Emails reveal how children become pawns of climate alarmism

Genesis of a Shakedown: New Records Expose Children’s Marches as Long-Planned Component of Litigation Campaign

From Climate Litigation Watch

Newly obtained public records reveal that the recent wave of private “climate” litigation and state attorneys general (AGs) investigations was not only laid out behind closed doors seven years ago at an infamous 2012 meeting in La Jolla, California. It turns out the attendees also got very early word about the frenzied street theater of children’s marches and school kids’ strikes now filling the streets, including this week in the U.S.

The reason? These demonstrations are a long-planned component of the climate industry’s litigation campaign, including particularly Juliana v. United States, the “Climate Kids” suit that is a radical example of the extreme climate activism flooding the courts.

That La Jolla gathering gathering, organized by a coalition of Rockefeller Foundation–supported groups, produced a blueprint for what has become a litigation industry dedicated to obtaining a settlement in the hundreds of billions of dollarsfrom energy interests. It also laid out the plan to impose what we know as the Green New Deal — by court order.  That plan included a cry for help from activist AGs, “State attorneys general can also subpoena documents, raising the possibility that a single sympathetic state attorney general might have substantial success in bringing key internal documents” out for the groups’ litigation agenda. We know that activist AGs cooperated.

Now comes Juliana, a federal case filed in Eugene, Oregon seeking imposition of the climate agenda by the courts and the subject of a cheerleading CBS News “60 Minutes” segment. The agenda has been thwarted by the democratic process.  That democratic process embodies and is protected in great part by our Separation of Powers, which Juliana seeks to throw aside.

Records of one of the La Jolla presenters, a law professor at the University of Oregon (in Eugene), show that after the implosion of “cap-and-trade”, climate alarmists bemoaned how “conventional approaches” had failed them. With the voters and their elected representatives repeatedly disappointing the activists, even in the face of the $-billion-plus-a-year climate industry’s media and pressure group campaigns, the lawyers had plans.  These plans included sending children in waves to the streets.

The entire strategy of the civil and legal disruption we see, of suits, marches and strikes by schoolchildren, was laid out at this private session seven years ago.

These public records produced mere days after 60 Minutes’s promotional segment, and days before the nationwide children’s climate walkouts, affirm:

  • the climate litigation campaign was expressly grounded in this failure of “conventional approaches” otherwise known as our constitutional system
  • it was to be “linked to youth climate movement (world-wide marches)”;
  • it would be accompanied by a press strategy including documentaries featuring children;
  • the meeting was acknowledged, but this strategy laid out there was “not to be publicized”;
  • the strategy sought both a cooperative federal administration “Consent decrees (would be ideal)” — and to “Bring selected carbon majors to the table, then what?”

“Then what” turned out to be demands by cities for “damages” to run into the several hundred billions of dollars, in litigation — regularly thrown out by the courts — demanding that targeted industries bail out bankrupt progressive governanceand pay for their desired programs. It meant, as in the Julianacase, a demand for federal imposition through the courts — by consent decree, if elections turn out right! — of what is now known as the dangerous if absurd Green New Deal.

“Then what” turned out to mean a climate litigation industry, dedicated to a shakedown. And a lot of terrified, indoctrinated kids skipping school to serve as props in political, and legal, campaigns.

Slide from unknown presenter, 2012 La Jolla conference

Email and slides re presentation by Oregon law professor Mary Wood 2012 La Jolla conference

Full Document Production:

Advertisements

54 thoughts on “Emails reveal how children become pawns of climate alarmism

    • The Rockefeller Foundation does have 1st Amendment free speech in the US. But it is the co-opting of the State AG’s and that corrupt enlistment that should be punished harshly.
      Those state AG’s who participate(d) in that Bloomberg-funded scheme to use a state’s law enforcement powers as political weapons should spend a few years in Club Fed for racketeering-corruption and have their law licenses revoked.

