Jan 132016
 

Dr. Spencer is an internationally recognized climatologist who explains things like why we do not know whether man is causing any climate change or not.

Or, is the planet really warming all over?

Roy Spencer, PhD. Climate Change Research Scientist, Author, Former NASA Scientist

  • Santer takes on Pruitt: The Global Warming Pause and the Devolution of Climate Science
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-05-25 at 13:27

    A new paper in Nature: Scientific Reports by Santer et al entitled Tropospheric Warming Over the Past Two Decades begins with this: After a recent Senate confirmation hearing, Scott Pruitt the new Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received a written question regarding observed warming estimates. In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that over the […]

  • UAH Global Temperature Update for April, 2017: +0.27 deg. C
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-05-01 at 12:54

    The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2017 was +0.27 deg. C, up from the March, 2017 value of +0.19 deg. C (click for full size version): The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 16 months are: YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. […]

  • People’s Climate March on Saturday…through Snow
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-04-28 at 17:04

    You would think that since it’s almost May that one could plan a march against global warming without having to worry about getting snowed on. Well, weather rules — not climate. While the People’s Climate March in Washington DC Saturday (April 29) will enjoy unseasonably warm weather, some of the Sister Marches out West won’t […]

  • UAH Shooting Investigation Update, and Thanks
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-04-27 at 21:08

    John Christy met with the chief of police at UAH today, and I’m happy to report that, contrary to initial reports, the investigation into the seven shots fired into our building has not been dropped. UAH has also coordinated with other law enforcement, which is good. I’d like to thank everyone who made the effort […]

  • Update on Possible Ecoterror Attack at UAH
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-04-26 at 12:12

    Ecoterrorism. Eco-terrorism is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as “the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.” -Wikipedia It appears that at least some […]

  • Shots Fired into the Christy/Spencer Building at UAH
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-04-24 at 17:03

    A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend. All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building). Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March […]

  • Time Lapse of Asteroid 2014 JO25
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-04-20 at 12:52

    Despite some clouds, I was able to capture time lapse video of Asteroid 2014 JO25 passing by last night. Nearly 2 hours of time exposure photos are compressed into 23 seconds, from 9:20 p.m. until 11:09 p.m. CDT (watch full-screen, and make sure the highest definition is enabled, 1080p): The asteroid is traveling from near […]

  • Half-mile Wide Asteroid Close Approach on Wednesday
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-04-18 at 13:42

    An asteroid capable of destroying Washington D.C. and New York City at the same time will be making its closest approach to Earth on April 19. At a half-mile wide, it will have over 30,000 times as much mass as the 2013 meteor which exploded over Russia in 2013: The current asteroid, called “2014 JO25“, […]

  • Why United is in Legal Trouble Over Removing a Passenger
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-04-12 at 13:05

    By now, most people have heard of the passenger on a United Express flight that was bloodied and forcibly removed from a flight in Chicago so that airline employees could make it to Louisville to support another flight there. The event has caused a public relations nightmare for United, whose CEO initially defended his employees […]

  • UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2017: +0.19 deg. C
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. on 2017-04-03 at 13:06

    The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2017 was +0.19 deg. C, down from the February, 2017 value of +0.35 deg. C (click for full size version): The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 15 months are: YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. […]

 Posted by at 23:07
Dec 012015
 

National Post Reveals the Real Reason for the Climate Change Warmism Religion

Peter Foster: The man who shaped the climate agenda in Paris, Maurice Strong, leaves a complicated legacy

Maurice Strong, then special advisor to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, in 2003. The head of the U.N.'s environmental agency says Strong, whose work helped lead to the landmark climate summit that begins in Paris on Monday, Nov. 30, 2015, has died. He was 86.
Tom Hanson/ The Canadian PressMaurice Strong, then special advisor to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, in 2003. The head of the U.N.’s environmental agency says Strong, whose work helped lead to the landmark climate summit that begins in Paris on Monday, Nov. 30, 2015, has died. He was 86.

Maurice Strong has died at the age of 86. Multi-faceted does not begin to describe his life. More than any other individual, he was responsible for promoting the climate agenda with which negotiators are struggling this week at the UN meeting in Paris.

