CFACT presents four inconvenient facts about global warming at #COP21 display

CFACT has participated in the UN climate process going back to the original Rio Earth summit.  We are an officially recognized NGO observer at COP 21.

CFACT’s display is in the NGO pavilion at booth 37c.

We used our space to inject four “inconvenient facts” into the COP.  They are the kind of rock solid, 100% scientifically valid points that leave the warming-indoctrinated spluttering.

Here they are:

COP 21 slides temperature models v reality


“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade” – University of Alabama, Huntsville

“The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.” “After 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.” – Remote Sensing Systems

“Satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change.” – NASA, April, 1990

There is a “robust” cosmic ray-global temperature relationship… and thus provide further corroboration of the solar/cosmic ray theory of climate of Svensmark et al.  – National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Aug 2015

“Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates. – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Energy and Climate Outlook, 2015

“Using the peer-reviewed climate model MAGICC, I estimate the marginal impact of carbon reduction promises called INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) from the EU, USA, China and the rest of the world, along with the likely global policy output. My major finding is that the total effect is very small: less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.”  – Global Policy, Nov. 2015

All countries’ commitments from Paris = less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.

Cop 21 slides sea level

“Absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.”   – NOAA

“Tide gauge records along coastlines provide evidence that mean sea levels (MSLs) have risen since the late nineteenth century with globally averaged rates of 1.33–1.98 mm per year… There has been “underestimation of possible natural trends of up to ~1 mm per year erroneously enhancing the significance of anthropogenic footprints.”

– University of Siegen, Nature Communications, July, 2015

“According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”

“Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,”


“Global sea level is less sensitive to high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than previously thought.”

Stanford, Geology, August, 2015

Island nations not sinking<

“No islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations.”

Geology, March, 2015

COP 21 slides polar bears

“The global population of polar bears is about 26,000 bears. This is up 1,000 bears from 2014.  Estimations are between 25,000- 30,000 bears globally.”  – International Union for Conservation of Nature

“Arctic sea ice is increasing, with the extent of ice at the highest it has been since 2004.

Denmark Ocean and Ice Services

“Arctic sea ice persisted in the James and Hudson bays well into August of 2015. it was reported that the worst mid-summer ice conditions in 20 years was preventing the routine delivery of supplies by ship.” – NASA

“Sea ice in at least three Eastern Canadian polar bear subpopulations was well above normal for 2015.” – Canadian Ice Services

Arctic sea ice is up by at least a third after a cool summer in 2013. “It would suggest that sea ice is more resilient perhaps,” says Rachel Tilling, University College London.” – The Guardian, July 2015

COP 21 slids extreme weathe

“We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls,” the authors state, “but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.”

Journal of the American Meteorological Society, July 2012

“There is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.

IPCC 5th Assessment Report

“There is low confidence in any long term increases in tropical cyclone activity … and low confidence in attributing global changes to any particular cause.” Any increased hurricane damages “have not been conclusively attributed to anthropogenic climate change; most such claims are not based on scientific attribution methods.” There is “low confidence” for trends on tornadoes, and “the evidence for climate driven changes in river floods is not compelling.”

IPCC 5th Assessment Report

“When closely examined there appears to be no increase in extreme weather events in recent years compared to the period 1945–77, when the Earth’s mean temperature was declining. The global warming/extreme weather link is more a perception than reality (Khandekar et al. 2005). The purported warming/extreme weather link has been fostered by increased and uncritical media attention to recent extreme weather events. The latest IPCC documents appear to de-emphasize the warming/extreme weather link by suggesting ‘low confidence’ in linking some of the events to recent warming of the climate.”<

The Global Warming Extreme Weather Link, GWPF, 2013

– See more at:

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 4, 2015 10:46 am

They are completely incapable of comprehending facts. More than likely, they’ll scream blasphemy and direct you to the teachings of some eco-terrorist website.

