP has yet to be finalized, that of the Paris meeting is skeletal. But, like skeletons, it is scary.

 

If anybody doubts the significance of the changes to which the puppeteers of Paris aspire, they should refer to remarks made last week by Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, who suggested that the climate thrust could destroy massive value as oil and gas assets are “stranded” by climate legislation.

 

Carney, former Governor of the Bank of Canada, has been lauded by segments of the Canadian mainstream media as a “rock star.” Indeed, he does bear some similarity – at least in orientation — to icon Neil Young, who has become deranged over the oil sands and recently signed his name to Naomi Klein’s loopy Leap Manifesto.

 

Carney would perhaps see his status as more analogous to another anti-capitalist crusader, Pope Francis, the man who put the “vestment” in “divestment.”

 

In fact, this is not the first time that Carney has addressed the risk of stranded assets. After a similar Bank of England claim earlier this year, Carney gave evidence before a House of Lords committee. Nigel Lawson, the redoubtable former Chancellor of the Exchequer and founder of skeptical think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, noted that the bank’s projections were entirely at odds with those of the International Energy Agency, which saw decades of fossil-fuelled growth. Lawson suggested that Carney should stick to his financial mandate, and that the Bank should stop spouting “green claptrap.” (Significantly, the draft Paris text cites “financial institutions” as key partners in its fight against capitalism. Meanwhile Carney isn’t just boss of the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, he is head of the Financial Stability Board, a global organization of central bankers. He is reportedly to push the climate agenda at a G20 meeting in November).

 

Text of a draft agreement for the UN climate conference betrays a desperation to negotiate a deal

 

The Paris text’s most significant feature is its lack of detail. It starts with the suggestion that the parties recognize “the intrinsic relationship between climate change, poverty eradication and sustainable development.”[Ya, right!: For one poverty eradication is impossible. Many people have the freedom to be poor if they want to and not bother to learn anything about handling money properly. On the other hand we have poorer nations. We cannot help them just by sending them money as many of the leaders of those countries are corrupt and generally keep the money and use it for their own aggrandizement. However there are agencies like Mennonite Central Committee, World Vision and others with great reputations that always have a person in charge in the country receiving the aid to make sure the money gets used to the benefit of those have nots.]

But although the relationship may be intrinsic, it is far from clear. Insofar as the promoters of the agreement seek to starve poor countries of financing for “maladaptive” fossil fuel development, they are promoting poverty. [Thus begins the hypocrisy!] Developing countries want nothing to do with having wind and solar foisted on them. They are gung ho for coal. They are also interested in the annual US$100 billion of handouts, starting in 2020, that was promised six years ago at Copenhagen but that, true to form, has not materialized. [Which brings us to the point. Since these climate conferences have not invited God in order to get permission to change the climate, all resolutions are just empty words. As Shakespeare put it, “

“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Macbeth – Act 5, Scene 5
I am sure that Shakespeare at the time did not realize that he was a prophet over 500 years ago pointing to climate change conferences. … “It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” ]

Many countries, including Canada, have committed, with fingers crossed, to emissions reductions targets, but few have specific plans. 

[ Let’s just go and meet the boys, and errr ladies and just have some nice speeches to make ourselves feel like we are actually doing something useful. Then we can go home and forget that the conference does nothing but generate ambitious headlines aspiring to build a new tower of Babel which also got nowhere!”
“And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death”]

The negotiating text betrays that peculiarly UN mindset that demands that all the world’s alleged problems be shouldered and addressed together, a kind of Gethsemane Syndrome. Not only will a giant interlinked series of new bureaucracies oversee programmes to regulate the climate and encourage appropriate technology and development to end poverty. They will negotiate these joint wonders while ensuring sensitivity to women, natives and the disabled. Their call to action claims to be based on “the best available scientific knowledge,” yet it also incorporates “traditional” — that is, distinctly non-scientific — knowledge. Among additional “preambular paragraphs” being considered is a reference to “Mother Earth. Copyright by Dole” This is not just a spiritual add-on. As a provider of “environmental services” Gaia needs to be paid. Since she has no bank account, the UN is more than prepared to act as her proxy.

 

The document is a compendium of parentheses, that is, wording or issues that have yet to be decided. One parenthesis suggests that the famous 2 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures (since before the Industrial Revolution) that will put us at an existential tipping point might be changed to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Could that be a recognition of the inconvenient fact that global temperatures are refusing to rise despite unprecedented increases in the CO2 that is meant to drive them?

 

The desperation to negotiate a deal is obvious in provisions that signatories may be able to pull out after three years, and that there are no penalties for non-compliance.

 

The document is very big on “capacity building,” which means bureaucrats teaching people to think like them, in terms of “modalities and procedures” and “facilitative dialogues.” Best practices are a top priority, particularly if they are “scalable and replicable.” Needless to say, the world’s most obscure document is big on transparency.

 

In that speech last week, Pope Mark claimed that “climate change will threaten financial resilience and longer term prosperity.” But the primary threat comes not from climate change, but from climate change policy.

 

The Paris text several times stresses the critical importance of cities and non-governmental organizations in promoting the climate agenda. Thus, to the extent that Canadian export pipelines are being opposed by local authorities in Vancouver and Montreal, and challenged legally and illegally by the likes of Greenpeace and ForestEthics, the UN’s agenda isn’t just bureaucratic fantasy. It’s a real threat to prosperity and democracy.

 Posted by at 10:18