Osamu Honda/ Associated Press
Osamu Honda/ Associated Press In a March 17, 1997 file photo, Maurice Strong, left, executive coordinator for United Nations reform, stands with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, during a news conference, at the U.N. The head of the U.N.’s environmental agency says Strong, whose work helped lead to the landmark climate summit that begins in Paris on Monday, Nov. 30, 2015, has died.

Strong also played a major role in Canadian affairs. When he celebrated his 85th birthday in Toronto last year, he was surrounded by Canada’s left liberal elite — from former prime minister Paul Martin to former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson and her husband John Ralston Saul.

Martin had been an employee and protégé of Strong. Ralston Saul had been chief aide to Strong when Strong was the first chairman, president and CEO of state oil company Petro-Canada, just one of many executive positions in a remarkable career.

Clarkson claimed that Strong had “invented the environment.” While that may have been somewhat exaggerated, he did play a critical role in promoting political responses to environmental concerns. As a lifelong socialist, he saw the potential of the environmental movement to fight capitalism and introduce a system of “global governance” that would co-ordinate all human activity.

Before the last great failed attempt to come up with a global climate agreement, at Copenhagen in 2009, which took place at a time of economic turmoil, Strong said: “The climate change issue and the economic issue come from the same roots. And that is the gross inequity and the inadequacy of our economic model. We now know that we have to change that model. We cannot do all of this in one stroke. But we have to design a process that would produce agreement at a much more radical level.”

Richard Drew/ The Canadian Press
Richard Drew/ The Canadian PressThe late Maurice Strong, special advisor to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on North Korea, strains to hear a question outside the Security Council at U.N. headquarters in New York, Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2003.

“We must,” he had suggested earlier, “devise a new approach to co-operative management of the entire system of issues… We are all gods now.” (Oh really? Yes, the builders of the Titanic had the same attitude.)

Strong was reputed to be a Buddhist, but when Pope Francis issued his climate encyclical earlier this year, he praised Strong’s Earth Charter, a manifesto of green revolution co-signed by Mikhail Gorbachev, as a document that “asked us to leave behind a period of self-destruction and make a new start.”

Maurice Strong’s own start was extremely modest. He was born in poverty during the Depression in Oak Lake, Manitoba, and escaped home as soon as he could. Pursuing a picaresque early career, he bounced from cabin boy to junior fur trader to United Nations functionary to oil analyst.

He started his own oil company and wound up running Montreal-based Power Corp. at an extraordinarily young age. While he would continue to dabble in business throughout his life, his first love, and prime objective, was acquiring power in pursuit of a “better world.”

Calgary Herald File Photo, CALGARY, AB: March 23, 2009 Maurice Strong January 1976 (Calgary Herald File Photo / ) ( For City section story by )
Calgary Herald File Photo, CALGARY, AB: March 23, 2009 Maurice Strong January 1976 (Calgary Herald File Photo / ) ( For City section story by )A 1976 file photo of Maurice Strong, a man who influenced Pierre Trudeau and was lauded by Justin Trudeau when news of Strong’s death broke.

From Power Corp. he moved to Ottawa and set up in the Canada International Development Agency, CIDA. His amazing networking abilities led him to be asked to organize the first great UN conference on the global environment, at Stockholm in 1972. A glowing profile in the New Yorker described him as “Captain of Spaceship Earth.”

After Stockholm he because the first head of the United Nations Environment Program, UNEP, one of the parents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the body set up to examine man-made climate change.

He was a key member of the Brundtland Commission, which promoted the notion of sustainable development, whose fundamental rationale was that (relatively) free markets were unsustainable.

In 1992, on the 20th anniversary of Stockholm, he ran the giant UN conference in Rio de Janeiro on the environment and development, which was attended by more world leaders than any previous event. Out of Rio emerged the Kyoto Protocol, to which Paris is still seeking a successor agreement.

One reason Strong was adulated within the UN system was his skill in conceiving agendas, initiatives, studies, meetings and new institutions

Strong had extraordinary influence in the business community, where he set up the World Business Council on Sustainable Development. He was also a significant promoter of the World Economic Forum, whose annual conference at Davos became an unprecedented example of elite networking.