Reply to  Dog
December 4, 2015 11:04 am

Agreed. You can hear it now:
“Yes, maybe so, but by 2100….”

Gary M
Reply to  Dog
December 4, 2015 11:04 am

No, these people are not dumb. They know most will fall for the propaganda, some of us will not. This agenda of theirs will need to come apart from within, not from outside bombardment of inconvenient facts!! We can only hope it happens sooner than………

Julian Williams in Wales
Reply to  Gary M
December 4, 2015 11:33 am

The bombardment from the outside might appear to be having no effect, but forever having to obfuscate and lie must be demeaning to their self esteem and self confidence about themselves. If people, especially scientists, begin to shun their company they will be in serious psychological trouble.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Gary M
December 4, 2015 1:01 pm

I wonder who will become the Gorbatchev of United Nations. The one bringing policies of glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika (“restructuring”).

TC in the OC
Reply to  Gary M
December 4, 2015 1:09 pm

Julian…the only way the government scientists and university researchers will begin to shun them is if the funding for global warming dries up and the pal reviewers get ousted from power. The entrenched bureaucracy is like the people of Afghanistan. They give allegiance to who ever is in power but do things their own way until their chieftains change or their source of money dries up.

Reply to  Gary M
December 4, 2015 2:01 pm

This group doesn’t deal in facts. They support a popular meme which has less substance than a religion.

Reply to  Gary M
December 4, 2015 2:04 pm

“No, these people are not dumb. They know most will fall for the propaganda”
Out in the real world, the CAGW hoax is losing credibility fast.
Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.
Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.
In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.
The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.
Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.
The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.
The 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ global survey of causes for concern currently covering 9,715,178 respondents shows ‘action on climate change’ flat last, 16th of 16 categories.
Crying “WOLF!” can only work for so long, and as not a single one of the catastrophic predictions of the Warmist religion over the last 3 decades has actually happened – in fact in the majority of cases such as hurricane landfall frequency and polar ice disappearance they have been diametrically wrong – their credibility is rapidly approaching zero.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gary M
December 4, 2015 2:43 pm

The 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ global survey of causes for concern currently covering 9,715,178 respondents shows ‘action on climate change’ flat last, 16th of 16 categories.

I can’t help but wonder how much lower it would have ranked if they’d had more than 16 categories.
“Which is of these issues demands more Government action, climate change or navel lint?

Reply to  Gary M
December 4, 2015 4:02 pm

@Gary M
You may be on to something there. Perhaps it’s time we all play the roll of devil’s advocate? The insanity is so incredibly rampant but well directed to achieving a particular goal – none of which has anything to do with well-being of our planet. It’s as if the same people who payroll ISIL are the same ones running the CAWG movement…I wonder if there’s a connection there? I mean, we all know that ISIL is mainly composed of foreign mercenaries and that a majority of their armaments are made by the US…

George Tetley
Reply to  Dog
December 4, 2015 12:07 pm

The public sponsored members of the Paris bun fest Are al very,very,very, important people!!
As we all know they are to “busy” to read, but in passing if attention is drawn may glance at a picture and then form an Encyclopedic opinion.

December 4, 2015 11:10 am

To all of the above should have been added the greening of the planet and the fact that the IPCC considers a 1 degree C temperature increase as “net beneficial”. But who cares about facts, eh?

December 4, 2015 11:11 am

Thanks, Anthony.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. And these 4 are only the most prominent reasons, the ones that are more easily understood.

December 4, 2015 11:11 am

They’ll never let a liitle thing like facts get in the way of their agenda! But good for CFACT!

Rob Morrow
December 4, 2015 11:28 am

Facts, schmacts. The “progressive” West runs on feelings.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
December 4, 2015 1:37 pm

. . . and “reality” is whatever they want to “feel” it is.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
December 5, 2015 5:50 am

Facts? We don’t got to show you no facts! We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!