      We also now can see clearly why the Liberal establishment went bat-$#!t-crazy over the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation to the Supreme Court last August-September. Everything in the Left’s strategy now is hinging on abusing the Federal Courts system. They look for friendly judges with forum shopping to find judges who would see fit to become extensions of both the Congress in re-writing black-letter law and ordering around the Executive Branch in its interpretation for social and environmental engineering for Noble Causes. That Federal Judge in Oregon who let this kiddie show trial go-on should be impeached and removed by Congress. A majority on the Supreme Court has already warned her and the 9th Circuit Appeals Court judges that they are watching this case closely.

      As for the Supreme Court itself, Brett Kavanuagh wrote opinions over the years as an Appellate Court judge that pushed back hard on encroachment on Separation of Powers doctrine. We can see clearly why the Left is hard intent on wanting to pack the Court with 2 more new Supreme Court Justices (to 11) to try and get their way. Their whole strategy has been up-ended by the Kavanaugh arrival on the Supreme Court.
      So it is the issue of Supreme Court Packing is becoming a 2020 election theme on the Left for their base and their deep pocketed funders (like the Predatort ambulance chaser industry) that the Republicans and Trump should use to show the American people how much contempt the Left has for the Rule of Law.
      The one thing that would really muck up the Left’s plans on Court Packing is if RB Ginsburg has to be replaced before 2020 (like this Summer or Fall). The fight to replace Ginsburg at Senate confirmation hearings with a conservative will make the nasty, baseless-sexual claims from Leftist activists in the Kavanaugh confirmation look tame in comparison.

      • Joel
        I like the new word that you have coined: “Predatort” It aptly describes the behavior of many lawyers! 🙂

  1. Since this is fueled by a moral neurosis among the bulk of the political left, who are manipulated cleverly by people who believe in god knows what, it will be a very long struggle.

    I would say that education is what will solve this issue, but unfortunately education seems to be its ally.

    • Yep. Good luck with that. Practically all of our school teachers, administrators and college professors drank the Kool-Aid years ago.

    • Depends on your definition of “education”. Our children are being “educated” by liberal and Marxist propaganda teachers. Not really educators but indoctrination facilitators. Very depressing year 1984 and all it’s newspeak. GK

    • Bottom line: If ANY of the Powers That Be honestly thought CO2 was a “problem” for real, the US, EU, Russia, Japan, etc. would ALL be engaged in an all-out push to see that China, India, and African nations build nuclear, not coal-fired power plants. Because that’s the only thing that would make a meaningful difference in emissions. This nonsense in the US is pure, unadulterated, 100% BS politics. And they’re going to lose–BIGLY.

  2. UNHINGED how these hypocrites use fossil fuels every day and then seek to rip off the oil companies, there ought to be a law.

    • Oh, the hypocrisy goes even deeper: … Not only do they use fossil fuels everyday, but they are eager to receive settlements of dollars that were earned USING FOSSIL FUEL !! [yeah, screaming there — ala Sam Kinison]

  3. None of this is really about climate, it is just a big attempted SHAKEDOWN by leftists, greedy shameless hypocritical LEFTISTS.

    • More likely to be due to lawyers after a 40% payout of $1bn i.e. $400m.

      That sounds very avaricious, very right wing, very market-driven capitalism.

      The market is civil litigation.

      The aim is creating a small number of multimillionaires.

      The pretext is do-goodery.

      • In the world of the communist, everything that isn’t owned by the government is right wing, market driven capitalism.

      • Rhys Jaggar

        And just what do you imagine, in you tiny mind, multi millionaires do with their money? Stuff it under the mattress?

        No, they invest it in businesses that generate employment, taxes, communities, all from that ‘dirty’ word, profit.

        What do socialists do with money? They hand it over to the political elite who stuff it under their mattresses because they are too stupid to do anything meaningful with it.

        Free market Capitalism has been around since the dawn of man. It’s what humankind evolved from, and you enjoy the fruits of it’s endeavours every day, whilst seeking to undermine it.