He was at one time chief adviser both to UN Secretary General Secretary General Kofi Annan and to World Bank head Jim Wolfensohn, another of his proteges. Annan put him in charge of UN reform, where Strong cleverly turned what was meant to be a belt-tightening exercise into a program for expansion. He ran relief programs in Africa, and negotiated with North Korea.

One reason Strong was adulated within the UN system was his skill in conceiving agendas, initiatives, studies, meetings and new institutions.

Paris, for example, is the twenty-first “Conference of the Parties” (COP21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCC, but it is just one of a much broader series of seemingly-endless international get-togethers.

While spinning off do-good schemes at an astonishing rate, Strong continued to be involved in both public and private business. Apart from Petrocan, he ran the giant utility Ontario Hydro for a period. His private business affairs, like his public ones, were marked by constant controversy.

Ng Han Guan/ The Canadian Press
Ng Han Guan/ The Canadian PressCanadian diplomat Maurice Strong, a special envoy of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, leaves the Beijing airport, China, after he arrived from Pyongyang, North Korea, Saturday, Jan. 18, 2003. He died at the age of 86.

It was one such adventure, in 2005, when he became implicated in the Iraqi oil-for­-food scandal, that finally dented his international reputation. He claimed that he was unaware that an investment in one of his companies had been laundered from the regime of Saddam Hussein, but a subsequent inquiry suggested that if he didn’t know, he should have.’

In the wake of the scandal he moved to Beijing, (who but an extreme socialist would want to?)  where he had long had connections. For a man with severe asthma problems, it seemed a strange choice, but Strong found China’s political atmosphere amenable.

One of the most remarkable things about Strong was how unremarkable he was in person. Somebody once said that you wouldn’t pick him out of a crowd of two.

He took scarcely-concealed delight in explaining his often Machiavellian political manoeuvrings

Nevertheless, he was an avuncular and likeable figure, even to those who disagreed strongly with his world view, as I did. I interviewed him numerous times over a 20-year period, and found that he took scarcely-concealed delight in explaining his often Machiavellian political manoeuvrings.

Meanwhile his perennially sunny demeanour contrasted starkly with his grim vision, not just of the present, but of the projected state of the world. (Like Rachel Carson, Paul R Erlich (Author: “The Population Bomb”. Paul and Rachel and all the other naysayers were wrong. The present alarmists are in the process of being proven wrong right now, every month when the overall temperature of the world, again does NOT RISE, they are proven to be purveyors of fantasy)

In his 2000 autobiography, Where on Earth Are We Going?, Strong projected that, in 2031, “the human tragedy” would be “on a scale hitherto unimagined.” He wrote that the brightest prospect lay in forecasts that two-thirds of the world’s already diminished population might be wiped out.

Strong’s green agenda now blankets the globe, from the UN through national governments to municipalities

He described this as “a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration,” thus betraying a distinctly ambivalent attitude towards the humanity he claimed to be so desperate to save.

Strong’s green agenda now blankets the globe, from the UN through national governments to municipalities.

Paradoxically, Strong freely admitted that governments were incompetent, cumbersome and resistant to change. He also acknowledged that the UN was marked by “petty politics and small-mindedness.” And yet such people were somehow to manage “the entire system of issues.”

The answer for Strong was always more power. “The single greatest weakness of the existing international legal regime,” he wrote, “is the almost total lack of capacity for enforcement.”

Resistance to such enforcement is likely to continue.

Bruno Schlumberger/ Postmedia News files
Bruno Schlumberger/ Postmedia News filesMaurice Strong in 2012. He helped shape the vision for the climate summit in Paris this week.

Strong’s passing was mourned on the weekend by key figures of the movement he did so much to create.

Current UNEP chief Achim Steiner declared “Strong will forever be remembered for placing the environment on the international agenda and at the heart of development.”

Christiana Figueres, head of the UNFCC, who will be running the Paris conference, tweeted “we thank Maurice Strong for his visionary impetus to our understanding of sustainability. We will miss you.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, already in Paris for this week’s climate meetings, declared that “Mr. Strong was an internationally recognized environmentalist and philanthropist who used his remarkable business acumen, organizational skills, and humanity to make the world a better place.” (He may have but it was not because of the green madness that he seemed to love.)

Some might argue with that glowing assessment, but there is no doubting Strong’s extraordinary influence, including with Trudeau’s father, Pierre.

