Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Once again, it’s the NIPCC versus the IPCC – facts versus gloom-and-doom assertions.
Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low ebb. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century.
Ignoring these facts, President Obama continues to insist that “dangerous” carbon dioxide emissions are causing “unprecedented” global warming, “more extreme” droughts and hurricanes, and rising seas that “threaten” coastal communities. With Congress refusing to enact job-killing taxes on hydrocarbon energy and CO2, his Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to unleash more job-killing carbon dioxide regulations, amid an economy that is already turning full-time jobs into part-time jobs and welfare.
America and the world desperately need some sound science and common sense on climate change.
Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.
The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years.
The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA).
Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations, continued funding and greater control over our lives on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out – and we do have that long overdue debate on climate.
Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, even under adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or hgh temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.
The NIPCC also lays bare the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and are able to forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; input data contaminated by urban heat island effects; and employ simplified configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignorethem), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, volcanoes, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).
In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out.
The NIPCC authors conclude that existing climate models “are unable to make accurate projections of climate even ten years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation, until they have been validated [by comparison to actual observations] and shown to have predictive value.”
And yet, that is exactly how the deficient models are being used: to devise and justify policies, laws and regulations that stigmatize and penalize hydrocarbon use, promote and subsidize wind and solar energy, and have hugely negative effects on jobs, family energy bills, the overall economy and people’s lives.
Countries are spending countless billions of dollars annually on faulty to fraudulent IPCC climate models and studies that purport to link every adverse event or problem to manmade climate change; subsidized renewable energy programs that displace food crops and kill wildlife; adaptation and mitigation measures against future disasters that exist only in “scenarios” generated by the IPCC’s GIGO computer models; and welfare, food stamp and energy assistance programs for the newly unemployed and impoverished. Equally bad, they are losing tens of billions in royalty, tax and other revenue that they would receive if they were not blocking oil, gas and coal development and use – and destroying manufacturing jobs that depend on cheap, reliable energy, so that companies can compete in international marketplaces.
Meanwhile, a leaked draft of the forthcoming report from the IPCC itself reveals that even its scientists are backtracking from their past dire predictions of planetary disaster. Professor Ross McKitrick, chair of graduate studies at the University of Guelph (Ontario) economics department, put it bluntly in a brilliant Financial Post article. “Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph,” he wrote.
The graph dramatically demonstrates that every UN IPCC climate model over the past 22 years (1990-2012) predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 degrees F) higher than they actually were! Considering how defective the models are, this is hardly surprising.
And yet, on this basis we are supposed to trash our hydrocarbon-based energy system and economy. It’s absolutely insane!
Two Climate Change Reconsidered briefings will be held next Monday, September 23, in Washington, DC – featuring NIPCC experts. Their title says it all:
“Climate Change Reconsidered: Science the UN will exclude from its next IPCC climate report”
The first will be at noon at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE and will be co-sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The second will be held at 3:00 pm in room 235 of the Rayburn House Office Building, and will be sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition. Hard copies of the NIPCC Summary for Policymakers will be available for all attendees.
The events will be followed by a media tour of the East Coast, featuring Professor Bob Carter and other NIPCC scientists. For further information consult the Heartland Institute and NIPCC websites.
Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims, while ignoring anything that contradicts them, and refusing to debate any scientists who disagree with them. This can no longer be tolerated. Far too much is at stake.
Climate Change Reconsidered proves there is no “consensus” on dangerous manmade global warming – and raises the debate to a new level. Read it, get the word out about it, watch this Fox News segment, and take action. Your future, and your children’s future, depend on it.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Do you know what “high treason” means?
It is our duty to act accordingly, starting with the President of the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason
High Treason and Crimes Against Humanity.
From policycritic on September 19, 2013 at 8:07 pm:
Banned?
The Amazon listing for the paperback says it’s out of print, but there’s no price. Looks like a placeholder. Says publication date was Sept 12.