        The term hypocrite is far too polite a term for your kind. Marx was a champagne swilling, privileged, pseudo intellectual, and you imagine he believed what he was selling you gullible suckers.

  4. So, in a nutshell, the mega-wealthy use children (too young to know any better) to sympathy-bait ignorant masses for the cause.

    Suhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeazy.”

    I propose that skeptics use cute puppies to show how the Green Really Bad New Deal would lead to more pet deaths. Use a cute bird to show how windmills would bloody up the landscape with entrails of once majestic wild flying creatures (as if geese don’t already have it bad enough). Use before-and-after pictures to show how a solar farm defaced a once, pristine, NATURAL landscape vista.

    • I guess large stretches of land plastered with reflective panels is more aesthetically pleasing than the landscape that these conceal. Or I guess a large stretch of avian SlapChopsTM is more appealing than a city skyline or an unfettered skyline without further bird-hampering impediments.

      Strange how pathological idealism can screw up one’s aesthetic senses this way.

  5. The manipulation of these children by the NPO’s was in many cases, literally plotted out before they were even born. We now have the documentation to prove it. We can get the testimony of medical doctors stating that many teenagers are place on medication for anxiety and depression because they are convinced the world is slowly being destroyed by global warming, overpopulation and pollution. We have a chain of evidence starting with the Club of Rome in the 1960’s that this was a deliberately planned deception.

    Therefor, we have proof of harm done to these children. Either their parents, or the children themselves should plan their own class action lawsuits, only this time against the NPO’s that lied to them from birth, manipulated them, and HARMED THEM. Their future career choices and life courses were diverted from happier and more productive pathways because to do otherwise would ruin the planet, or so they were taught. How many children have killed themselves because they thought they were saving the planet through population reduction. More than a few suicide survivors should be very outraged.

  6. The courts are the weak point in the overall brilliant distribution and check of powers in our Constitution. The totalitarians know it and exploit it.

    • And yet ALL these court cases will rest on … The Endangerment Finding

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/03/the-epa-co2-endangerment-finding-endangers-the-usa/

      Hasn’t the SCOTUS already relied on and endorsed The Endangerment Finding ?

      https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/us-court-appeals-dc-circuit-upholds-epas-action-reduce-greenhouse-gases-under-clean_.html

      The children will prevail so long as The Endangerment Finding remains “settled law”. We are DOOMED until the flimsy “science” (computer simulation) underpinning this CRAP EPA “Finding” is reversed.

      • No. All SCOTUS said in Mass. v. EPA was that under the present Clean Air Act (CAA) the head of EPA had a right to make such a determination, as Massachusets had demanded.
        The flaw is in the circular CAA definition of an air pollutant as that which pollutes.

        Revising the endangerment finding after IPCC and NCA and after Happer committeefuture rebuttal invites endless litigation. Best way is after Trumpians sweep House and Senate in 2020, revise the CAA with a proper common sense definition of air pollutants that excludes CO2.

        • I am still confused. How can something that is found naturally in the atmosphere be a pollutant? Even when found at greater concentrations than today.

          • It is not just “found naturally”, it is essential to all life on Earth to be of sufficient quantity in the atmosphere.
            The “Solution to pollution is dilution” jingle has always been the practical approach to real pollutants in our environment. But we cannot do this CO2.
            If CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were reduced to 1/10 of what they are today, all animal life on Earth and most plants, except fungi and bacteria, would be extinguished.

          • Simple, sulphur dioxide is found naturally, in the atmosphere, that’s a pollutant.
            Arsenic exists naturally, even in some water supplies. Arsenic is a pollutant too.

        • “head of EPA had a right to make such a determination”

          Lisa Jackson made that determination. Gore rewarded her with a job at Apple. Oh, and she is on the Board at the Clinton Foundation.

        • Rud is spot on.

          The endangerment finding actually renders all of the climate lawsuits null and void, or at least it will when this all gets to SCOTUS.