December 4, 2015 11:32 am

Facts still matter to the uncommitted. It’s the perfect counter to agitprop.
Thank You CFACT

December 4, 2015 11:32 am

I was reading an op ed piece in the NY Times by Paul Krugman pg a35 Dec 4,2015. He says that skeptics are in denial and anti science. Has he closed both his ears and eyes? What part of this article is anti science? He presents no facts or rebuttals, nor has anyone else on the CAGW team, to the above facts. As always with anything they don’t like, they ignore and keep on screaming how we are all doomed, and it will be our (skeptics) fault from preventing CAGW.

Reply to  rishrac
December 4, 2015 11:34 am

Krugtron is a punchline.

Reply to  troe
December 4, 2015 11:41 am

What matters is that he has a major platform to speak from. To be balanced, this article should have been in there too. I don’t see any opposing, legitimate, points of view in that paper. This article is legitimate argument, shouting we are anti science is not. That’s the fault of the NY Times.

Reply to  rishrac
December 4, 2015 12:11 pm

If I ever wanted an opinion from an economist, I’d ask ten random people and divide by three.
Seriously, these are the guys who predict 11 of the last 3 recessions.

Reply to  CaligulaJones
December 4, 2015 1:30 pm

The difference is the size of the audience he is reaching and the one we are, and the political ramifications.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  rishrac
December 4, 2015 4:35 pm

I thought it could be interesting to analyze what nobel laureate Paul Krugman actually wrote in this article to see if what he wrote was substantiated. It turns out that there are more logical fallacies than there are sentences. In the 11 first sentences I found 0 objective scientific statements and about 20 logical fallacies – give or take a few.
I used the following net site to identify the fallacies: Logical fallacies
The fallacies i found seems to mostly fall within the category of tactical fallacies:
«Tactical fallacies are those in which there is an attempt to marginalize your opponent’s position with a rhetorical device to distract or evoke emotion rather than providing a genuine argument.»
Here are the first 11 sentences of what Paul Krugman writes and my identification of the logical fallacies I found, which seemed to fit best. This is not very precise science, but it gives a rough idea about the objective, empirical and scientific content provided by Paul Krugman – which seems to be zero, zap, zilch, nada. The reason I stopped after 11 is that I simply got tired. I have not read any more sentences than those which I included here. Hence I have no idea what comes after these 11 sentences. It could be the most brilliant science for all that I know.
«Future historians — if there are any future historians — will almost surely say that the most important thing happening in the world during December 2015 was the climate talks in Paris.»
«True, nothing agreed to in Paris will be enough, by itself, to solve the problem of global warming.»
bare-assertion-fallacy * 2
«But the talks could mark a turning point, the beginning of the kind of international action needed to avert catastrophe.»
«Then again, they might not; we may be doomed.»
«And if we are, you know who will be responsible: the Republican Party.»
«O.K., I know the reaction of many readers: How partisan! «
«How over the top!»
«But what I said is, in fact, the obvious truth.»
bare-assertion-fallacy * 2
«And the inability of our news media, our pundits and our political establishment in general to face up to that truth is an important contributing factor to the danger we face.»
bare-assertion-fallacy * 6
«Anyone who follows U.S. political debates on the environment knows that Republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose any action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, and that the great majority reject the scientific consensus on climate change.»
« Last year PolitiFact could find only eight Republicans in Congress, out of 278 in the caucus, who had made on-the-record comments accepting the reality of man-made global warming. «
Link leads to an article starting with the following:
«More than 1,500 wildfires have ravaged California so far in 2014, more than twice the state sees in an average year.»
Blind link = bare-assertion-fallacy
«On ABC’s This Week, Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, cited scientific research that links the increased number of fires to the state’s changing climate. Host George Stephanopoulos asked Brown how he’d adapt to the future, given skepticism among Republicans in Washington. Short answer: not easily. “That’s a challenge,” Brown said. “It is true that there’s virtually no Republican who accepts the science that virtually is unanimous. I mean there is no scientific question. There’s just political denial for various reasons, best known to those people who are in denial.”»
Ok I think we are ready to conclude now:
The idea that
– Paul Krugman
and thereby the category of:
– nobel laureates
– professors
might consistently avoid logical fallacies – is hereby falsified, it is wrong. QED.
However, it seems that near half of the novel laureates present at the 2015 Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting had the integrity to not sign the subjective and unsubstantiated
2015 Maineau Declaration