It’s available here from a UK seller featuring free worldwide shipping, sort of. It’s taking pre-orders, currently says “11 days to go”, the bibliographic info says publication date is 01 October.
That UK seller is the only one Google Shopping found.
Here on WUWT it was announced the English version would be out Sept 1.
Amazon Canada says:
Looks like the publisher blew the original release date, what there was of the first run quickly evaporated, the UK seller is the only one showing up because they’re taking pre-orders while Amazon in North America, wary of getting burned, waits to see what supply will actually be available.
Amazon UK says: “Usually dispatched within 10 to 13 days.” I’m not seeing a “check availability” option. That range is within the ship date of that UK seller. Amazon UK can risk a bit more by taking orders as essentially they just have to drive across town and get them right from the publisher.
Banned? I don’t think so.
Reminds me of “Earth Versus Flying Saucers”.
In this case “Flying Saucers” = Obama + IPCC.
Both of the “Saucers” have an apparent short shelf life I would observe. That is good for Earth and Humanity.
🙂
Sonoma State University located in Rohnert Park, California (Northern California) has the following ‘survey’ under way. Those interested can easily participate and by doing so you qualify for a $50 Visa gift card. https://uweauclaire.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_eXsZXUL6P8kplYh
Late night conjecture on your part. The American distributor of the UK publisher refused to carry it. I checked.
This is off-the-wall.
This is the 21st C. The US distributor/publisher would do POD (Print On Demand) through Lightning Source just like every other printer in the US dealing with Amazon.
No books were sold through amazon.com or amazon.ca. I checked.
Greg Goodman says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:04 pm
///////////////////
That is so, but it is important to bear in mind that it is also a 2 degC rise from pre-industrial temperature levels. Obviously, going back that far, there is particular uncertainty as to what the temperature was in pre industrial times. Are we to take this as the temperature during the LIA, or the end of the LIA (and if so when precisely did the LIA end?
So there is quite some uncertainty, but it is reasonable to conclude that we have already had at least 0.8degC warming of the projected 2degC rise (that would really be just the warming since the late part of the 19th century) and strongly arguably some 1.2degC (if not slightly more) of the projected warming if one considers that the pre-industrial times were the end of the 18th/very beginning of the 19th century.
That being the case, it may be that by 2050 (the projected date for 540ppm of CO2), there will only be a further 0.8deg warming from today’s temperature. That does not sound very alarming to me.
Indeed, when considering the effects of global warming, we neeed precise regional data as to where the warming will occur and to what extent. Of course, one major problem is that it is accepted that the models do not perform well on a regional basis (of course, they are also completely hopeless on a global basis, but that is another issue) so it is difficult to project how the warming will impact and what effect it really will have. If you do not know where it is going to be warmer, nor by how much, it is impossible to estimate whether the warming will be a net benefit to the world, or whether problems will occur. This is why the forecasts of impending doom are fundamentally flawed save other than the most general of claims regarding sea level rise (which of course, is neither accelerating, nor taking place at an alarming rate – all indicators are that at the present steady rate that is currently being observed, adaption will be easy and not expensive).
PS. I am sceptical of all claims regarding warming and the reasons therefore, so I am not endorsing the above figures or that increasing CO2 emissions will lead to a significant warmer globe. Presently, based upon the 33 satellite data in which there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature changes, climate sensitivity appears so low that it is presently unmeasurable (ie., it’s signal cannot be extracted from the noise of natural variation).
Amazon doesn’t drive across town to pick up books from a publisher. Instead, the publisher or author (who has his own publishing company) emails the book file to Lightning Source in the US, Great Britain, or many of its many other locations worldwide. Lightning Source prints according to Amazon orders, which its computers are linked into, and ships to Amazon distribution warehouses.
rogerknights says:
September 19, 2013 at 4:43 pm
//////////////////////////
Further, this is not an accadmic award, or a science award, but rather the peace award.