Related

Despite his myriad contradictions, Strong had an astonishing network among rulers, corporations, the “international community,” and capitalist foundations. But perhaps the most important strategic element in his promotion of the environmental agenda was his sponsorship of radical environmental non-governmental organizations, ENGOs, whose government funding and entry into international meetings he facilitated.

Whether they appreciate it or not, the environmental groups that played a key role in demonizing the oil sands and killing the Keystone XL pipeline, and who continue to stand in the way of other Canadian pipelines, are Maurice’s children. They will be present in large numbers in Paris in the next two weeks.

We should mourn the man, but continue to question his vision, which remains very much alive.

(Editor: Maurice may have been a nice guy, which is always a great way to promote a dangerous agenda. So one might say that Maurice was Strongly Wrong about the Environment)

 Posted by at 03:30
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
Jun 242015
 

Warmer is better: Junk Science Week

National Post

Some present global warming as a threat to all life on the planet; others say that at best it’s a threat to human well-being. The latest from the doom-is-everywhere camp came last week from David Suzuki, who likes to float scary scenarios. He’s been a big promoter of the killer-mosquito threat, allegedly brought on as climate warming brings higher temperatures north and creates hospitable climates for disease-carrying bugs. Now he’s found a new threat: killer poison ivy. New research, he says, shows that with higher carbon dioxide levels, “poison ivy did not only grow twice as fast — it became more poisonous.”

For more of this, you can always go drown in the Suzuki Foundation’s Web site. On the other hand, there’s an alternative view of climate change. The fact is that, if the world is warming, we would see many benefits, especially for those who live in the coldest climates. Such as Canada.

Every change in our living conditions creates gains and losses, winners and losers, advantages and disadvantages. Throughout history, people have responded to change like Cassandras or Pollyannas, pessimists or optimists. The use of fear to sway public opinion, coupled with people’s natural aversion to change and media amplification of the problems it brings, has brought us to our current focus on the negatives, the problems and the disadvantages of global warming.

Scientists have noticed and discussed climate change, and then fear-mongers have magnified it into a threat. The possibility of global warming is a classic example. Here’s the conclusion of journalist Don Philpott, author of “Global Warming: How Serious Is The Threat?“, a paper published in January: “Global heating threatens our health, with the elderly, young and poor particularly at risk. It threatens our ability to grow crops and store them safely. It opens the door to a fearsome spread of diseases; it threatens drinking-water supplies and air quality.”

Sounds fearsome, doesn’t it? My response is, “Thank goodness for global warming.” Just 20,000 years ago, Canada was under a massive ice sheet, two kilometres thick in the Hudson Bay region. Just 300 years ago, a Little Ice Age would have precluded agriculture as practiced in Canada today. In fact, just 30 years ago, global cooling was the scientific consensus, transmitted to the public by the same transmission belt, the popular press.

We were told in 1976 by libertarian radio host Lowell Ponte in his book The Cooling: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, and that event caused a 1C drop in global temperature in 1992, resulting in a late, poor harvest in Canada and close to no harvest at all. Cooling is a much greater problem for Canadians.

What happened in Canada as it emerged from under the ice? Fifteen thousand years ago, flora and fauna quickly moved in. In more recent times, the treeline has moved north an average of 200 kilometres in northern Manitoba since the nadir of the little Ice Age, a period of global cooling that followed what’s called the “medieval climate optimum.” That’s about one kilometre per year. Aboriginal people moved north to capture the opportunities provided by warming 6,000 and again 1,000 years ago. Contrary to what you hear, historic evidence shows that warming offers plants, animals and people greater chances for development and survival.

In warmer times, Queen Elizabeth I had a geopolitical goal of controlling the north Atlantic and north Pacific by dominating the Northwest Passage and Arctic waters. Several people, especially Frobisher in the east and Drake in the west (see Sam Bawlf’s book The Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake) were looking to establish settlements at each end. Elizabeth was a leader with vision.

A later comment on the potential of the north came from the Royal Society in 1817: “New sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”

Canada is one of the few countries with access to three oceans. As we evolved as a nation, the focus shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. That left the centre essentially landlocked. But this will change if global warming occurs as predicted by the doomsayers. Access to the Arctic Ocean as ice conditions ameliorate and temperatures increase will open another door to the world.

Ironically, for 200 years most western development and settlement came through the ports at York Factory and Churchill. The plan for a Hudson Bay route — by the trading company, now a retailer, bearing the same name — tried to continue this pattern, but essentially failed because of political domination by the east and a three-month limit to the shipping season by insurance companies. With icebreaker support, new cargo vessels and better insurance, the current shipping season could be extended to five or six months. Predicted warming would extend this even more. Commerce is shorter and more direct because great-circle routes put Arctic and Hudson Bay ports closer to Europe and Asia.

Just a brief list of the benefits to our coldest province, Manitoba, and the coldest city, Winnipeg, illustrates the positive potential of global warming:

– Reduced heating costs.

– Reduced fuel bills for travel.

– A longer growing season, allowing a greater variety of crops.

– Less frost damage and crop loss.

– A greater variety of plants for gardens and other uses.

– More rapidly growing forests and an increased rate of reforestation.

– Less frost damage to streets and roads.

– The potential for direct access to world markets through northern ports.

– Reduced construction costs in an ameliorated climate.

– A longer summer season for tourism, and for cottagers and campers.

As for mosquitoes, Winnipeggers at least have been dealing with the pesky bugs since long before David Suzuki even heard of global warming.

A warmer Canada would improve our lives in these and other ways too numerous to list. Global warming? Let’s hope so.

 Posted by at 15:36
May 192015
 

Warm Welcome

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. (How did they know? Did the seals tell them? 🙂

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
 


I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922. As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 88 years ago!

globalwarming-WashingtonPost-1922Added by Editor

And this of course is just another example of the fact that climate has changed many times since the world began.
We find horn corals and other corals fossilized in rock here in the Niagara Peninsula formed many many years ago.
The only problem is that corals have to have an average temperature of 65 degrees F to grow. (18.3 degrees Celsius)
When was the last time we had an average of 65 degrees F here in Ontario?
Well that was only one of the many times that the climate was warmer than it is now. And yet we are here and there are more of us than ever before and I expect many more machines kicking out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and yet we are cooler than this article claims in 1922!
If there is any global warming, then perhaps it is due to other influences rather than we “wicked” people driving too much kicking out less warmth than in 1922! Shame on us back then ! 🙂
Other related Articles
Open your climate gate and let the sun shine in!
Apr 252015
 

Top MIT Climate Scientist: ‘Senate’s Climate Change Vote Is Ludicrous’

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen slammed this week’s amendment introduced by Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders that would make it the official position of the Senate that man-made global warming is real and a threat.

Lindzen said Sanders’s amendment to a bill that approves the Keystone XL pipeline an “attempt to hijack science for political purposes.”

Climate change is of course real; change being the normal state of affairs in climate,Lindzen told Climate Depot. “Climate change has caused catastrophic problems on occasion throughout the earth’s history. While man may have contributed somewhat to climate change in recent years, his contribution to the above is highly questionable, and continues to be debated.”

“In the case of Bernie Sanders, a socialist, he is undoubtedly dreaming about nationalizing the energy industry,” Lindzen said. “For the U.S. Senate to accept guidance from Sanders’ bizarre dreams is ludicrous.”

Sanders introduced a bill that would recognize man-made global warming as part of the legislative battle over the Keystone XL pipeline. Only nine Democrats have sided with Republicans in supporting the pipeline’s approval while the rest have done all they can to slow down progress on the bill.

Sanders’s amendment is meant to throw a wrench in the process and target Republicans that liberals have labeled “climate deniers.” Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, however will allow the chamber to vote on the Sanders amendment and other Democratic amendments.

“Nobody is blocking any amendments except the senator from California, who is making us burn 30 hours to begin to have this bill up and open for amendments,” McConnell said, referring to California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

McConnell was eager to strike a deal with Democrats to end delays on putting the entire Keystone bill to a vote. A deal was struck shortly after McConnell’s comments, The Hill newspaper reports.

“We are not anxious to block anybody’s amendment, we are wide open. The Senate is out of practice here,” McConnell said.

If it were approved, Sanders’s bill says it’s “the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community that— (1) climate change is real;  (2) climate change is caused by human activities; (3) climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world.”

Follow Michael on Twitter
From the Daily Caller