More on that here.
So a nobel laureate may have the integrity which is required – to not sign an unsubstantiated appeal – even under pressure – but you have no guarantee. And what the nobel committee might be looking for – I have no idea whatsoever. But, in my opinion, some nobel laureates still seems great to me.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
December 4, 2015 4:41 pm

Thank you

Reply to  Science or Fiction
December 5, 2015 11:44 am

What’s old is new again. I remember the same partisan divide back in the 1970’s over the imminent (so they said) oil crisis. We would virtually exhaust the supply by 1985, they assured us. We needed crash programs in alternative energy (leading to failed boondoggles like Synfuels), we had to drive at a snail’s pace on the highways, and wear sweaters about the house.
Republicans said all we had to do was deregulate the market, and let it do its magic. They were mercilessly mocked and derided. Then, they did it, and the problem went away.
I was just a child, so of course believed what all the seemingly knowledgeable people said. I will never forget how shocked and scandalized I was when discussing it at a family holiday get-together, and an uncle of mine snorted, and said we had plenty of oil. How could he be so out-of-it? How could be doubt what just everyone knew to be true?
When the scales fell from my eyes, that uncle became particularly beloved. He suffered a stroke just recently. His speech is slurred, but there is the same knowing glint in his intelligent eyes.
What can I say? I’ve seen this film before. I know the ending. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

December 4, 2015 11:36 am

We skeptics like to talk about the 18+ year pause, however, then you have to get into the details about why RSS is better than GISTEMP etc. The more indisputable fact is that models are significantly over estimating the climate sensitivity.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
December 4, 2015 12:12 pm

Yes – the pause is a fact that gets the alarmists sputtering in frustration.
Something strange happened today that may be relevant. Here in the UK we have had the recent debacle of our trendy lefty leader of the Labour Party losing the debate and vote on our joining military action in Syria. The Left was outvoted hugely.
Now typical of the Lefties they attacked, bullied and threatened anyone in the run up to the vote such EVERYONE in the UK was shocked. In fact – whilst the vote itself was headline news – it was soon followed by coverage of the unedifying tactics of the hard left. Opposition MP’s who voted with the Government have been threatened with de-selection, had demonstrations outside their homes and one female MP has been threatened with being “bottled” (having a broken bottle thrust in your face)
Today over lunch, a colleague who is very much a believer in AGW said that he thought the actions of these Left Wing Activists was wrong and that something “should be done”.
My comment – that literally brought the conversation on the table to a halt – was:-
“Be a climate change sceptic and question the focus on CO2 and you get used to such nastiness”
I actually think the point hit home.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
December 4, 2015 2:53 pm

An overly sensitive model may look nice but I prefer my wife.
Fantasy versus reality.
The reality may never measure up to the fantasy but it’s REAL.
(Hope I didn’t just put a few divorce lawyers out of work.8-)

Reply to  Gunga Din
December 5, 2015 11:49 am


Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2015 11:39 am

Get a load of this “Die-in”. OMG, the stupid, it burns.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2015 12:17 pm

Where is the Soylent Green garbage truck when you need it?

Gunga Din
Reply to  ossqss
December 4, 2015 3:00 pm

Many, many times a comment brings a smile to my face or the need to clean my monitor but I don’t reply to let the commenter know it.
That “8-)” goes out to many others also.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2015 12:39 pm

Not dead…. but Brain-Dead.. already seems to be happening to that poor girl.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2015 12:40 pm

The start of a new “zombie” series ?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2015 12:56 pm

The fact is they are correct. Most, if not all, of them will be dead by 2100.

Gunga Din
Reply to  timg56
December 4, 2015 3:01 pm

Until then we have “Walking Brain-Dead”?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2015 3:15 pm

I always wish someone was there at such events to hold up signs that read “These bodies represent (whatever fraction percentage is there relative to) the number of people who will die this year from exposure to extreme cold” or “From lack of cheap energy” or “Because of Extremists” or ANYTHING. Just to take full advantage of their idiotic behavior in relating TRUTH to those who see them.
Or get a megaphone and ask people “Ohhh…hey…come be in my die in! Hurry! We need more people” and after they all fall down loudly announcing one of the above facts. Either they’d learn something or they’d get up and leave fast. 🙂

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 4, 2015 6:30 pm

i wonder it these useful idiots understand the CO2 in our lungs regulates breathing. We need CO2 …

“Carbon dioxide: Peripheral chemoreceptors also monitor the carbon dioxide concentration in the blood. In addition, a central chemoreceptor in the medulla monitors the carbon dioxide concentration in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that surrounds the brain and spinal cord; carbon dioxide diffuses easily into the CSF from the blood. If the carbon dioxide concentration gets too high, then both types of chemoreceptors signal the respiratory centers to increase the rate and depth of breathing. The increased rate of breathing returns the carbon dioxide concentration to normal and the breathing rate then slows down.”

Carbon dioxide: Peripheral chemoreceptors also monitor the carbon dioxide concentration in the blood. In addition, a central chemoreceptor in the medulla monitors the carbon dioxide concentration in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that surrounds the brain and spinal cord; carbon dioxide diffuses easily into the CSF from the blood. If the carbon dioxide concentration gets too high, then both types of chemoreceptors signal the respiratory centers to increase the rate and depth of breathing. The increased rate of breathing returns the carbon dioxide concentration to normal and the breathing rate then slows down.

Ref to last quote:
Increased CO2 concentration can be used to heal lung trauma. “Similar CO2-healing effects were discovered for tissues of the skin and colon, and tooth abscesses.” So reducing “CARBON” may be bad for your health. /Sarc off
Conclusion – nothing wrong with a little extra CO2. But I suspect most of the folks “dying” in the streets are taking liberal arts or Poly Sci. (with all due respect for people who are good at those things). I am a little left brained myself, but for some reason my kids are more right brained. On the other hand, “Left and Right Brained” is apparently as mythological as the “Climate – CO2 Control Knob”.
Have a great evening.

John F. Hultquist
December 4, 2015 11:42 am

All very nice except for the paper clip and the Lincoln pennies. These are intended to be visual cues of the thickness measurements but if shown edge-wise they would not be recognizable. Further, paper clips come in tiny to very large. Lincoln pennies are so USA-provincial.
If CFACT cannot fix this I’ll bet WUWT commenters can offer ideas.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 4, 2015 11:47 am

They could have just as easily used one of those euro coins.

Gunga Din
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 4, 2015 3:17 pm

Visual “figures of speech”.
I think the paper is OK. I think most would think of a “common” paper clip. For an international audience, perhaps 3 paper clips instead of the 2 pennies?
But even if people think of “jumbo” paper clips, that still ain’t much … which is the point.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 4, 2015 3:26 pm

Wow John F. Hultquist….did you get out of bed on the wall side today?
I’ve never traveled outside of the US, but I have coins from all over the world in my desk drawer because international currency gets brought to me by people who travel internationally. But CFACT is an US based group, AND they can use whatever reference images they want to, and I highly doubt that most WUWT commenters could care less about it. Plus it’s hard to compare the measurements to the thickness of two US Pennies if showing them edge-wise would render them unrecognizable! ROFL. But I suspect that then you’d complain that you have no idea what those two bronzish lines were from!

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Aphan
December 4, 2015 5:07 pm

Well, I was trying to help.
My bedroom has 4 walls!
I DID used the phrase “they would not be recognizable.”
“CFACT is an US based group, AND” such folks are frequently criticized for being provincial. I am, but when in Paris etc. …
I do not have any coins other than US ones.
Did you mistake hair gel for tooth paste this morning?

Reply to  Aphan
December 4, 2015 6:06 pm

(huffff…hufff…checks breath…) Nope! 🙂
I don’t mean to be rude, but I do however have a semi-pet peeve when people “try to help” when none is asked for, nor obviously required. (it’s called overhelpful) For example “If CFACT cannot fix this I’ll bet WUWT commenters can offer ideas.”
What? It’s insulting to insinuate that CFACT isn’t a highly educated group of capable adults who most likely would not view their presentation material as being “broken” or “wrong” even if you told them you think it is. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it is. And I can’t find ANY evidence online where anyone has criticized CFACT for “being provincial” except you.
“but when in Paris etc”…Sure, sure they should spend good money changing all of their normal presentation material into something that can only be used when they are in Paris! Like having the bears wear berets, and the ocean level rise should be compared to croissants! Baguette crust? The width of a snail’s mucus trail?
Cuz it’s all about catering to your audience instead of focusing on the facts?

December 4, 2015 11:57 am

Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
With all the warmer propaganda about COP-21 in the local newspaper, I thought you might like to have some real facts for those water cooler and coffee bar conversations.

December 4, 2015 12:00 pm

Don’t forget the Earth is getting greener in color too…..

December 4, 2015 12:06 pm

Judith Curry has three more inconvenient facts that point out fatal flaws in CAGW theory. They are characterized as Pink Flamingos:

The new concept, the Pink Flamingo, refers to “a predictable event that is ignored due to cognitive biases of a senior leader or a group of leaders trapped by powerful institutional forces.”

Here’s Judith’s comment: (the formatting and numbering are mine)

The analogy I am trying to make here with climate change is that the focus on the period since 1950 for climate change attribution allows us to fool ourselves. Yes, there is a vigorous paleoclimate research community, but
1 – I am still waiting for a robust explanation for the substantial global warming from 1905-1945,
2 – why the globe has been warming overall for the past 400 years,
3 – and what caused the little ice age.
Failing to even try to understand climate change during these periods in the recent past is a recipe for fooling ourselves about what has caused the recent warming, and how the future climate will evolve. link

As usual, Judith’s full post is well worth reading. I have merely extracted a small part.

Gunga Din
Reply to  commieBob
December 4, 2015 3:23 pm

Failing to even try to understand climate change during these periods in the recent past is a recipe for fooling ourselves about what has caused the recent warming, and how the future climate will evolve.

“They” are only out to fool us into believing that Man is the cause and therefore Man needs to be controlled. And “they” are just the people to do it.

December 4, 2015 12:09 pm

These inconvenient facts about the ETS schemes need a wider audience (including the 40,000 in Paris)

December 4, 2015 12:13 pm

Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
Channel4 in the UK is showing an alarmist programme on the supposed demise of polar bears tomorrow. Coincidentally polar bears get a mention here – and happily doing extremely well. Now ask yourself the question, why would one group of scientists be pushing an alarmist viewpoint not supported by the data?

December 4, 2015 12:15 pm

This is always a great graphic to talk through also.

Reply to  ossqss
December 5, 2015 8:00 pm

What caused CO2 to increase to “force” the earth out of the ice age? By what mechanism does CO2 lead temperature? There is no mechanism by CO2 leads temperature.

Walt The Physicist
December 4, 2015 12:21 pm

Yeah, yeah… And Manns and Shuklas continue getting NSF/NASA/etc funding….

December 4, 2015 12:23 pm

The UN is just a run-away out-of-control bureaucracy. Laws, facts, science, democracy, jurisprudence morality, ethics mean nothing to the UN. They will ignore what they don’t like and invent anything that they think serves them.
Remember the “UN Peace Force” and what a disaster that was in the 1960s?!
The only criminality left for the UN to exploit is printing money. So, I would hazard that the UN will try to print money, UN-bitcoin or something else maybe a post-it note with “I Owe You” on it to trade amongst themselves as “carbon-credit-notes” to pretend they are paying-away or paying-up or paying-down their Global Warming and getting rich (only in their minds).

Reply to  601nan
December 5, 2015 8:04 pm

The UN is just a run-away out-of-control bureaucracy.

That the movie “The WhistleBlower” to understand just how morally corrupt this organization.

December 4, 2015 12:27 pm

Perfect. Oh for a list of the top 20 such inconvenient facts constantly-accessible on WUWT.

Reply to  Arbeegee
December 4, 2015 2:17 pm

Here are ten from the [London] Daily/Sunday Telegraph’s wonderful Christopher Booker: –
Smiles n things

Reply to  Auto
December 4, 2015 4:00 pm

Nice list and definitely useful, but not quite what I am looking for as a feature on WUWT. That Telegraph item has the facts stated in a less obvious, negative form: Essentially focussing on the claims made by those gathered in Paris. What is needed are straight facts, in order of their significance and power, that can be pulled out of the head of the more casual GW skeptic at a moment’s notice to counter a Warmonger. This, say, one line fact would be complete with a referenced footnote of peer-reviewed support data in case the fact was ever challenged.

Reply to  Auto
December 5, 2015 3:31 am

This Christopher Booker article sounds like the Ice Age will return shortly. Thanks great article in a widely read paper.

4 eyes
December 4, 2015 12:44 pm

Send this list plus CommieBob’s summary above of JC’s questions to your Federal politician, cc’d to your local MSM, and ask them if they accept the facts as presented or if the Govt can answer JC’s queries.

December 4, 2015 1:12 pm

Let me add the following logic:
The climate change that we are experiencing is typical of the Holocene for the past 10,000 years. It is caused by the sun and the oceans and Man does not have the power to change it. We are currently warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than a thousand years ago. There is nothing unusual about it.
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface. which is mostly H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.
This is all a matter of science.

December 4, 2015 1:39 pm

another inconvenient fact at COP21:
4 Dec: ClimateChangeNews: Avik Roy: COP21: Climate finance row burning bright as clock ticks on talks
Over 130 developing countries signalled their anger at the lack of cash on offer from wealthier nations in a series of explosive interventions on Thursday in Paris.
The head of the G77 + China group, Ambassador Joyce Mxakato-Diseko, blamed a “special group” of developed countries for refusing to negotiate on finance.
“These are the countries that jumped out of the Kyoto Protocol at the slightest excuse,” she said. “We are tiptoeing around these countries… they bluster without responsibility.”…
In a separate press conference Pa Ousman Jarju, a Gambian diplomat representing the 48 strong Least Developed Countries group said the quality of finance on offer was insufficient.
“We cannot take loans. For us it needs to grant-based. We don’t want loans to be classified as climate finance,” he said. “We should have a common platform where we agree on the figures of finance.”…
Poorer nations want evidence a 2009 pledge to provide them with $100 billion a year by 2020 to green their economies will be met.
In October, the OECD and Climate Policy Initiative published an assessment report that stated climate finance of $62 billion had been mobilised.
But some of the finance included – like loans, export credits and private sector contributions – has been fiercely contested…
“This is standard week one behaviour, it’s important not to over-interpret” said Elliot Diringer, a former White House advisor who heads the Washington DC-based C2ES think tank…

December 4, 2015 1:41 pm

CFACT’s display was at booth 37c.
In four years time the display will be at booth 37.1c.

Reply to  toorightmate
December 4, 2015 2:31 pm

2 Right
Let us hope it is not at – ahh – Booth 36.8c . . .
Heat is uncomfortable – bad if you’re labouring.
And cold kills.
Cold kills – easily – 20,000 per winter in the UK (alone); in bad years, twice that number.
Across Yurp – I guess double those figures, possibly more.
A bit of warming is not so bad.
Pity the figures don’t show any of it in reliable databases.
And my fear is cooling.

Reply to  Auto
December 4, 2015 8:58 pm

37 C is “average” human body temp.

December 4, 2015 2:20 pm

Nice group of four inconvenient facts.
But, in truth, most of the facts are somewhat inconvenient to the CAGW crowd.
The ill-informed masses and the policy makers who really don’t care have no idea that the facts do not support the CAGW meme, however.
And, therein, lies the big problem.

Transport by Zeppelin
December 4, 2015 3:11 pm

In inconvenient fact 1, the last statement on ‘marginal impact of carbon reduction promises” cfact have quoted Global Policy (actually Bjorn Lomborg paper) at 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.” This is incorrect.
Lomborg’s correct figure is 0.17°C which is in line with MIT’s projection of 0.2.°C
still an expensive waste of tax money

December 4, 2015 3:24 pm

Blasphemy! Blasphemy!

December 4, 2015 3:48 pm

The report states-
“The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100”
Lumborg’s quote states “My major finding is that the total effect is very small: less than 0.05°C difference by the end of the century.”
Here’s how I understand the two things together-
If ALL the protocols/policies reduced global temp rise to about 0.17C in 2100, that total effect is “less than a 0.05 C difference” between using all the protocols and not using any of them at all.

December 4, 2015 9:50 pm

These are good posters which effectively visually communicate four important climate facts. Each undermines a pillar of CAGW dogma. Are hi-res downloads of the 4 images available?

December 5, 2015 12:18 am

Great job on the 4 topics. I especially like the polar bears graphic. Global warming must have “forced” the polar bear population increase. Here are another few topics they could have added:
1) There is no mechanism by which CO2 would lead temperatures to “force” the earth out of an ice age.
2) There is no mechanism by which CO2 would decrease to “force” the earth back into an ice age.
3) The oceans are warming. Atmospheric CO2, absorbing and emitting at 13 to 18 micron IR, doesn’t warm the oceans, visible light does.
4) There is no mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 can cause a record high daytime temperature. CO2 is transparent to visible light. Visible light causes variations in daytime temperatures, and warms the oceans.
5) Atmospheric CO2 is in much higher concentration on Mars, and doesn’t trap much heat at night. Same can be said about Earth’s deserts.
6) Geologic records demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 7,000 PPM, and earth NEVER experienced catastrophic warming. The earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 PPM. We are currently near the geologic record low at 400 PPM. Plants die when CO2 reaches 180 PPM.
7) Climate change is the norm, nothing the Government will ever do will stop the climate from changing, or stop CO2 from increasing.
This documentary predicted all the nonsense that you are seeing today.

December 5, 2015 12:31 am

Unfortunately, pointing out the facts to any organised religion doesn’t get you too far in persuading them their beliefs are untrue.

Brian H
December 5, 2015 12:50 am

Flop21 — can we get it over with, already..?

December 5, 2015 1:24 am

Thursday night late Piers Corbyn was on This Week on BBC1 in the UK. The resident lefty on the panel only had one argument, we laymen aren’t qualified to comment, we have to believe what 97% of the scientists say. This lie still has power in the mainstream media.

December 5, 2015 6:54 am

The first NOAA link under the sea level heading returns a 404 error. (Link immediately below the sail-boat graphic)

December 6, 2015 7:23 pm

Models are “predicting too much warming”? Well, then measured reality simply must be “adjusted” to make them right. Of course!
Has anyone noticed what a fascist lot the warmanistas are becoming as their pretty little “beliefs” and “forecasts” are steadily being skewered by measurable reality? Someone once remarked that the definition of a fanatic is one who will redouble his efforts as faliure becomes more certain.
It is reasonable to wonder if RICO laws should be pursued to recover the billiions in loot spent by the public to fund “research” by practitioners of this utterly phony science.

%d bloggers like this: