UN phony 1.5 Degree C “temperature limit” scam is kaput

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The UN IPCC’s politically contrived 2018 report claims that the world must take economically Draconian actions based upon global and regional speculative claimed outcomes spewed from flawed and failed “computer model” projections showing that that we have only 12 years to limit future CO2 emissions or the resulting global temperature increases will destroy the planet because some contrived 1.5 Degree C “temperature limit” will be exceeded is totally ridiculous.

clip_image002[1]

This climate alarmist report offers the following pure conjecture supposedly justifying this hyped “temperature limit”:

“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.”

“The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.”

“The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human- caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.”

“The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

In addition to this UN report relying upon flawed, failed and unvalidated “computer models” that are unable to establish accurate and meaningful global or regional climate outcomes the report further damages and destroys its credibility by falsely claiming that future global temperatures increases must be limited to 1.5 Degree C.

This alarmist hyped “temperature limit” is largely derived from prior politically conjured up claims of a 2 Degree C global “temperature limit” scheme that was fancied about in the mid 1990s.

The climate alarmist hyped prior 2 Degree C “temperature limit” has no sound scientific basis whatsoever as discussed in a 2010 article in Der Spiegel where the “Invention of the Two-Degree Target” is addressed revealing and exposing the clearly politically contrived origins of this phony and scientifically unsupported asserted “limit” as articulated by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and father of the two-degree target.

clip_image004[1]

The article notes:

“For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.”

“Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”

“But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.”

“We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens,” Schellnhuber recalls. “This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognito.”

As tempting as it sounds, on closer inspection this approach proves to be nothing but a sleight of hand. That’s because humans are children of an ice age. For many thousands of years, they struggled to survive in a climate that was as least four degrees colder than it is today, and at times even more than eight degrees colder.

This means that, on balance, mankind has already survived far more severe temperature fluctuations than two degrees. And the cold periods were always the worst periods. Besides, modern civilizations have far more technical means of adapting to climate change than earlier societies had.

Since the first rough estimate was made, many other good reasons have emerged to support the two-degree target, says Schellnhuber. At the same time, however, the constant appearance of new studies has also made the picture significantly more complex.”

“Critics say that the climate impact researchers have gone too far with their brand of political advice. “The two-degree target has little to do with serious science,” says Hans von Storch. Many of his fellow scientists, he adds, now see themselves too much as political activists who want to get something done. This, in turn, harms the credibility of science as a whole, he adds, and it is also a more deep-seated cause of the Climategate affair and the sloppy work on the IPCC report.

“Unfortunately, some of my colleagues behave like pastors, who present their results in precisely such a way that they’ll fit to their sermons,” says Storch. “It’s certainly no coincidence that all the mistakes that became public always tended in the direction of exaggeration and alarmism.”

The article presents a number of highlighted section headings which summarize the absurdity of this temperature limit scheme and that provide the information exposing the contrived basis of the “Two-Degree limit”.

The article highlighted sections include the following three headings which pretty much sum up the bottom line regarding the lack of credibility underlying the temperature limit claim: “Clearly A Political Goal“, “Completely Speculative” and “Completely Absurd”

To achieve the purely politically contrived and scientifically unsupported UN IPCC phony 1.5 Degrees C “temperature limit” scam year 2018 global emissions of 37.887 billion metric tons of CO2 would have to be reduced to about 19 billion metric tons of CO2 (a 45% reduction from year 2010 levels) by year 2030. This level of global CO2 emissions was last seen in year 1977 over 40 years ago.

clip_image006[1]

So the UN IPCC and its climate alarmist “scientists” apparently believe that although it required more than 40 years for the world’s nations to create and build the infrastructure, institutions, resources, capital investment, knowledge and skills to achieve the year 2018 global energy and economic accomplishments the world can simply “undo” all that and create an entirely new set of ways for global societies to achieve the economic and energy benefits we now enjoy in just 12 years.

This is absolute lunacy particularly in light of the phony and scientifically unsupported justification regarding the 1.5 Degree C “temperature-limit” political scheme.    

But the UN IPCC CO2 future reduction demands are even more onerous and absurd than presented above because the world’s developing nations are forecast to significantly increase their CO2 emissions beyond year 2018 outcomes with EIA data showing increases of more than 1 billion metric tons by year 2030 and on top of that an additional increase of 6.7 billion metric tons by year 2050.

The developed nations will not be increasing CO2 emissions at all during the period 2018 through 2050 but will not be seeing declines anything close to the 45% below year 2010 levels by year 2030 that the UN IPCC climate alarmist politically driven schemers are demanding,

clip_image008[1]

EIA data shows that the developing nations accounted for about 60% of all global energy use in year 2018 and about two thirds of all global CO2 emissions. By 2050 EIA forecasts that the developing nations will be accountable for about 70% of all global energy use and about three quarters of all global CO2 emissions.

The developing nations have no emissions reduction commitments whatsoever under the incompetently contrived Paris Agreement and yet are dominating all global energy use and growth as well as all global CO2 emissions increases since year 2008.

Furthermore the EIA most recent energy and emissions forecasts assumed that the developing nations would be continuing government mandated provisions to increase the use of renewable energy with that assumption now shown to be completely wrong.

In fact the developing nations led by China are committing to use even more fossil fuels in the next five years than previously, including priority use of increasing coal, to meet their future energy and economic objectives.

China has announced that it is committed to building new coal power plants equivalent to the entire EU’s existing capacity starting in its next next five year energy planning and building cycle that continues through year 2025.

clip_image010[1]

These enhanced fossil energy use plans include other developing nations as well from the Southeast Asia region which are a part of China’s aggressive multi trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative which is creating new energy, related infrastructure and financing building programs.

clip_image012[1]

The UN IPCC’s purely politically contrived, scientifically unsupported and globally unachievable schemes demanding that world CO2 emissions be reduced by year 2030 to levels 45% below year 2010 global levels are a complete bust or as the Germans would say “kaput”.

There is no scientific support for UN IPCC’s phony 1.5 Degree C global “temperature limit” that was purely politically contrived by climate alarmist schemers.

Additionally there is no justification for capitulating to the UN’s ridiculous climate alarmist demands arrived at by utilizing flawed and failed “computer models” that are unvalidated and unable to accurately forecast global or regional climate outcomes as the rationale for making global climate claims with resulting economically Draconian action demands that are based upon nothing but politically driven, scientifically unsupported and unreliable assessments.

The world’s developing nations are simply ignoring the UN IPCC’s pompous political pontifications and proceeding as they believe is in their best economic and energy interests. These nations completely control their own energy and emissions outcomes as well as those outcomes at a global level.

The arrogant climate alarmist political elitists in the developed nations can huff and puff all they want about their preposterous 12 year long save the world claptrap but they cannot control or change the power and jurisdiction over global energy and emissions outcomes that now resides solely with the world’s developing nations.

Advertisements

109 thoughts on “UN phony 1.5 Degree C “temperature limit” scam is kaput

  1. The UN IPCC’s politically contrived 2018 report claims that the world must take economically Draconian actions based upon global and regional speculative claimed outcomes spewed from flawed and failed “computer model” projections showing that that we have only 12 years to limit future CO2 emissions or the resulting global temperature increases will destroy the planet because some contrived 1.5 Degree C “temperature limit” will be exceeded is totally ridiculous.

    Wow Larry, may I call you “Paul of Tarsus”?

    FYI on the bolded “that that.”

    Thanks for the article!

        • Answer:

          Consider the (long) phrase:

          “that we have only 12 years to limit future CO2 emissions or the resulting global temperature increases will destroy the planet because some contrived 1.5 Degree C “temperature limit” will be exceeded”

          and call it CLAIM. Now read the rest:

          “The UN IPCC’s politically contrived 2018 report claims that the world must take economically Draconian actions based upon global and regional speculative claimed outcomes spewed from flawed and failed “computer model” projections showing that CLAIM is totally ridiculous.”

          Dreadful writing style, but correct.

      • I think that “that that” is grammatically correct in this case.

        Thanks Bruce (and to all who contributed).

        Re: “that that”

        Now that I’ve read the comments from those here and reviewed the article again, I think that that “that that” might not be incorrect after all. If only I had had the wisdom to think before I spoke.

        Many thanks to you all. I’ve learned a great deal today!

      • Punctuate the following words to make sense:

        Where Tom had had had Bill had had had had had had had had the editor’s approval

        Answer:
        Where Tom had had “had,” Bill had had “had had.” “had had” had had the editor’s approval.

        • Both of you guys screwed that up! The correct line goes like this, and has more “had”s in a row:

          John, where James had had “had”, had had “had had”. “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

          Now try it with “that”s 🙂

    • Urk. To @everyone below – grammar is the proper concern of academicians. Communication is the proper concern of persuasive writers.

      As a writer, hoping to persuade, I would have broken the excessively long (although grammatically correct) sentence into at least two, if not three, separate statements. That “that that” that triggered this excessively long thread would have been quite unlikely to survive the copy edit.

  2. My first comment on a climate science related blog nearly 10 years ago was a question about why the benefits for plants of the enhanced aerial fertilization effect of carbon dioxide was rarely mentioned. I’m still waiting for an answer.

    • They also don’t mention that it was around 2C warmer than now in the early interglacial period and much warmer than that, in the Eemian interglacial, maybe up to 4-6C warmer than now.

      This is all made up propaganda for the singular purpose of creating political ownership of you.

      • Yeah, and they don’t mention that their 1.5C limit was reached in the 1930’s, at least in the United States.

        In the United States Hansen showed 1934 to be 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make 1934, 0.4C warmer than 2016 (per UAH). Since the hottest part of 2016 (the hottest year evah!) was claimed to be 1.1C warmer than the global average since 1850, that would mean that 1934 was 1.5C above the global average. We have already survived a 1.5C temperature increase of the global average since 1850. And then we cooled off to this really pleasant world we are living in now, where temperatures are down 0.4C from the 2016 highpoint (see UAH).

        The 2C limit came from looking at the past 130,000 years, but if we go back further than that in the past we find that the temperatures were much warmer than this so-called 2C limit with no ill effect on the Earth or its inhabitants and no runaway Greenhouse effect.

        There is no evidence that shows CO2 from fossil fuels is harmful to humans, even if we burnt every bit of it in a short period of time. If humans burnt all the fossil fuels up quickly it might put as much as 1000ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than 1000ppm (one time period measured 7000ppm) and the Earth and its inhabitants got along just fine. In fact, they thrived.

        We shouldn’t be making major policy decisons based on this level of uncertainty. The truth is these climate alarmist scientists don’t know what CO2 is doing to any degree of certainty. If history is our guide, CO2 is a benign, beneficial gas which should not be feared in any quantity that humans can produce. Until proven otherwise.

        The Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart:

        https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

      • Here’s what the 2019 IPCC report on The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate states about the LIG (Last Interglacial or Eemain) in the supporting material section of Chapter 4. Unbelievable!

        SM4.1.2 Last Interglacial
        “Global mean temperatures during the LIG were not as warm as the mPWP and only slightly warmer (+0.5– 1.0 oC) than preindustrial (Capron et al., 2014; Dutton et al., 2015a; Fischer et al., 2018). Sea surface temperatures were comparable to today (Hoffman et al., 2017). Despite the minimal warmth relative to today’s climate, GMSL was considerably higher (Kopp et al., 2009). Climate models indicate a small (0.35– 0.4 m) contribution to GMSL from ocean thermal expansion during the LIG (McKay et al., 2011; Goelzer et al., 2016), implicating land ice as the dominant source of the elevated sea levels. Dutton et al. (2015a) present an updated review of Eemian sea level based on geological indicators, indicating that global mean sea level was 6 to 9 m higher than today.”

      • Moshpit, you’ve outdone even yourself. Major increases in food production (and increased drought resistance to boot), less cold deaths, etc, etc, are “small”?

        I worry about you…

      • I’m really puzzled by this. Is it not true that we were much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period? And yet society thrived during this time.

        Even if you think the MWP was not global, clearly the higher temps did not negatively affect the societies that enjoyed the warmer temps. So why the concern about 1.5 or 2 degrees now?

        We can’t point to less developed nations and say it will have devastating consequences there because the vast majority of these countries are located closer to the equator. And of course global warming models tell us that greater warming will take place closer to the poles than the equator. Therefore a global rise of 2 degrees will be lower in less developed nations.

        So I’m still left wondering what’s the deal with 1.5 or 2 degrees?

      • DICE vs FUND assessment models on the social cost of carbon vary greatly, apparently dependent on their estimates of CO2 fertilization / productivity benefits of some warming.

        “We incorporated the Lewis and Curry (2015) ECS distribution, which is conditioned on updated
        forcings and OHU data, into the DICE and FUND models. This reduces the estimated Social Cost of
        Carbon in both, regardless of discount rates. Using a 3 percent discount rate and the RB07 ECS
        distribution, DICE yields an average SCC ranging from about $30 to $60 between now and 2050, but
        this falls in half to the $15 to $30 range using the LC15 ECS estimate. The corresponding average
        SCC in FUND falls from the $17 to $27 range to the $3 to $5 range. Moreover FUND, which takes
        more explicit account of potential regional benefits from CO2 fertilization and increased agricultural productivity, yields a substantial (about 40 percent or more) probability of a negative SCC through the first half of the 21st century.”

        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2759505

      • Removed link, don’t know if original comment will also show up.

        DICE vs FUND assessment models on the social cost of carbon vary greatly, apparently dependent on their estimates of CO2 fertilization / productivity benefits of some warming.

        From paper “Empirically-Constrained Climate Sensitivity and the Social Cost of Carbon”

        “We incorporated the Lewis and Curry (2015) ECS distribution, which is conditioned on updated
        forcings and OHU data, into the DICE and FUND models. This reduces the estimated Social Cost of
        Carbon in both, regardless of discount rates. Using a 3 percent discount rate and the RB07 ECS
        distribution, DICE yields an average SCC ranging from about $30 to $60 between now and 2050, but
        this falls in half to the $15 to $30 range using the LC15 ECS estimate. The corresponding average
        SCC in FUND falls from the $17 to $27 range to the $3 to $5 range. Moreover FUND, which takes
        more explicit account of potential regional benefits from CO2 fertilization and increased agricultural productivity, yields a substantial (about 40 percent or more) probability of a negative SCC through the first half of the 21st century.”

  3. “Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.””

    Not as I understand it. Economist William Nordhaus came up with the 2C target in 1975. Schellnhuber later adopted it.

      • I have always wondered where the 2 degree C (and the 1.5 degree C) threshold temperature targets came from. If they are not the result of any known science and were created out of thin air as reported here, it is (IMHO) one of the most disgusting pieces of the whole climate scare catechism.

        I remain dumbfounded as to why no world leaders (especially in the developed West) has intestinal fortitude to expose this fraud if indeed they actually know it is not founded on sound science. Trump is squandering his chance to do this, and it is very frustrating to see it happening.

    • Worth noting that Nordhaus’ calculation of the ideal level of a carbon tax through 2100 found that based on an assumed baseline warming result of 4 degrees by 2100 the ideal tax would reduce the 4 degrees to 3.5 degrees.

      Politically it would make sense to go lower than 3.5 degrees (assuming things were actually going to warm up that much) as the the costs / benefits curve is biased high due to more benefits and less costs in richer northern economies while the relatively worse proposed costs to tropical areas don’t show as much in the calculation due to their affecting smaller economies.

      However it’s obvious that under a 4 degree warming assumption even a 2 degrees target would be much more costly to the world economy than the warming itself. By far the most effective response would be to develop Marine Cloud Whitening technology to locally cool down tropical areas, a project estimated to cost 30 million a year if used worldwide – so cheap that the cost benefit ratio was estimated at 7000 – 1 in the policy book Smart Solutions to Climate Change. The next highest was about 30 -1.

  4. The notion that a committee can “manage” the temperature of the nearest planet is audacity, without precedent.
    Actually the ambition is a form of madness.
    And then they boast that they can set the temp at not just 2 Kelvin above an arbitrary level but at 1.5K.
    With the average temp considered to be 283 K, the precision also indicates madness.
    Unbelievable.
    But there is a lot money paying for the nonsense.
    The number “2” is also a totem in interventionist economics. Think central banking.
    If a self-appointed committee of experts does not keep inflation at 2 % or higher, something very bad will happen.
    Sheeesh!

    • “… It is not even possible to halt an inflation, once embarked upon, at some preconceived point, or when prices have achieved a previously-agreed-upon level; for both political and economical forces will have got out of hand. You cannot make an argument for a 25 per cent advance in prices by inflation without someone’s contending that the argument is twice as good for an advance of 50 per cent, and someone else’s adding that it is four times as good for an advance of 100 per cent.

  5. Having read (much of) the astonishing document myself and the demolition by John Constable of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, I wonder that anyone pays any attention to it. Half a degree? They must be mad. What’s the baseline? Plus or minus a couple of degrees? Aren’t we already there? Keep an eye on UAH and break out the woollies.

  6. A few years back they were telling us that all life would end if temperatures got more than 2C above the lows of the Little Ice Age. Then when it became more and more likely that even without the draconian solutions they were pushing, the earth wouldn’t reach the 2C level, magically the drop dead line was dropped to 1.5C.

  7. The Holocene Maximum 8,000 years ago was 2 degrees warmer than now.

    Did the world end?

    No – the northern treeline moved 200 km further north, and the Sahara desert turned green and fertile.

    So what is the problem with temperatures increasing by 1.5 degrees?

    Ralph

  8. An actual scientific assessment would be presented as a scale, where risks of bad outcomes increase with higher temperatures (and less mitigation spending) and decline with lower temperatures (and higher mitigation spending). But that would immediately expose the existence of a tradeoff where society has to evaluate the point at which spending on mitigation fails to provide a net benefit. They would have to establish that we’re not already at that point and that ANY spending makes sense. And they don’t want to have a discussion or to have to establish anything.

    The fact that there is any specific limit at all proves that it’s not about science.

  9. I’ve been trying to debunk Schellnhuber’s 2° nonsense for years — ever since he admitted it was nonsense! It’s designed to hook the pollies who love nice simple concepts to go with their nice simple minds — in the UK we have had the Five-a-Day (portions of fruit and vegetables), 21 Units a Week (maximum “safe” alcohol limit) a healthy BMI (body mass index) limit of not more than 30 — when research shows that the lowest rate for premature deaths is actually the next band up (30-35), and doubtless other hyper-simplistic rules of thumb that I have forgotten.

    We are the healthiest, wealthiest, longest-lived, fittest, best-educated we have ever been with the means and the will to live our lives to the full and, if only the eco-worriers would get out of the way, the means and the will to make it that those less blessed than we are can also have the means and the support to be able to have the health, wealth and long life that we enjoy.

    Instead of which we have to suffer the holier-than-thou pronouncements of a group of mendacious anthropophobes whose sole purpose is the destruction of western civilisation using patently false arguments about the effect of a trace gas — which over time has been both considerably more abundant and less abundant — on global temperature — which has been both higher and lower in our history, let alone pre-history.

    And we believe them! The Madness of Crowds indeed!

    • Newminster,

      Totally onside, but;
      BMI for the UK is:
      Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
      Overweight = 25–29.9
      Max ‘safe’ alcohol limit is 14 units a week, according to our beloved leaders. That’s 6 pints a week!

      It’s worse than you thought:-)

  10. The use of ’round’ numbers in this context is intriguing. Competent scientists using facts would have come out with a number such as 1.4 or 1.9 or 2.3 or whatever. But 2, then 1.5? They’ve made this up and in the process have besmirched the reputations of charlatans and hucksters.

  11. Every year its the same thing. In the weeks before the annual climate summit, more and more alarmists stories are reported by the MSM, but they always hold the most hysterically alarmist scare stories for release during the middle of the summit for the greatest sensational effect. It’s like clockwork. It’s hilarious.

    But this year, St.Greta will be attending the Summit. I wonder if she’ll do her famous ‘how dare you’ speech again. Inquiring minds want to know..

  12. If Nordhaus, then Schellnhuber, are the source of the 2º limit, I think the 1.5º limit came from a woman of no particular scientific expertise in the Canadian government who just pulled it out of the air to go one better. Perhaps someone knows who she is.

  13. Toronto is 3C warmer than Calgary for every month of the year. I guess the IPCC supporters are saying there can be no life in Toronto.

    Or for that matter, how can there be life in the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc. which are all warmer than Calgary?

  14. . . . absolute lunacy particularly in light of the phony and scientifically unsupported justification regarding the 1.5 Degree C “temperature-limit” political scheme.

    If there were a stronger way to say it with dignity, then I would, but I can’t, and so a bold repetition serves best here.

  15. Because I’m a billionaire and can afford it, I’ve hired a fleet of 747s to fly around empty just to compensate for all the CO2 which is not being emitted due to actions to stop climate change. I just feel we all need to take practical action and talking isn’t making any difference. My aim is to increase global temperature by 3 degrees. No need to thank me. We all do what we can.

  16. It is not difficult to persuade people to take political outcries as scientific.

    Just looked at a TV thing about the fire brigade in action, where a firefighter explained: “Even a small fire in a house can be dangerous due to smoke and the development of carbon mono oxide CO₂“.
    No wonder CO₂ is regarded dangerous and a pollutant, when it is taken as carbon monoxide.

  17. Larry Hamlin I enjoy your harpooning of the big climate lies. However, these lies are underpinned by a huge lie that you missed! The original starting line pre 2013 were for the 2C worries measured from 1950!

    The consensus believed, reasonably,that humans couldnt have had detectable effect prior to 1950. When the IPCCs forecasts from the 90s proved to be 300% too high and an 18 year plateau in temps caused deep pain, they moved the starting gate back to 1850 to bankroll the 0.7C of that hundred years, chopped the 2C to 1.5 leaving a forecast to 2100 of only an additional O.8C. This also repaired their grossly exaggerated forecast from the 90s.

    This means two things. First since the late 1990s high basically matched the late 1930s high (before the great fudging done by Hansen et al). This means that nearly all the 20th century warming occurred before 1940! Second the late warming was mostly recovery from the major 35yr cooling after 1940.

  18. The propaganda is intensifying. A clear sign that it’s not going as hoped. More people/countries are starting to question goals that are not being met and tilted to benefit a few countries. Everyone knows we can’t stop using fossil fuels and are starting to realize massive wind and solar projects will increase daemon CO2 in the foreseeable future, not reduce it. We are approaching the point where more people will challenge the CC status quo before submitting to a reduced standard of living and the alarmists know it. Fear, not truth, is the only weapon remaining for them.

  19. They had to move the goal posts to 1.5C because it was becoming obvious we were going to stay below 2C without serious mitigation.

  20. The nonsense of the 1.5 or 2 degree limit is so obvious that it’s alarming that anyone would believe such a temperature rise would be lethal . The fact that so many people do ,attests to the incredible success that a generation of indoctrination and propaganda has had in influencing the ability of a large number of humans to think logically. With air conditioning the norm in most societies and comparable comfortable living in regions such as Iceland which has an average daily temperature perhaps 10-15 degrees less than Asia the gullibility of people who think that we are all going to die if the world’s temperature changes by 1.5 or 2 degrees is genuinely alarming. How such a preposterous theory could be taken seriously is one of the great wonders of the world. Maybe they drugged the water or used some subliminal messaging through the TV but the fact that so many people believe this stuff is the real “ Ripley ‘s believe it or not!”
    I sometimes think that I have been implanted into some alternative universe where the world that I thought I knew has gone completely mad . My only connection to other sane people is through blogs like this.

  21. Such shrill cries that assert humans are in control of a dial up thermostat are a sure sign there is a scam involved. It is so similar to other such scams of the past that we laugh at- we think that because we have uncovered them from the past that we are immune. WRONG. How convenient that those that report the temperature are the same ones that call for radical action that they determine and they profit very, very, handsomely from. Conflict of interest is an understatement.

    Moving the goalposts is a classic tactic of liars. Everything about the way the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/ “climate change”/ “climate emergency” narrative is presented rings “scam.”

    We are the enlightened ones that can see the grand deception. It is up to us to wake up others before the scammers get us to put further pen to paper to declare a state of emergency, entailing the forfeiture of freedom and limitless funds to the scammers.

    Time for that moment of clarity where we realise that the UN itself is a scam.

    • A comment on use of the word “anthropogenic:” The word “carcinogenic” refers to something that results in cancer. Likewise, “mutagenic” refers to something that results in mutation; and “photogenic” is something that results in a photograph. The word “anthropogenic” would properly mean something that results in an anthropoid – a great ape or human. Hence, “anthropogenic climate change” means climate change that creates great apes or humans. You can’t have it both ways. Alarmists have to come up with a better terminology.

  22. The whole ‘too much CO2’ scare and the arbitrary 1.5-2.0 degree limit were both invented for political purposes and pulled out of thin air, or somewhere similar, by paid political lackeys not scientists.

  23. The Socialist warmists have no interest in the climate, it has never been about the climate, it is about gaining political power implementing their global socialist government and once they do that they will reveal themselves as the communists they really are. They call themselves global socialists, some time back we had someone who called themselves a national socialist, same ideas one-world government. Yeah that didn’t work out so well for the world.

  24. Anyone ever notice that few people travel to the cold regions of the planet, but flock to the warm equatorial areas ?
    Maybe we should relocate the UN from NYC to Antarctica!

  25. I’m happy the Chinese are completely flouting the climate-derangement-syndrome with coal expansion, it’s the kiss of death to the credibility of the entire alarmist busted-ass ideological donkey-cart. Just keep hammering on that and all the rest of China’s pollution and intransigence to any proposed reductions and the Greens and XR are up ship’s creek without a paddle, and looking very hypocritical due to their complete refusal to confront China and its trade empire.

  26. The so-called ‘2-degree limit’ and ’10 years to the end of the Earth” are so badly flawed that it’s amazing that anyone pays any attention to them. They are both based on these erroneous assumptions:
    1. GLOBAL WARMING IS DISASTROUS. Nonsense—historically, the most prosperous civilizations have all occurred during warm periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were about a degree warmer than at present). Such periods of global warming are characterized by abundant food supply, freeing people to build such monuments as Notre Dame, the Louve, and others and great strides in science and literature. Warm periods are GOOD, not bad. Cold periods are bad (e.g., the Dark Ages, Maunder, etc)
    2. CO2 CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. It’s amazing that any scientist could really believe this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Measurements of CO2 from air trapped in Antarctic and Greenland ice cores over tens of thousands of years show that atmospheric CO2 lagged warming by 600 to 800 ± 200 years, i.e. CO2 cannot have caused warming that occurred well before it began to rise. Atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures from 1980 to 2011 show that changes in CO2 always lag changes in temperature by 9.5-10 months and lags sea surface temperature by 11-12 months. CO2 makes up only ~0.04% of the atmosphere and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. It has increased only 0.008% during the period of modern global warming. Such a tiny, tiny increment of CO2 can’t cause the catastrophic warming predicted by CO2 alarmists.
    3. “IF THE TWO-DEGREE LIMIT WERE EXCEEDED, GERMAN ENVIRONMENT MINISTER NORBERT RÖTTGEN ANNOUNCED, “LIFE ON OUR PLANET, AS WE KNOW IT TODAY, WOULD NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE.” This is total nonsense. Look at the geologic record! Almost all of the past 10,000 years was 2-5°F warmer than present in the Greenland ice cores (less at lower latitudes, but still significantly warmer than now). The Eemian Interglacial (130-112,000 years ago) was 4-6°C warmer than present and life on Earth thrived.
    4. GLOBAL WARMING IS ACCELERATING. More nonsense. Temperatures in the US declined slightly over the past 20 years. Satellite measurements go up and down but show no net warming.
    We have just entered a Grand Solar Minimum, guaranteeing increasingly cold climate for the next several decades.

    All of these facts are ignored and never addressed by climate alarmists. The so-called ‘climate emergency’ is nothing more than a propaganda ploy.

  27. Hottest monthly average temperature in Oslo, Norway: 16.9C. In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: 36.2C. Coldest monthly average in Fairbanks, AK: -23.4C. End of discussion.

  28. I still want to know why Greta, XR, and co. aren’t demanding to see the Chinese authorities at once to make them feel shame, or gluing themselves to roads in downtown Beijing, or going on TV to denounce all this CO2 stuff that China is producing….

  29. “The UN IPCC’s

    politically contrived 2018 report

    claims that the world must take economically Draconian actions

    based upon global and regional speculative claimed outcomes

    spewed from flawed and failed “computer model” projections

    showing that that we have only 12 years to limit future CO2 emissions or the resulting global temperature increases will destroy the planet

    because some contrived 1.5 Degree C “temperature limit” will be exceeded”

    is:

    · set a thief to catch a thief

    · trust the cat to keep the cream

    · let the fox guard the henhouse

    · set the cat among the pigeons

    · set a fox to keep the geese

    As You like it.

  30. The report’s full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

    ____________________________________

    This “Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governments” starts with –

    “One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

    The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more.

    – without further evidence.

    ____________________________________

    The following conclusions derived from that thus are baseless and in no way trustworthy.

    Shamelessness, trustworthlessness, thy name is IPCC.

    ____________________________________

    Marked by a lack of shame: a shameless lie.

    shame′less·ly adv. shame′less·ness n.

    Synonyms: shameless, brazen, barefaced, brash1, impudent, unblushing.

    These adjectives apply to that which defies social or moral proprieties and is marked by a bold lack of shame.

  31. The report’s full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

    ____________________________________

    This “Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governments” starts with –

    “One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

    The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more.

    – without further evidence.

    ____________________________________

    The following conclusions derived from that thus are baseless and in no way trustworthy.

    Shamelessness, trustworthlessness, thy name is IPCC.

    ____________________________________

    Marked by a lack of shame: a shameless lie.

    shame′less·ly adv. shame′less·ness n.

    Synonyms: shameless, brazen, barefaced, brash1, impudent, unblushing.

    These adjectives apply to that which defies social or moral proprieties and is marked by a bold lack of shame.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=shamelessness&oq=shamelessness&aqs=chrome.

  32. This climate alarmist report offers the following pure conjecture supposedly justifying this hyped “temperature limit”:

    “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment.

    And IPCC is honourable, man!

    With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society,

    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.”

    – and IPCC is honorable, man!

    ____________________________________

    Speech: “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears”

    BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

    (from Julius Caesar, spoken by Marc Antony)

    Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;

    I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
    The evil that men do lives after them;
    The good is oft interred with their bones;

    So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
    Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
    If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
    And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
    Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–

    For Brutus is an honourable man;

    So are they all, all honourable men–
    Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
    He was my friend, faithful and just to me:

    But Brutus says he was ambitious;
    And Brutus is an honourable man.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears

  33. “The climate alarmist hyped prior 2 Degree C “temperature limit” has no sound scientific basis whatsoever

    as discussed in a 2010 article in Der Spiegel

    where the “Invention of the Two-Degree Target” is addressed revealing and exposing the clearly politically contrived origins of this phony and scientifically unsupported asserted “limit” as articulated by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and father of the two-degree target.”

    ____________________________________

    Meanwhile “Der Spiegel” got its own “” Der Spiegel” – German journalism scandal” –

    https://www.google.com/search?q=der+spiegel+German+journalism+scandal&oq=der+spiegel+German+journalism+scandal+&aqs=chrome.

    – which definitely does not have to speak against “Der Spiegel”.

    But it shows that even renowned, serious journalism ain’t permanently, bulletproof immune to challenges.

  34. The world’s developing nations are simply ignoring the UN IPCC’s pompous political pontifications and proceeding as they believe is in their best economic and energy interests. These nations completely control their own energy and emissions outcomes as well as those outcomes at a global level.

    The arrogant climate alarmist political elitists in the developed nations can huff and puff all they want about their preposterous 12 year long save the world claptrap but they cannot control or change the power and jurisdiction over global energy and emissions outcomes that now resides solely with the world’s developing nations:

    Oh Lord let it be night.

  35. Harald Lesch would say: we don’t know it. We can’t know it.

    What is the 1st astronautical escape velocity:

    the 1st astronautical escape velocity: to leave the Earth.

    let’s take a ride:

    · the 1st astronautical escape velocity: to leave the Earth.

    · the 2nd astronautical escape velocity: to leave the Solar System

    · the 3rd astronautical escape velocity: to leave the galaxy, the Milky Way

    · the 4th astronautical escape velocity: to leave the local group of galaxies

    · the 5th astronautical escape velocity: to leave the local galaxies groups hump

    · the 6th astronautical escape velocity: to leave the Great Wall of local galaxies groups humps

    The beginn of a great adventure.

    What is below the Great Wall of the local galaxies groups humps: nothing?

    Harald Lesch would say: we don’t know it. We can’t know it.

    No one ever made the experience of looking into: real, physical nothing.

    – there’s always a next step: we don’t know it. We can’t know it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *