It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Guest post by Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Climate change no longer scary in Europe
It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
Climate change no longer scary in Europe
It’s not the climate, but the tide of opinion that’s changing in Europe and around the globe
Dr. Hans Labohm
The upcoming climate change (and wealth redistribution) summit in Cancun – coupled with Bjorn Lomborg’s ongoing publicity campaign for his new film – makes one thing painfully obvious. The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle.
For decades the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scare-mongering by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive effort to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion.
But the tide seems to be turning. The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995, despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.
In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The US and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left/right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.
However, skepticism about manmade climate disasters is gradually gaining ground nevertheless.
In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Standing Committee on Environment of the Lower House even organized a one-day hearing, where both climate chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.
This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The Academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.
Europe often brags about its emission trading scheme (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun at year’s end will surely produce a similar result. And for good reason.
Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismally bad. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More importantly, it serves no useful purpose.
The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The European Union’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3% below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9% compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was due to the global economic recession, not to the ETS. Moreover, both climate chaos proponents and climate disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact whatsoever on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.
What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these EU costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: nuclear 4, coal 4, natural gas 5, onshore wind 13, biomass 16 … solar 56!
Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high, compared to hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send petroleum and coal prices through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection neither argument is tenable.
The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As to global warming, the absence of a statistically significant increase in average worldwide temperatures since 1995 obliterates that assertion.
Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.
All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of financial and natural resources on unreliable and thus uncompetitive forms of energy. Since every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.
______________
Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has been an IPCC reviewer and has written extensively on global warming, petroleum economics and other topics.
This bit jumped out at me:
“In my own country, The Netherlands, for instance, it has even received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists.”
That is a great way of putting it. Committees on energy, departments concerned with the environment or whatever else become vehicles for alarmist climate advocacy once they have been captured (or have willingly submitted to) a very narrow expert view.
The same applies to much of the way Government works these days too. The most painful example being banking regulations. The people tasked with protecting and representing the public have shifted their duties from that. They represent big business, they represent advocacy groups, they represent foreign and/or international (and often wholly unaccountable) groups.
There are two things to add to that though. The first is that in many cases State departments becoming vehicles for a particular strain of advocacy is often a means to an end – that of growing the authority of the State – rather than the end itself. The second is that our institutions and processes do not need mending – we just need to pick better politicians who will execute their duties properly.
The humano-fish is a scream! Maybe the WWF recognizes defeat and has chosen to pursue humor instead.
Dr. Hans Labohm claims, “Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995.”
Nonsense. Phil Jones has stated nothing of the kind and nor is it true.
If Dr Labohm either doesn’t understand what Phil Jones stated about warming since 1995 (with reference to the HADCRU figures) or is deliberately trying to mislead his readers.
Here are the 5 year average global temperature anomalies centred on 1995 and 2007, (the last five year period for which data is available) from the two satellite (UAH and RSS) and two surface (HADCRUT and NASA GISS) temperature series:
Five year period…UAH……………RSS………..HADCRUT…..NASA GISS
1993-1997………….+0.004C…+0.044C……..0.208C………..0.282C
2005-2009………..+0.238C…+0.263C………0.414C…………0.546C
The average increase over that twelve year period from the four series is about 0.23C, in other words an increase of about 0.2C per decade, which is entirely in line with IPCC projections.
pete says:
November 22, 2010 at 10:13 am
…scarcity of oil and gas…
You forgot to mention the situation with gas.
From your link:
Natural gas markets are in the midst of a revolution – will it
herald a golden era for gas?
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2010 at 10:12 am
True but in your opinion is the theory that any observed warming is caused mostly by increasing CO2 a better one?
Gosh. That picture looks a fair bit like the Australian PM!
James Allison says:
November 22, 2010 at 11:17 am
True but in your opinion is the theory that any observed warming is caused mostly by increasing CO2 a better one?
No, but if you know it is true that there is no evidence, should you then pretend there is in order to combat the CO2 theory? I think not. We should not fight one lie with another one.
Pete:
You assert:
““The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future”
IEA world energy outlook report 2010: Page 4 “The age of cheap oil is over, though policy action could bring lower international prices than would otherwise be the case” (i.e. demand destruction)
on page 11 there is a graph showing crude oil peaked in 2008. Unless you can quantify the large potion of graph designated “crude oil fields yet to be found” and “crude oil fields yet to be developed” your statement about the IEA is falsified by the data presented in their own report.”
Sorry, Hans is right and you are wrong. Either you misunderstand the IEA report or you are misrepresenting it.
The graph clearly shows the oil price peaked at ~$100pbbl in 2008 and has fallen back to 1980s levels since. This is not consistent with oil becoming scarce.
I suggest that people read the report and decide if it supports Hans (it does) for themselves. As you said, it can be read at:
http://www.iea.org/speech/2010/Tanaka/Jakarta_weo2010.pdf
Richard
Is that picture above, a Patchy’s picture ?
I like this Dutchman. Of course I am not surprised about what they say since I am a Dutchman myself from origin…I was hoping they would come to their senses…
Quote:
“Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – while others demonstrate that, on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere”.
I remember that I have been saying this, but others, peer reviewed, in Holland?
Can somebody please peer-review my doc. as well? Your comment will be much appreciated. Thanks!
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 22, 2010 at 10:12 am
And here I thought advancing cold fronts and warm fronts caused the formation of certain types of clouds (and their signature storms); that evaporation from the earth’s vast layer of oceans and lakes provided the water vapor needed for precipitation; that solar warming of the oceans in equatorial areas drove the formation of hurricanes and typhoons; and that tornadoes are spawned from unusually violent thunderstorms, which are themselves the product of solar-driven temperature differentials.
Now, if all these are false assumptions in the formation of major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes, please enlighten us as to what causes them.
Here’s part of the media “ramp up” to Cancun:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40316649/ns/us_news-environment
Bubbled methane pockets have been seen in permafrost
for hundreds of years. Now is the time to announce
how worriesome they are.
This statement from the post:
” They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2…”
Indicates a complete lack of understanding of the essential elements of any system that exists on the edge of chaos, and even more so, what is, and is not verifiable by the scientific method. It also contains a logical fallacy in that any given effect can (and in nature, usually does) have multiple and interrelated causes and hence, no cause can be proven to be mutually exclusive of any others. To suggest that no weather extremes, increases in the frequency and intensity of hydrological events, etc. can be traced to increases in CO2, flies in the face of all significant research on the longer-term relationship in the geological cycle between increases in CO2 and the acceleration of the hydrological cycle.
[I killed the comment this is referring to and thus the downstream ones suffer as well ~ ctm]
Well this would be a good place to note that if you click on the sea ice page (great page) you will see that the high arctic Temperature has just about hit rock bottom and it sin’t even all the way through Fall yet; my eye says it is about 247 Kelvin.
That is 8 deg C lower than the supposed Black Body Temperature at earth’s orbit (mean) which earth would presumably assume if it wasn’t for GHGs in the atmosphere.
We are aslso told that from such a frozen ice ball temperature, earth cannot recover without getting a kick start from the CO2 kindling wood; becasue there wouldn’t be any water vapor to do any warming.
So we could do an experiment now that the arctic is way below the BB equilibrium Temperature; and presumably in the Antarctic highlands around Vostok; even though it is springtime; maybe it too is below 255 K.
So how about some satellite cloud cover pictures for both Arctic ocean and Antarctica; so we can see that the atmosphere truly is devoid of any H2O.
The historic photos I have seen of at least Antarctica; including Scott Expedition movies; show that Antarctica has plenty of cloud cover; even though it is the dryest continent on earth.
Not only have the non-condensing GHGs like CO2 and Ozone, not been able lift the Temperatures there above 255 K; but there’s plenty of H2O to do the job when the sun turns back on.
If you take Trenberth’s Solar constant as 342 W/m^2 then you get nonsense; but if you use the real value of 1366 W/m^2 which gives a target daylight Temperature of about 394K, it is easy to see how water can do the whole job on its own without the need for any other GHG.
GMOs are not popular in Europe
Eadler and Slioch:
You really are showing signs of desperation.
You each try to dispute the statement by Hans Labohm that says,
“Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995.”
Hans is undeniably right if one accepts “measurable warming” means ‘warming that is discernible as existing with 95% confidence’.
And, Slioch, “since 1995” is not a 5-year period. You can cherry pick parts of “since 1995” however you want, but it changes nothing. The fact is that Phil Jones admits there has been no measurable warming since 1995: live with it.
Richard
PS.
How easy would it be to include a daily (or weekl/monthly) Arctic, and Antarctic cloud cover photograph along with the graphs on the sea ice page ? That would be most informative. I don’t know if any of the satellites have the capability of taking photographs that might get filed somewhere.
Slioch:
No fair using actual facts. You’ll harsh the vibe.
A fascinating read
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23689403/The-Rise-of-the-Eco-Nazi
Nature herself will decide who wins in the argument between the alarmists, the deniers and the various shades in between. The prophets of doom have often been reluctant to fix specific timescales to their predictions, even Hal Lindsey doesn’t do that. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that, if they are wrong, the climate’s continuing refusal to conform to those prophesies will gradually erode their credibility.
Although subsidies for alternative energy sources may be seen by many as misguided now, I think that this is something that we may benefit from in the future. I tend to lean toward the belief that the free market is better at sorting these things out in that the scarcity and consequent rising prices of fossil fuels is inevitable and therefore research into alternatives will become potentially profitable. However, it is possible that vital lessons are being learned now, about what is practical and what is not, which may well be used in the future.
Bob from the UK says: November 22, 2010 at 9:58 am
“for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. ”
If they got it completely wrong in 1995, why should we believe their new tales now.
Hi Bob. Grab a six sided die and roll it ten times. Subtract 3 off each result. This gives a trend of 0.5 per roll, so after ten rolls your average result will be 5. Will this theory be “completely wrong” if the actual outcome is a 2?
[Roll the dice 50 times. If the average comes out 4.5, the dice are loaded. If the average comes out 2.5 for all rolls before 1970, and 4.5 for all rolls after 1970, somebody changed the dice. Or how they count the spots. Robt]
RockyRoad says:
November 22, 2010 at 11:29 am
And here I thought […] are themselves the product of solar-driven temperature differentials.
This is not what the author meant. He was clearly alluding to changes in solar output over time as the cause, rather than the [regular] change with latitude.
Hans says:
“People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. They are also beginning to understand that major rain and snow storms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.”
Where is the evidence for “solar-driven changes” in the jet stream? In fact we are currently at a minimum point in solar activity and have been there for a few years now.
There is no evidence that temperature data has been falsified. The last 12 months have been the warmest in the insturmental temperature record.
Climate change was not ever an important concern for the average person. Right now the average person is worried about the economy both in the EU and the USA.
I am very heartened by recent feedback from within my circle of family, friends and colleagues.
Apparently the teaching profession in the UK is beginning to revolt against teaching global warming, which they see as mere propaganda.
The BBC is also being seen as a propaganda tool right across the board. Their active support for AGW is seen in this light and therefore the standing of AGW is suffering badly.
All good signs, if not an open revolt yet.