          Mass. v EPA left it up to the EPA to determine the level of hazard posed by GHG’s and to determine how best to regulate them. Revoking the endangerment finding would create more problems than the endangerment finding caused.

  7. They are targetting the vulnerable. Children are particularly impressionable by doomsday narratives. As a child of the 80s I would experience frequent terrors about nuclear war, for instance. (But at least it was as real possibility instead of a bogeyman tale like global warming.)

    • With Pershings rolling the autobahns.
      And exactly that Bolton et al would start again, dumping Treaties.
      The already climate-terrorized are going get the double-whammy.
      Macron’s response of an EU military only accelerates this.

      Makes the Duck and Cover of the ’60’s look amateur….

  8. Other countries can do this subversive stuff with impunity. This is is just a day at the office for the EU. The fact that it was to be kept secret is a measure of the USA’s strong, and nowadays apparently unique, position regarding free enterprise, freedom of the individual, and democracy. There is no question that absent the USA, we would have already descended into a revival of the Dark Ages.

    It should be better understood that the UN and EU are unapologetic Anti-American organizations. They know, and have demonstrated since Trump became president, that without the US on board, their grand elitist plans for governance will wither and die. They have nurtured the new left in the US to their way of thinking. I*Deologues have infiltrated and taken over universities and generate the curriculum in schools and run almost all other impactful institutions to this end. Elites, foundations, MSM, have bought into it and essentially are guilty of sedition. This the swamp. I hope their is a massive reckoning being considered. You could build the Wall using Rockefeller/Steyer/Clinton/Soros cash recovered in prosecutions.

    • You misunderestimate the enemy with slogans. Look at thje 58 Pentagon flag-officer petition to Trump to stop his Climate commission. Woul’nd call these guys “socialists”, would you? In effect these brave warriors are hiding behind a children’s strike – not reasuring.

      Former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Thomas Hayward (ret.) has rejected the line from many military officers, and included in the Quadrennial Defense Review since 2010.
      See “Indefensible Fiction: Climate Change as Security Threat”, Newsmax.

    • “I hope their is a massive reckoning being considered.”

      I think there is a real reckoning coming, at least for lower-level DOJ and FBI traitors. The new Attorney General looks like he is going to be getting busy on these things.

      The complete reckoning will come when Hillary, Obama and Biden are shown to have been the orchestrators of the illegal attempts to foil a presidential election.

      Obama and Biden were kept up to date on this sedition. Someone ought to ask them about it. Does anyone really think a few rogues in the DOJ and the FBI just came up with this plot on their own? No, they wouldn’t have done anything without direction from above.

      Hillary should go to jail. She won’t because of politics, but they ought to take every cent she owns away from her. That, and the public shaming, will be as bad for her as a prison sentence.

      We better not let these treacherous people get away with these crimes. People are paying attention and taking lessons and the lesson we need to be teaching is if you commit treason like Obama, Biden and Hillary and their minions have done, you will be exposed for what you are and punished. This way future dishonest people in positions of power will think twice.

      We don’t want the criminals to learn that it is easy to subvert our way of government. We want them thinking just the opposite, and we want the reality to be just the opposite.

      Obama, Biden and Hillary tried to steal the freedoms of the People of the United States by trying to undermine Trump using false charges paid for by Hillary, changing the elections results. There should be consequences for this treachery and criminality.

      The next Dishonest Democrat president will do exactly the same thing Obama has done, if we don’t punish this attempt.

  9. Slight typo…
    “That La Jolla gathering gathering, organized”
    I sure they only “gathered” once.. : )
    Great info…

  10. Most Americans will not know that several cities in the USA have formally declared a “Climate Emergency”
    Even fewer will know that they have done this so that they can also claim “Emergency” powers.
    What emergency powers they are claiming and what they intend to do with them is something that every adult American should be concerned about!
    They deliberately didn’t tell you because they don’t want you to know. They don’t want you to know so that by the time you find out about it will be far to late to act.
    You really owe it to yourself to find out what is going on behind your back.

    Here is a list of just those cities in the USA that have declared an emergency, but if you want a more complete list – with clickable links – you can go to my blog article here:-

    https://citizenjournalisthove.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/uk-cities-declare-state-of-climate-emergency/

    USA:
    • Berkeley City Council, (@CityofBerkeley), California: 112.580
    • Hayward City Council, California: 147,000
    • Hoboken City Council, (@CityofHoboken), New Jersey: 55.131
    • Los Angeles City Council, (@LosAngelesCity), California: 3.999.759
    • Montgomery County Council, (@MontgomeryCoMD), Maryland: 971.777
    • New Britain, Connecticut: 73,200 – resolution
    • Oakland City Council, (@Oakland), California: 390.724
    • Richmond City Council, (@RichmondCalDemo), California: 103.701
    • Santa Cruz City Council, (@CityofSantaCruz), California: 62.864

    I personally think that they are going to implement Agenda 21/2030 as documented in my blog article:-
    http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/sustainable-happiness-is-no-laughing.html

    I personally think that they are using a fake climate emergency to justify a totalitarian regime that will impose economic suicide.

    A good resource for further research is:-
    https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/category/news/

  11. Typo alert…

    That La Jolla gathering gathering, organized by a coalition of Rockefeller Foundation–supported groups…

    I believe there should only be 1 “gathering” 😉

    • What do you mean by “1 gathering”?

      The Rockefeller foundation funds lots of green groups. And there are several Rockefeller foundations.

  12. When there is a problem, who do you call? Lawyers. Come on.

    What will the court order to solve CAGW? Green scams have not worked and cannot work. Forced spending on green stuff that does not work?

    We could follow the EU and just say let’s force politicians to spend 25% of our budget on green stuff that does not work. Does not matter that there is no surplus money.

    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/budget/mainstreaming_en

    “More broadly, in line with the Paris Agreement and the commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the Commission proposes to set a more ambitious goal for climate mainstreaming across all EU programmes, with a target of 25% of EU expenditure contributing to climate objectives.”

    “The report estimates CO2 emissions (William: global) will rise by 2.7% in 2018, sharply up on the plateau from 2014-16 and 1.6% rise in 2017.”

    If they (parties supporting CAGW) were serious they would start with something that would work, say banning tourism air travel, banning air conditioning, banning the owning of second homes, and so on.

    http://notrickszone.com/2019/03/12/climate-regulatory-madness-ratchets-up-german-greens-aiming-to-limit-citizens-to-2-flights-a-year/

    “Only 2 roundtrip flights a year

    Janeck told the Münchener Merkur that citizens should be allowed only 2 roundtrip flights annually. In Janeck’s proposal, a 30 – 50% surcharge would be added beginning with the third international roundtrip flight.

    According to the Münchener Merkur, Janeck says that each citizen is to b allotted “a fixed budget” of two or three flight pairs.”

    • As someone who makes up to 25 flights a year, all it does is raise the cost of flying. As the airlines will have far less traffic, they will have to charge more to offer anything at all.

      Movement in terms of fuel per passenger mile is better by plane than other forms of transport. Try sailing across the ocean and then travelling to East Asia by train. Consider the energy input into staff, transport, food, accommodation, depreciation and fuel, not to mention productive time lost.

      The solution is more physics, not less.

      • Don’t see how it’ll raise the cost of flying. They’ll just operate less aircraft and employ fewer people.

        What it does do is free up airports of us pesky maggot people which means elite and important people can get to and from airports easier.

  13. Maybe if these kids who want to live in a world free of fossil fuels are made to understand that their smart phones, tablets, designer trainers and transportation would be the first to go they would reconsider enacting their parents alarmism stupidity by proxy and jump on board the train to Climate Realityville.

  14. While looking over the full document of the University of Oregon Production to CEI re La Jolla Climate Industry Meeting, intelligent readers will recognize an overriding, blatant, shamelessly-ignored flaw that immediately renders the entire 361 pages unforgivably absurd. The painfully obvious flaw is that the rational of this 361-page document relies entirely on a false analogy — namely the comparison of the dangers of tobacco use with the perceived dangers of fossil-fuel use in powering civilization.

    FROM:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

    “A false analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone applies facts from one situation to another situation but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn.

    Sometimes these differences are outright ignored by the person presenting the fallacy; other times, they may not be aware of the differences. The fallacy occurs, and is common, because real-world parallels are always limited; the differences between things can often overpower their similarities.”

    Now look within those 361 ill conceived pages, and you will find this:

    “Specifically, the workshop sought to compare the evolution of public attitudes and legal strategies for tobacco control and anthropogenic climate change, asking whether we might use the lessons from tobacco education, laws, and litigation to address climate change.”

    This statement “outright ignores” the difference between tobacco-use byproducts in cigarette smoke and fossil-fuel-use byproducts in industrial combustion, namely carbon dioxide.

    This statement effectively suggests that we compare tobacco smoke to carbon dioxide, falsely relating one byproduct of burning to an entirely different byproduct of burning, in the same way that a person might falsely compare a banana to an old-school telephone receiver (because both are shaped in such a manner that they could be held up to one’s ear).

    In other words, a group of supposedly intelligent people produced a tediously intricate document based on an outlandish logical fallacy.

    And this is supposed to be accepted as a legitimate effort to shape public policy?

    I could curse in an exasperated tone, but I will leave that to you all.

    • Robert, love the one with the banana and the old-school phone 🙂
      As the article generally states, the issue in this case is not so much the falsehood of the science, but rather the awful exploit of the youth, whom has now become something I may call “Climate Industry Jugend”.
      However, we may have difficulties fighting the AOC line with counter protests, counter education/indoctrination. Difficult because, as we can see from the article, we are fighting against a movement that has been building since the 1960’s, sponsered by many rich “saloon communists”.
      I think we have to go the cold science-way at a high level, such as the PCCS.
      On the other hand, we might have to, like some of the French, admit officially to friends, family and officials our view as skeptics.
      I just strongly admitted my skeptical view a week ago, sending a green-critical email out to around 50 of my friends – now 47 former friends. The email was a copy of my message to the president of the US:
      ——————————-
      Dear Mr. President Donald Trump,

      as a pensioned Engineer in Electronic Engineering, who has worked for many factories within the electricity power generation in the US, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden, I endorse your initiative to set up the PCCS.

      I endorse the setup of the PCCS with Dr. William Happer as chair. This is what US and the rest of the world has been needing for eons.
      The UN IPCC, which has been assumed “the authority”, is and has acted as a political body, thus it is certainly time for a genuine scientific approach via PCCS.

      Mr. President, we are in dire need for a scientific and a also a second easy to understand report from PCCS as soon as achievable.

      I personally know many highly educated people, who are bewildered regarding what the non-political facts are, concerning the causes, magnitude and eventual solutions to climate variability or Global Warming.

      In any company I have worked for, and made R&D, we have always authored a feasibility study, based on scientific honest research, before a product would go into development and production. A similar thing must happen here too. The economical and social consequences of “acting” on Climate Change, are Titanic, thus it is vital for You, the voters and the rest of the world, that the unproven hypotheses of Man-made Global Warming is investigated according to the scientific method.

      Kind regards
      Carl Friis-Hansen
      ——————————-
      It is hard, but as the greens say: “This is for our children and grandchildren.”
      WUWT is a star in helping spreading a more scientific approach, thanks.

      • Ah, yes Carl FH, a false analogy is used as fertilizer to grow an army of children warriors — that’s the leap of perspective that I was hoping some might take. (^_^)

  15. Kids can’t help from being brainwashed by eco-nazis but adults can avoid this disgusting endoctrination.

    Simply look at the Earth energy budget published by [Kiehl & Trenberth 1997] (or at [NASA 2009]) and ask yourself the following questions :

    1) Can the atmosphere lose 165 W/m² of thermal heat into space without “greenhouse” gases, knowing that :
    – the only way for the atmosphere to lose heat into space is by thermal radiation (there is neither conduction nor convection in the vacuum), and at atmospheric temperatures, this radiation take place mostly in the (far) infrared region,
    – a particle that do not absorb in a given spectral band, do not emit in this same band,
    – by definition, the only gases that absorb in the infrared region are “greenhouse” gases,
    – therefore, “greenhouse” gases are the only particles in the atmosphere that can emit in the infrared region.
    ?
    Answer : no.

    2) What is the “greenhouse” gases contribution to the backward radiative flux of 324 W/m², knowing that :
    – the absorbed heat by “greenhouse” gases from the upward radiative flux in less than 350 – 324 = 26 W/m²,
    – emission is isotropic in the atmosphere, so “greenhouse” gases emit backward the same amount of radiative flux that they aborb from the upward radiative flux.
    ?
    Answer : no more than 26 W/m². The left-over is mainly due to clouds which are made up of water droplets, not “greenhouse” gases.

    3) What is the net radiative contribution of “greenhouse” gases to the Earth energy budget ?

    Answer : No less than 165 – 26 = 139 W/m² which is 139/342 = 40% of the incoming power surface density incoming from the Sun. So the net radiative contribution of “greenhouse” gases is to cool the Earth’s surface even if in this process, they absorb (and emit backward) some of the infrared radiated by the Earth’s surface.
    Indeed, without “greenhouse” gases, the Earth’s surface would transfer directly into space 26 more W/m², but atmosphere would not be able to lose directly 165 W/m² of radiative heat into space and in order to compensate this radiative inbalance, without taking account of any other feedbacks (conduction, convection, evaporation, clouds formation, etc.), the Earth’s surface would have to emit 165 – 26 = 139 more W/m2, which would not be possible unless an increase of its mean temperature.

    4) Can “greenhouse” gases, and hence CO2, be considered as a negative feedback with respect to temperatures’ variations, knowing that :
    – at all time scales, CO2 concentration’s increase (resp. decrease) always follows temperature’s increase (resp. decrease).
    ?

    Answer : yes, since an increase (resp. decrease) in mean surface’s temperatures induces an increase (resp. decrease) in CO2’s concentration in the atmosphere and hence, a cooling (resp. warming) effect (see answer #3).

    References

    [Kiehl & Trenberth 1997] : http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
    [NASA 2009] : https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

  16. This document was produced after the La Jolla meeting by UCS and their compadres.

    http://www.climateaccountability.org/pdf/Climate%20Accountability%20Rpt%20Oct12.pdf
    The workshop was conceived by Naomi Oreskes of the University of California−San Diego, Peter C. Frumhoff and Angela Ledford Anderson of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute, and Lewis M. Branscomb of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

    This workshop was made possible by the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, and the Martin Johnson House at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Without their generous support, this workshop would not have been possible.

    • From the document:
      ////////////////
      …one of the most influential pamphlets published in the abolitionists’ fight offered a dispassionate accounting of facts and details about the slave trade gathered from witnesses who had participated in it. This publication had no trace of the moral fingerwagging that had marked virtually all prior pamphlets. Instead, the facts – especially a famous diagram of a slave ship – carried the day and became widely accepted…
      ////////////////
      So, scare stories work the best, in particular when presented as dry facts. In the case of the slavery, it was a good deed. Another good deed would be to present dry, scary facts of what the climate movement is currently doing to out culture, living standard, health, landscaped, economy and our well being.
      We must learn to work the same technique as the green movement. Personally I am a fool in terms of language, advertisement and promotion, but I am pretty sure there a many on this site, who would be priceless in this context.

Comments are closed.