The granting of a nobel peace award does not suggest that the recipient has any particularly strong accumen or inteligence. The peace award in recent times has become somewhat of a misnomer and I am far from certain that it commands any respect.From recent awards, it would appear a useful attribute to be a terrorist, former terrorists or in some other way have blood on your hands. It appears that to deal in death would stand one in good straights in the opinion of the awarding committee. It seems to me that the IPCC fits these attributes well since the policies which they have helped form have no doubt led to many deaths and missery. In the UK, there has been a significant increase in the premature deaths of the elderly in winter due to fuel poverty, people have died on the roads because local councils have got rid of their gritters because they were advised that snow would be a thing of the past, using agricultural land for bio fuels has exacerbated food shortages (the amount of grain/wheat the US exports has dropped significantly these past 10 or so years) and leading to hunger, starvation and misery in the developing world, some commentators claim that this was partly responsible for the arab spring which has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths (if one includes the Libyan and Syrian conflicts), it has kept those in the developing world shackled to poverty and early mortality due to restricting their use of energy production. Not a record to be proud of but appears quite fitting for a Nobel Peace Laureat. Personally, I would want to give that a miss and I would not wish for my character to be stained in that way. Not sure how these people sleep at night bearing the missery and suffering they have brought on the world when it appears that all they have observed in multi-decadel natural variation.
Jimbo says:
September 19, 2013 at 4:45 pm
/////////////////
You could add the late 1950s when the two nuclear submarines (Skate and Nautilus) surfaced at the North Pole. Arctic ice during this time was particularly thin and would appear less extensive than today.
Alarmists are lucky they have Arctic sea ice anomalies as all their other scare stories/predictions are entirely baseless.
However, Arctic ice extent is all about changes in ocean currents, soot levels, salinity levels, natural climate cycles and possible deep seated hydrothermal activity, all subjects too complex for alarmists to consider.
Jimbo says: September 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Medieval Warm Period – Dr. Michael Mann
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf
Quite cute how Mann in his chapter there Mann renames it the Medieval Climate Optimum, perhaps to avoid calling it warm (as in MWP). But in the process he is inferring a warmer climate is ideal, as also is used in referring to the Holocene Climate Optimum, (the early part of the Holocene which was warmer than today).
Though I believe Mann has more recently attempted to rename the MWP/MCO as the MCA; the Medieval Climate Anomaly.
Wow, this should have been open to outside reviewers. I also liked the grey literature they used.
I am all for a red team/blue team approach, but this document doesnt come close to the transparency we get from the IPCC.
Jimbo. Just so you know…
It’s the Loss making, low circulation Grauniad.
DaveE.
jai mitchel: “5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph (curve) ”
The whole concept of “normal” is meaningless when we only have 34 years of data to look at. While I would question the cliam that it’s “back to normal” for the same reason, the whole problem is idea that the average of the record since the arbitrary date at which me started looking has anything to do with “normal”.
We started looking at a lowe point in globel temperature and are just past a high point. OF COURSE ice area has been dropping. That does not signal the end of the world.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=521&action=edit&message=1
The rest is stupidity. Mostly deliberate.
Peter Miller says: Alarmists are lucky they have Arctic sea ice anomalies as all their other scare stories/predictions are entirely baseless.
The arctic is the last bastion of this disingenuous stupidity. Temps reached a ‘plateau’ since 2000 and this will necessarily take some time to play out in the ice record. Melting is now slowing as I showed here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/16/inter-decadal-variation-in-northern-hemisphere-sea-ice/
this is in accord with integrating excess temperature which shows the drop in ice slowing down matches the temperature plateau. A rough estimation suggests a time constant of about 8 years characterises the response.
That means we are at the beginning of a ‘hiatus’ in ice loss. They are just going to wait for another 17 years before admitting there’s a problem.
The Green Agenda poses the biggest threat against our civilization since Hitler, Stalin and the Cold War.
We have arrived at the eve of total destruction of the Free West, the loss of autonomy of National States end the biggest genocide since the Second World War.
That the Green Agenda has nothing to do with the protection of the world’s ecosystems becomes clear when we look at the scale of Palm Oil production at the costs of tropical forests and the idiotic plans to burn our biosphere as a alternative fuel in our coal plants, resulting in the destruction of our forests on an industrial scale.
The Green Agenda is a “Human Induced Extinction Event”.
Just read every letter of the UN Agenda 21 and http://green-agenda.com
er van de website http://green-agenda.com
The UN IPCC is part of the criminal organization executing the destruction of our civilization.
Steven Mosher says:
September 19, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Wow, this should have been open to outside reviewers. I also liked the grey literature they used.
I am all for a red team/blue team approach, but this document doesnt come close to the transparency we get from the IPCC.
Since you didn’t include any specific reference to back up your claim they included gray literature, this sounds like so much mudslinging. However, that’s what I’ve come to expect from Mosher posts.
Oops, posted an ‘edit’ link above . Here’s graph:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=521
jai mitchell says:
“Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.”
Yet the IPCC persist in their anti-science climate change denial. Enough.
Bloomberg throughout see this as negative! potentially, Australia could lead the world back to climate sanity – what’s not to like?
19 Sept: Brisbane Times: Bloomberg: Abbott’s win seen stoking anti-carbon price sentiment elsewhere
The failure of Australia, the biggest emitter per capita among the world’s richest nations, to entrench its carbon price is emboldening opponents of fledgling emissions markets from South Africa to California and dimming prospects for a new global climate treaty…
“People who want a reason not to implement some form of emissions reduction would be able to point to Australia and say: they haven’t, why should we?” said Grant Anderson, a Melbourne-based partner specialising in carbon regulations for electricity, LNG and coal at Allens, a global law firm. “That’s the whole thing about international agreements. Once one party decides not to put forward a stronger commitment that was expected, it’s an excuse for others.”…
Abbott’s victory has strengthened the case against a carbon tax set to start in 2015 in South Africa, Nazrien Kader, head of Deloitte LLP’s local taxation practice, said in an e-mail. The country delayed the plan in April after metals companies such as ArcelorMittal South Africa Ltd. and Gold Fields Ltd. objected…
“We can only hope that it strongly influences the South African government’s stance,” Kader said. “A carbon tax has virtually no support from business.”
The American Energy Alliance, a Washington-based group that promotes fossil fuels, posted a note on Facebook on Sept. 11 saying “poor energy policies won’t get you re-elected” above a map of Australia. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Sept. 5 statement that US lawmakers should learn from Australia’s “carbon tax failure.”…
Repeal of Australia’s carbon price would discourage cap-and-trade programs worldwide, Frank Jotzo, director at the Australian National University’s Centre for Climate Economics and Policy in Canberra, said…
“Australia is much more important internationally in these matters than its share of global emissions might suggest,” Jotzo said…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/carbon-economy/abbotts-win-seen-stoking-anticarbon-price-sentiment-elsewhere-20130919-2u2ek.html
See what happens to your country’s competitiveness when politicians believe in the IPCC report contents:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10321173/Germany-industry-in-revolt-as-green-dream-causes-cost-spiral.html
“Germany industry in revolt as green dream causes cost spiral
Germany’s top economic adviser has called for a radical rethink of the country’s energy policies, warning that the green dream is going badly wrong as costs spiral out of control”.
This wave of “unreality” is also hitting the shores of United Kingdom.
@mosher
“….the transparency we get from the IPCC.”
You forgot the sarc tags.
Steven Mosher says:
September 19, 2013 at 11:01 pm
I am all for a red team/blue team approach, but this document doesnt come close to the transparency we get from the IPCC.
OK, I’ll bite. The number being quoted everywhere is the IPCC’s 95% certainty that most warming results from human activities. If the IPCC is as transparent as you say, care to tell us what they measured and how they calculated that number?
Hey come on… 0bama got the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being George Bush.
There may have been a time when the Peace Prize had meaning. That time is not our time.