By Robert Bradley Jr. — August 24, 2022
“… there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. There is no climate emergency.”
There are a lot of very smart people in the world. And most do not work at colleges and universities and pressure groups. They are curious free agents, free to think and even be politically incorrect.
When the history of climate alarmism is written decades from now, there will be recognition about how a very able undercurrent of thought kept check on an intellectual/political/media elite declaring a dire emergency from the human influence on climate. Sites such as WUWT–“the world’s leading climate website”–will be acknowledged. So will the sober commentary of Judith Curry at Climate Etc.
And so more than a thousand intellectual, critical thinkers have signed a manifesto challenging the current orthodoxy that remains in political power. Chris Morrison reported in The Daily Skeptic last week:
The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’ signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.
He added:
The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. (A full list of the signatories is available here.) Another lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.
The World Climate Declaration (Global Climate Intelligence Group) follows:
There is no climate emergency Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted. The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
OUR ADVICE TO THE EUROPEAN LEADERS IS THAT SCIENCE SHOULD STRIVE FOR A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM, WHILE POLITICS SHOULD FOCUS ON MINIMIZING POTENTIAL CLIMATE DAMAGE BY PRIORITIZING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES BASED ON PROVEN AND AFFORDABLE TECHNOLOGIES.
—————————
COP27 is several months ahead. The world is recommitting itself to fossil fuels, while only government largesse keeps the wind/solar/battery gravy train going. Global Climate Intelligence Group’s World Climate Declaration stands as a beacon light to a wholly different approach of free-market adaptation, not government mitigation.
Over 30 000 graduate scientists have signed the Oregon petition stating that fossil fuels will not harm the environment. The CO2 in the atmosphere comes from warming oceans http://www.petitionproject.org. Also over 1000 international scientists have signed a US Senate report stating they dissent from the unproven theory of man made climate change
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims
“The CO2 in the atmosphere comes from warming oceans.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/21/ee-news-defames-pat-michaels/#comment-3561834
[excerpts]
Rational analysis concludes that climate is INsensitive to recent observed increases in atmospheric CO2. The false assumption of high climate sensitivities to CO2 is essential to the IPCC’s bogus modelling of catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW), a decades-old fraud that is clearly NOT happening, and the false and disastrous demonization of fossil fuels.
This paper by Ed Berry is the leading edge of the science. Unlike the IPCC’s models, it is consistent with the observation that CO2 changes lag temperature changes (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013). Ed concludes that the majority of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is in fact natural, not human-made – another argument against the IPCC’s blatant climate fraud.
The smartest people I know believe that Ed Berry is essentially correct. I am confident that “The future cannot cause the past” (MacRae, 2008).
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
…
The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 – SCC (klimarealistene.com)
Dr Edwin X Berry, December 14, 2021
Abstract
A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 and human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate, or e-time. The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle uses 3.5 years. A new physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data, it calculates human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv in 2100. After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12CO2 increase.
Ed Berry is a science fraud who falsely claims only 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere got there from manmade CO2 emissions when the true number is about 33%.
Anyone who takes the Berry opinions seriously is a mental case. Berry is a former scientist who became an bizarre al-physics nut.
He will never provide any explanation of where all the manmade CO2 emissions went, if not into the atmosphere. That would be something like +200ppm.
He will never explain why the atmospheric CO2 level increased from 280ppm (1800 estimated) to 420ppm (now, measured) — up +140ppm (up +50%) if not from manmade CO2 emissions.
It is science frauds like Berry and his cult, who deny AGW with alt-science, and make it more difficult for climate realists to refute CAGW (which is what “climate change” means today.)
It is not necessary to refute AGW in the effort to refute CAGW
We have perhaps 99.9% of the scientists in the world who agree there is a greenhouse effect and manmade CO2 emissions can increase that greenhouse effect (by an unknown amount that has not harmed anyone so far)
The minority climate realists who reject 100% of all consensus climate science are losers. Worthless in our battle (that we are losing) to refute CAGW scaremongering
Berry is a science fraud
Berry’s cult believers are fools and science deniers
I can not any more direct than those two statements
Not everything about consensus climate science is wrong. There is a lot of junk science behind CAGW fantasies, but it’s not 100% junk science
Another way of detailing your scary message….. In 1800, CO2 made up 0.028% of the atmosphere’s composition. In 2022 that figure is 0.042%.
If the anthropogenic component of the ‘measured’ increase in atmospheric concentration is 33% (a figure you have no way of proving empirically proving), then humans are responsible for a 0.0046% change in the CO2 present in the atmosphere.
Lesson – We are dealing with trace gases, gases that are constantly overwhelmed by water vapor…
The anthropogenic warming theory exists in models only…..
CO2 in 1800 = 280ppm estimated
CO2 n 2020 -= 420ppm measured
Change in CO2 = +140ppm
Manmade CO2 emissions since 1800
estimated at about +200ppm
Therefore, all CO2 increase is from manmade CO2 emissions.
Since +200ppm manmade emissions exceed the actual +140ppm CO2 increase, the difference must be absorbed by nature.
Nature is a net CO2 absorber
I explained this in simple English so even a 12-year old child could understand. Go find a 12-year old child to explain it to you.
Where is this from?
Has this man heard about volcanos, and other natural CO2 emitters?
apparently only you do not understand that CO2 lags temperatures by an estimated 100 years. During the LIA CO2 was sequestered in ice and cold water for some 150 years before the peak cooling began warming as CO2 kept being sequestered until the global average returned to the Holocene Temperature Mean as 0.0 or 56.7F depending on whose graph you follow. Thus after 1850 and the modern warming began CO2 was still being released from sequestration until temperatures became more equal to the MW prior to the LIA.
It should also be noted that all flora and fauna sequesters CO2 and release CO2 during respiration that whatever part was from fossil fuels they sequestered is released into the atmosphere by respiration, burning or decaying including defecations. Just as you are breathing in CO2 from over 100 years ago you’re exhaling nearly 100% more than you inhaled with each exhale. As an animal we living humans have gone from globally 1.263 billion in 1850 to a projected 8 billion by 11/15/2022 and all fauna obtain their carbon from the flora and/or fauna they ingested.
Richard G,
People have added together the major man-made global CO2 emissions like those from coal fired electricity plants. They compare their total (and more, from broad sources like automobiles) to the amounts of CO2 in the air at remote places like Mauna Loa, Cape Grim and South Pole.
But, what if most of this CO2 setting out on the journey from the coal plant to Mauna Loa never makes it? Suppose that it is captured by plants along the way, or gets dissolved in rain to end up in lakes and oceans?
That would upset your calculations, no?
Can you link to any papers that examine this interrupted pathway scenario?
Please avoid snapshots of what CO2 satellites measure, because one cannot tell if a place on the map is emitting or absorbing, only if CO2 nearby is high or low at that moment.
Geoff S
(Thank you for your kind comments on the uncertainty article a few days ago.)
Give it a rest Richard. Even the alarmists agree about the amount man puts into the atmosphere. Is every scientist in the world except you nuts?
Ah ok. If nature has indeed stolen your anthropogenic CO2 over the last 200 years, how can you prove it if it does not exist?
After 14 years of following the claims of the IPCC, and others, I feel the fraud is perpetrated by those such as yourself… who throw out numbers they cannot back up. Your inability to realize your opinion is only that… an opinion… is demonstrated by your insulting and childish posts.
“The CO2 in the atmosphere comes from warming oceans.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/21/ee-news-defames-pat-michaels/#comment-3561834
[excerpts]
Rational analysis concludes that climate is INsensitive to recent observed increases in atmospheric CO2. The false assumption of high climate sensitivities to CO2 is essential to the IPCC’s bogus modelling of catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW), a decades-old fraud that is clearly NOT happening, and the false and disastrous demonization of fossil fuels.
This paper by Ed Berry is the leading edge of the science. Unlike the IPCC’s models, it is consistent with the observation that CO2 changes lag temperature changes (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013). Ed concludes that the majority of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is in fact natural, not human-made – another argument against the IPCC’s blatant climate fraud.
The smartest people I know believe that Ed Berry is essentially correct. I am confident that “The future cannot cause the past” (MacRae, 2008).
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
…
The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 – SCC (klimarealistene.com)
Dr Edwin X Berry, December 14, 2021
Abstract
A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 and human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate, or e-time. The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle uses 3.5 years. A new physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data, it calculates human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv in 2100. After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12CO2 increase.
The last +140ppm increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is entirely manmade from burning fossil fuels. Nature is a net CO2 ABSORBER. If you look into the net nature absorption of CO2, you might find the ocean released +10ppm of CO2 in the past 100 years. But the net effect of nature on the CO2 level is still negative. You and Berry are spouting junk non-science.
Evidence for this?
Not enough to convince me that it is 100% from mankind since 1800.
Greene is getting to wound up on it as what really matter is how much warm forcing increase CO2 gained since 1800 which I know is very small as it is a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window with a postulated trace warm forcing effect.
Re-posting, as it is apparently necessary:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/21/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-weather-dependent-renewables/#comment-3584725
Richard Greene – has Griff stolen your ID? Sometimes you write sensible posts, and sometimes you write woke nonsense – “Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde”.
In any case, this note is for Griff… and Mr Hyde and green wokesters everywhere:
Science doesn’t work the way you think it does.
Science is not all about YOU, your hissy fits, your jumping up and down, your screaming and having that awkward little zzzt in your pants.
Science requires competence and evidence, not your childish rants and temper tantrums.
You may not know it, but you are following Lenin’s plan to destroy the Western democracies.
You and your fellow-travellers are behind Door #2:
2. “It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.”
How do I say this nicely? Go vaxx yourself!
Regards, Allan 🙂
This is interesting – told you so 14 years ago.
Temperature drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
The integral of dCO2/dT is CO2 change, and CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales (MacRae 2008).
dCO2/dt vs UAH LT Temperature (MacRae, January 2008)
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly (MacRae, now – 26Aug2022)
SST is warming according to this data.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, Detrended (MacRae, now 26Aug2022)
Detrended to show the close correlation.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1/detrend:0.25
The CO2 in the atmosphere comes NOT from warming oceans
There, fixed that for you.
If the oceans are indeed warming, then at least some airborne CO2 must be from them. A guy named Henry discovered the phenomena some time ago. If no CO2 is coming from the oceans, then the oceans are not warming. Pick your poison?
The claimed warming of the oceans amounts to only about 0.03C. I doubt such a tiny warming has driven much CO2 out of the oceans.
It’s the surface layer that counts, not the deep ocean.
Since the surface layer is a tiny fraction of the earth’s oceans, it also only contains a tiny fraction of the oceans CO2. Worse, the surface layers are also the warmest so they contain even less of the available CO2.
There’s a reason why CO2 rises some 900 years after temperatures rise. That’s how long it takes for the heat to penetrate the oceans.
BS, malarkey, baloney and banana earl
Indeed. Here, in picture form.
Most of the climate science produced by universities and big research institutions is false nonsense.
Real data rules! Consider the following:
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly (MacRae, now – 26Aug2022)
SST is warming according to this data.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1
dCO2/dt vs Hadcrut SST3 Global Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly, Detrended (MacRae, now 26Aug2022)
Detrended to show the close correlation.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/scale:0.6/offset:0.1/detrend:0.25
Major volcanoes (some VEI5 eruptions like El Chichon 1982 and most VEI6 events like Pinatubo 1991+) cause significant (~0.5C) global cooling in the atmosphere and some in the oceans as well – but industrial emissions and smaller volcanoes don’t have much impact. Even Mt. St. Helens (VEI5, 1980) did not have much cooling impact because it blew mostly sideways, not up into the stratosphere.
Henry’s law does not rule the world’s oceans when they on the basic side of pH (where they are currently strongly buffered to remain so). This is explained fundamentally by the Bjerrum plot, with detailed explanation of such given at https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebeWolfEnclp07.pdf
Irrelevant
Nature is a net CO2 absorber
Please learn some climate science
Ah, obviously a commentator who believes that the only propaganda around is a well-dressed goose.
F.e. the Baltic Sea is a net CO2 source over the year.
Is it because ice cores suggest that 1K temperature increase is associated with 16 ppm through outgassing? Or did you actually calculate the relationship using Henry’s Law? There are many scientists who doubt that the measured CO2 levels in the cores represent the actual paleo atmospheric concentration.
correct
It is about time….to be more assertive,,,,and reject this giant power grab.
Willis has a good article from a year ago with data that shows real data to back up this claim that “there is no climate emergency”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Yes!
Post this in forums because it is treated like holy water by warmist/alarmists who can’t handle it.
HERE and HERE are two forums I posted Willis’s article and they couldn’t handle it.
Take a look and see the stupid evasive replies and their immature insults against the article Willis wrote.
Yes, I have posted this article all over twitter, and they tend to attack Willis, not the DATA in the article.
I think I’ll post this Willis article on my main Facebook page.
Facebook might end up banning such messages because the FBI told them it was just Russian propaganda.
And they had no effect on the success of CO2 scaremongering
Sad, but true
Propaganda junk science supported by the appeal to authority logical fallacy beliefs can’t be changed with real science
Proud to be on the list.
It is a good document. I was asked to sign it and did so – Canada #53.
Told you so 20 years ago. See CorrectPredictions.ca
I also signed it early this month. Switzerland #10 (not on your list, but visible at http://www.clintel.org)
Thanks for your willingness to sign on to this.
In the same way that the benefits of more CO2 are highlighted, is it
possible to add a section on the potential benefits of more global
warming, which likewise has been demonized as has more CO2? The
Quarternary Glaciation Period for the past 2.6M yrs- one of the
coldest periods in the past 600M yrs. Ice ages versus
interglacials, like the Holocene. The MWP, the RWP & the Minoan
WP versus colder periods in between, like the Little Ice Age we
exited ~1850. Extreme cold weather kills many more people than
extreme hot weather- ~10X. They’ve never PROVEN extra warmth to
be bad. Anything to create doubt in the “warming = BAD”
narrative would make your statement that much stronger.
Also, is there a way to interject the questioning of the integrity
of The Team™ as to why they never, ever mention that CO2 has
benefits & that warmer temperatures also have benefits, too? The
fact that most people are probably hearing contrary facts/evidence
for the first time as their arguments are one-sided & extremely
unbalanced? The public was never given contrary arguments that
are necessary to make balanced, well-informed decisions. I realize
this last paragraph deals more in politics/psychology but global
warming is definitely a political football, too.
Thanks again for pushing back.
I’m reminded of petition.project.org with 31,000 US scientists headed by Edward Teller some years ago which made a strong point that glacier melting, sea level rise etc were happening well before CO2 flummery
…..well before CO2 flummox story too.
One needs to use a broad definition of “scientist” for some of these signed statements. For instance, both my wife and I took many science classes and did some research and taught earth-sciences at the university level. The research we did, and published, was not about climate. However, introducing students to “climates” (note the ‘s’) and glacial advances (locally the Vashon Stade) are topics of earth science classes. I suspect that many signers of the Oregon Petition Project resemble me rather than Richard Lindzen and Willie Soon.
I never investigated the 31,487 names on that petition.
The Wikipedia page on the “Oregon Petition” is laughable and along with other nonsense on the Wiki site is why I never donate.
Good point – and there is that awkward fact of the tree stumps that are appearing as glaciers melt back. There are two possibilities:
1. Climate was significantly warmer in the past, this all happened previously, before industrialization, and fossil-fuel-driven CO2 is NOT the culprit.
2. Someone lifted up the glaciers and put the tree stumps under them. Imagine how difficult that must have been.
Great to hear some direct resistance to the un-ending drumbeat of propaganda originating from the political left and the idiots that support them. However, the idea of CAGW is so ingrained by this cabal, that a CAGW TRUE BELIEVER will calculate that if 3% of scientists amounts to 1,100 signatures then (at 367 signatures per percent) 35,600 signatures are waiting to support CAGW. This scam has a ways to go before finally ended. Press On!
One thing which needs to be done urgently is to
abolish the IPCC , & to replace it with a proper research organisation on the weather & the 30 year average of that weather. I
To have a organisation on who’s job is to find out what our mostly whites have been doing wrong since the Industrial Revolution is so crazy as to be almost funny..
And the Summery issued for politicians should include the IPCC’ s own disclaimer that Climate is a chaotic system that they cannot predict for more than 5 days in advance.
Also that a Hyposusess is just another word for a Guess.
Michael VK5ELL
I here the sound of crashing gravy trains!
Right here I’ll give that a resounding “hear, hear!”
‘One thing which needs to be done urgently is to abolish the IPCC & to replace it with a proper research organization…’
The problem with IPCC, or with the FBI for that matter, is that it’s a centralized government organization. By all means abolish it, but don’t replace one government monstrosity with another.
I think you underestimate the problem. The current problem with the IPCC is that it is more like an operation guided by a religious order that is convinced that it is on the side of the angels.
It sounds like you have given up on the IPCC ever being a panel of balanced opinions. They seem to beyond reflecting on their potential shortcomings since they esteem conformity beyond all else. If someone tried to fix something that was beyond his understanding, the amount of damage done would seem to be proportional to the understanding of the problem. Some car mechanics will just fix a few things until the car runs again. This is one of the most expensive ways to fix a car unless you are wealthy and didn’t have important plans for the money you just spent on an alternator and new battery when cleaning off the terminals and re-tightening them would have done the same thing.
While the Climate Industrial Complex may seem like an unstoppable juggernaut, the climate narrative IS collapsing, and the collapse is accelerating. Even the true believers are starting to have doubts, as the relentless doom and gloom predictions fail to materialize. More importantly, the masses are rapidly loosing faith in the proclamations of ‘experts’ in general, as well as the media sources that parade those experts about. Most importantly, winter is coming! Europe and North America have sabotaged their access to the cheap energy that prevents the masses from freezing to death each winter. Staying alive in the cold will become much more expensive, and some will not be able to afford it. Reality is about to destroy the climate crisis narrative!
I think the most corrosive attack of Gorebull Warming is the moral attack of Alex Epstein. His attack on the thought process that have constructed the narrative are effective and long overdue. The Thermogeddonites are so sure of the morality of saving the planet that they don’t see him as a threat until it is too late. It is easier to get a debate on the morality than the science. I know they have taken serious hits because they have responded by calling him a racist rather than engage the argument. It is too bad we can’t get more of his thinking on government spending in non-climate related topics.
All my beliefs regarding “climate change” start from the premise that a trace gas that is essential for life cannot be a pollutant. If one starts from there, none of what we are being told by soi-disant “scientists” and the climate chancers makes any sense.
I especially abhor the lazy use of the term “carbon” (with all its overtones of soot and diesel particulates) when referring to CO2 – which is something completely different.
I also dislike the conflation of other environmental issues (such as waste-disposal and plastics) with climate matters, as happens all too often.
The wrong-headed obsession with CO2 as being the sole cause of all our problems has blinded “scientists” to the myriad alternative explanations. I suspect they only latched on to that one because we could seemingly do something about it.
The simple answer is “We can’t”, we’re wasting our time and should have been going down the adaptation road. Ignoring Putin, the cause of all our problems today is not CO2 levels, it’s the action taken by governments in the belief they can make a difference by controlling the climate.
What vanity!
The use of the words “carbon” and “pollution” are not lazy, they are deliberate.
George Orwell’s 1984 is being used like an instruction manual: control language and you control the masses.
Once again, simply false. Surface temperature observations have remained inside the projections of the IPCC AR5 (2013) CMIP5 climate models, inside their 5-95% range for all RCPs and close to the multi-model average (see chart from Climate Labbook, which updates the 2013 AR5 forecast annually).
Going back further, IPCC AR4 (2007) states:
The rate of surface warming since 2007 currently stands at +0.26°C per decade (average of GISS, HadCRUT5 and NOAA). For the staellite (lower troposphere) sets, warming since 2007 in UAH_TLT is also +0.26 °C per decade and in RSS it’s slightly higher, 0.29°C per decade.
In other words, since AR4 was published in 2007, global warming has been proceeding at the high end of the IPCC’s projection. Observed warming has been faster than expected, not “far slower”.
Indeed, the rate of global warming would need to reduce slightly over the remaining 5 years or so of the IPCC 2007 forecast in order for it not to be wrong on the cool side!
You’re seriously quoting climate models?
Have you ever considered doing a turn at the Edinburgh fringe?
Edinburgh has quite enough garbage to contend with..
And now, it throws the gems out
“Jerry Sadowitz Edinburgh fringe standup show axed due to complaints”
It wasn’t the audience, no, it was the PC student staff…
See also, Bob Tisdale’s excellent analysis in three of his ebooks:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/three-free-ebooks-on-global-warming-and-climate-change/#more-10885
Its all he has, he’s shooting blanks, spamming this stupid graphic over and over.
Where is your radiosonde and satellite temperatures on this graph? Subsumed into the “other” category?
Even the “other” category keeps getting closer and closer to the bottom boundary of the models. You would think that it would stay right smack dab in the middle of the climate models if the climate models were even marginally accurate predictors!
And where is his consideration of poor siting issues?
Of course that’s after cooking the ground based measurements in order to increase the apparent temperature trend.
No need to cook the ground-based measurements when the tarmac and the jet engines at the turn from the taxiway will do the job just fine.
Here, Nail. This will take you back in time a bit further
Don’t you know that history starts at whatever point in time that best supports the climate narrative?
It’s 8C right now but mark my words the warming is coming-
Climate of Adelaide – Wikipedia
The climate of Kent Town!!! Those BOM bozos junked one of the longest serving Stevenson Screens in the Southern Hemisphere in the west parklands for the convenience of their new offices east of the CBD.
Extend the graph back to the Holocene Climate Optimum, and it looks even worse for The Final Nail.
According to UAH the global average temperature for the first 6 months of 2007 was 0.08 C while the first 6 months of 2022 had a value of 0.11 C. Over 15 years we warmed by 0.03 C which is a rate of 0.02 C / decade.
Sorry, your silly cherry pick fails at the most obvious level.
Oh look! It’s warmed.
Prove it’s not just natural variability. Oh yeah, you can’t.
Don’t you know that unvalidated models are now the ultimate proof in scientific proof?
Along with cobbled-up initial conditions and “parameters” that are experts best guesses, or fiddled to get the hindcast sort of right.
Just barely. BTW, why has 50 years of model improvement not managed to improve the “accuracy” of their predictions?
… covers a period of less than 30 years, and so doesn’t count as “climate”.
You keep looking for an excuse to say “since 2011” and I’ll keep highlighting “since 2016” in return (to show how “cherry-picking” short time periods can turn round and bite you).
Nail
in 1983 the EPA produced a document that said by 2100 sea level rise could be 12 feet. It’s been 3-4” in the last 40 years. I can’t think of a better proxy than SLR. You need to come back to earth. The facts have left you in the dust. There is no indication that the on the ground, in situ direct measurements show a significant acceleration. That is only in the minds of the hysterical alarmists. Another failed prediction that is added to the long list of failed predictions.
I don’t thinking taking the average of poor predictions and using the result to claim good accuracy is statistically acceptable.
Put your darned mask on, climb under your bed, and shut up. Rational people are tired of hearing fools! 🙁
The claim is that the climate is warming slower than the models predicted.
TFN posts a chart that shows that temperatures are just barely managing to stay above the lowest margin of the error bars for the predictions.
The sad thing is that he actually believes he has refuted the claim.
And that’s before getting into the problems with his graph, as shown by Janice.
Science is merely a fig leaf, a cover of ‘authority and probity’. But it’s well past its sell by date, now.
But the important factor remains the media and what information it chooses to report or to omit. Most people in the UK haven’t the faintest idea what’s going on next-door with Dutch farming and the protests because it isn’t part of the narrative, it never happened, it went straight down the memory hole.
In other news…
“But the important factor remains the media and what information it chooses to report or to omit.”
That’s right. And the media is on the side of demonizing CO2.
That’s right. And until that stranglehold is broken….
The Republican party put up a post on Facebook that read in whole “If you take out a loan, you pay it back. Period.“.
Facebook took down the post declaring that it violated community standards.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-facebook-biden-student-loan-handout-plan
I took out a student loan and I paid it all back. Every. Damn. Penny. Plus interest. Period.
So have a 4 of my daughters.
I worked my way through in the late 60’s / early 70’s.
My wife and I scrimped and saved, took no vacations, drove 15 year old used cars, etc to put our kids through college in the 2000’s. And that wasn’t cheap! The excuse that college is more expensive today just doesn’t cut it. I made *far* less working in the hay fields of Kansas and as a dishwasher or gas station attendant than kids today.
College is more expensive precisely because government is helping to pay for it.
I worked my way through college. Even though I had to take out a about 2000 in loans during my final year. I paid them back.
You did it right. It’s the only way a truly responsible adult would act. The Democrats are letting children be children – thus spoiling them by never making them accept responsibility!
The Democrats (and socialists in general) want children to remain children.
Children are easily led. Adults take responsibility for their own lives and decisions.
What did you expect?
The Netherlands is a large supplier of food to the EU and UK. This winter and next year will force a change in the narrative as millions huddle could and hungry.
I predict the media will be talking about those evil protestors.
Most people in the US don’t know about the Dutch farmers – nothing has been reported here for qua=ite some time. So, what is going on? Is there a source (website) for news on the nitrogen idiocy in the Netherlands?
Even while it was happening, it wasn’t reported.
As I have regularly commented, the World Climate Declaration is a succinct statement, clear and short. It is the best basis on which to begin a serious discussion and show the contrast with those propagating climate fear and alarm.
We want a fair hearing and civil discussion of these seven points – not ad hominems or personal attacks – and testing each against historic observations and not contrived models.
Those of us who believe and appreciate the stand the signatories have taken should make every effort to get this statement into the hands of many: professional people, community leaders, journalists, teachers, farmers between now and COP27.
I’m not saying it is not a welcome declaration but It won’t have any real effect.
DeSmog will just add names to its list of climate deniers and the UN will condemn the World Climate Declaration signatories as shills for Big Oil and the fossil fuel industry.
Governments throughout the world will back the UN assessment, as they always do, just as they did when Antonio Guterres proclaimed, “The climate crisis is a code red for humanity.”.
All publicity is good publicity.
All publicity is good publicity.
Yeah, especially calumny. That’s a real winner.
Sticks and stones.
“The only thing worse than being talked about
is NOT being talked about.”
— it was one of Wilde’s
You can fool all of the people some of the time ……. etc.
Every expression of sanity, no matter how much the foolers try to suppress it, can help to reduce the amount of fooling.
From the article: “Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.”
That is exactly what has happened. Alarmist climate science is totally made up of fact-free opinions.
Well, all true – except that NO discussion is allowed!
You are allowed to discuss whether CO2 is really bad, or if it is really, really bad.
Ots worse than really really bad.
Really really bad is so 2021.
What do you mean degenerated? Climate science has always been about beliefs and has always been hostile to anyone who tries to do real science.
Anyone notice that the MSM declares the 2022 heat waves in the US to be “climate change” but when it comes to the massive rains and associated floodings from the west to mid-South those are all designated as a “once-in-a-thousand-year events”.
Hmmmm . . .
What caused them a thousand years ago?
You’ll never hear the MSM, let alone the IPCC, admit that such ever happened.
For them, climate change™ started at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, about 1760 AD.
It’s like arguing about how many camels can dance on the head of a pin. Exactly when did they reach the conclusion that even one camel could dance on the head of a pin?
Once you’ve accepted the crazy premise in the first place, there’s no hope for you.
Two sizable le criticisms – it should read “our advice to WORLD leaders”, and “politics should focus on minimizing potential WEATHER RELATED damage.”
This “problem” is not just in Europe, and any “threat” they are discussing is from the WEATHER, NOT “CLIMATE.” The threat from “climate” will be when the climate starts getting colder as it descends into the next glaciation.
Richi Sunak recently stated that the primary error governments made during the pandemic was to place too much faith in scientific opinion. This will surely be translated into global warming catastrophe and cause a great pause for thought. Couple this with the looming energy crisis and the recent discoveries coming from the James Webb telescope re: the big bang, and you could have what might be called the perfect storm.
What is this data from the James Webb that you mention.
That telescope has only recently exited it’s calibration phase. It’s not had time to have any data produced, analyzed.
I am not an astrophysicist, but an article appeared several days ago (I don’t have the link) that the red shift (red shirt in the article) isn’t what science predicts out at the edges of the observable space, and that the telescope data has “found” galaxies that are older than the universe. Is the article reporting real, or fake, news? I don’t know.
One thing I’ve learned from watching astro-physicists, is that no matter how unambiguous the data, they will still spend a year or two arguing about what it means.
I do not to proclaim great knowledge in the subject but to the best of my understanding:
JWST is capable of producing images with greater resolution than Hubble.
It also produces these better images much faster than Hubble. I believe it was something like minutes instead of days.
Examining the first images, the scientists saw galaxies that did not fit the Big Bang theory. This has caused consternation with some astrophysicists wondering if their life’s work has been wrong.
The Big Bang theory assumes that the first (oldest) galaxies would be filled with blue giant suns that would quickly burn their fuel and go supernova – this would provide heavier than iron elements via fusion beyond the typical action of fusion in suns.
The JWST has images of galaxies that are very far away that should, by theory, contain blue giant suns and have different shapes than what is observed. There are also young (in astrophysical terms) galaxies where in theory there should only be old ones
In short, the observations don’t coincide with the theory.
I think Brian is taking a note from this sort of thing:
Michael Swartz: Questioning the Big Bang Theory | The Patriot Post
Societal belief in the evidence-light, “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE is representative of the success of the biggest scam in all of recorded history.
It is demonstrative of widespread irrationality, innumeracy, economic and scientific illiteracy.
Josef Goebbels and Edward Bernays have been proved correct— and people have died and will continue to die because of this extraordinary delusion.
like build a sea wall if the tide increases a centimetre or two. It’s not a big deal.
When buildings on the shoreline reach the end of their useful lives, rebuild them 100 feet further inland.
Krudd, I have made arrangements with my tailor to hem my trousers up an inch should the need arise.
“Warming is far slower than predicted.”
This is the kill shot. For any scientific theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable. If you propose a theory, test it, and the results are at odds with expectations, then at a minimum the theory needs to be reconsidered.
The “science is settled” mob are all on the Climate Gravy Train so every drought, hot weather, cold weather, rain etc etc is Climate Change. These people should all disclose their salaries and where they come from before they are allowed to comment.
💰Unless they have the billions of dollars needed to pay off the politicians (in competition with the subsidy farmers of “renewable energy) this declaration is useless.💰
No the climate changers are sinking with their unscientific prescriptions. Essentially they’re attempting to disprove a fundamental axiom of engineering that you can’t build a reliable system from unreliable componentry. Wind and solar energy are dilute and fickle and electrochemical storage at the scale of resources required cannot possibly save them. Bearing in mind they purportedly have to store energy for the grid and transport.
Putin has brought their technical and economic problems into intense focus and they’re on the downhill slide now. Just as the climate cult garnered political support with emotional appeal that can desert them quickly with a reverse snowball effect now the widespread costs are becoming increasingly apparent. Their bullying Groupthink can be very fragile once enough come to question the emperor’s fine net zero clothes and the rush to the exits begins in earnest. Like the old Soviet Wall.
The supply-chain problems with the materials needed for the renewable energy revolution will kill it, unless, of course, someone does invent the Magic Battery.
The World Climate Declaration will be lucky if it’s only treated as shabbily as the Great Barrington Declaration was by our unelected bureau chiefs and ‘administrators’ and our holy Social Media proclaiming Misinformation.
Time for a serious reset of our governing classes.
I’ve already been threatened with a Facebook suspension for sharing a similar post a few days ago.
Impossible to communicate with their fact checkers.
I feel a suspension looming!
Honourably earned!
fact checker = fact denier
He has great company- “Mackubin Owens, emeritus professor at the Naval War College, posted a link to our report here yesterday on “What Climate Crisis?””- It references this very declaration!
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/08/facebooks-censors-flag-power-line.php
…
Superb!
I love spreading the genius & creativity of others.
They rock!
This message is falling on deaf ears.
The Faceless Cultural Elite, the Davos Dandies, do not care to hear the truth or acknowledge real science. The have been working on a Master Plan since before they built their bridge to the 21st Century. Their ultimate goal through their great reset is: Global control of the populous, the reduction of said populous by billions, control of natural resources and the regulatory authority to decide who gets said resources as they reset the population.
No better example than the U.S. Taxpayers sending money to China to engineer a virus which targets the infirmed and the elderly (the highest proportion of government healthcare costs), provides excuse and cover for locking down world populations, drives small business out of business, consolidates delivery of goods and services into the hands of global corporations run by and further enriching the Faceless Cultural Elite.
The Davos Dandies are running the Great Reset right under our noses. Covid, Climate Change, Corporatocracies the 3 C’s = One World Governance. Meanwhile we are falling all over ourselves for the latest and greatest Smart(?) Phones while they busy installing 5G. We have walked blindly into this. Big Brother is in control and he is monitoring.
While the Davos Dandies have a lot of clout, they aren’t invincible
as reality bit Sri Lanka & can bite elsewhere, too.
In a quick but incomplete review of signatories, I searched for “university” and found >200 hits, but the vast majority were retired, emeritus faculty.
Alarmists would dismiss the lot, suggesting that old people are just uninformed, out of touch, not currently in research and publishing, biased in their old ways of thinking, in the pay of “Big Oil.”
I would say that they are wise, have perspective, were more properly schooled in life and academia, and not in fear of losing their livelihoods or damaging their universities’ prospects for research grants.
I am not yet retired and have to battle the prevailing narrative in more subtle ways as anything I say could be viewed as officially representing my employer.
Hacks like Mann and Dessler are tolerated at their respective schools largely because they generate grant money, not because they have anything authoritative to say.
These are people not only with years of experience but also with a good track record. It is also particularly interesting to see which countries have the most signatures. It shows how cowardly and lacking in conviction alarmists are when they are not prepared to engage with this group in a civil discussion on the key points. Why do they not offer a statement of equal length with their position and have an open discussion on the points with audience questions and full reporting in the media? Perhaps they do not want to get caught out and shamed in public?
Yes, the alarmists should offer a proof of their claims that CO2 is the control knob for the Earth’s atmosphere, as a counter to this declaration by 1,107 signatories.
The only problem for the alarmists is they don’t have any proof to offer, so they will studiously ignore the 1,107. This would include the alarmist media, so the 1,107 and their opinions and expertise are effectively cut off from those people who depend on the media to inform them.
Fine effort.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the biggest fraud in human history can be unraveled by a petition.
Especially one that seemingly goes out of it’s way to omit the elephant in the room when brute force is desperately needed.
The USA is likely where the battle must first be won.
YET, there is no mention of who is perpetrating the fraud here.
When the history of climate alarmism is written it will be Democrat politicians, Democrat academia, Democrat voters, Democrat media and Democrat industry & influencers who perpetrated the costly fraud.
How is it that this declaration neglects to mention the Democrat responsibility?
The Trump administration, with a Republican congress was well on the way to turning the ship.
With or without Trump only brute force of victory over the Democrat perpetrators will provide the means to end the fraud.
Any refusal to grasp and pronounce this reality is denial.
“only brute force of victory“
I think 25 years of cooling while increasing ppm atmospheric CO2 will be more effective.
25 years? That’s a long time to wait only to have zero effect on them. The left always has perpetually moving positions.
I think the battle would be more successful if a few smaller countries were to accept that there is no climate emergency and show how they are being bullied by the bigger nations. No one likes adult bullies or the failure of the mainstream media to report and denounce this kind of bullying. This may prove to be easier than trying to convince the big countries and their governments.
There is no point in trying, with any tactic, to convince the left of anything.
No matter the size. Persuasion is losing pursuit.
From the last paragraph of the above article:
“The world is recommitting itself to fossil fuels, . . .”
Ahhh . . . that would be the world excluding the United States, as the current Biden administration and Democrat-controlled Congress have refused to see the ongoing disaster in Germany that is the direct result of their Energiewende program, which favored “green, renewable” energy sources over fossil fuels.
Oh, did a say “refused to see”? . . . perhaps “put their head in the sand” would be more fitting.
Or see the European situation as confirmation their their own process leads to victory.
I do miss Christy, Spencer, Curry on that list.
This whole climate thing reminds me of the inquisition a few centuries ago.
Those who did not believe in the orthodoxy were punished severely. Which I’m sure the current high priests of the climate cult would love to implement. Fully. Thus far, they have managed to make life difficult for the non-believers and, in some cases, cancelled the “heretics” via the compliant MSM and some governments.
History repeats itself. Learn from it or suffer the consequences from the power crazed amongst us. Including those in academia, organized religion and government.
Glad to see some calling out the foolishness and outright ignorance.
Political,Social, Industrial, and Redistributive Climate Change per chance catastrophe.
That said, do your part, albeit a perturbation, go green, emit.
How the Earth lost Her plane consensus.
The physics of CO2 needs to be front and center. For example:
CO2 infrared absorption – Climate Auditor
The rest of the thermal infrared emitted by the earth is unaffected by CO2. It’s like having a cargo net for a roof. There is a reason why it cools down so rapidly at night in deserts. CO2 is the primary GHG there.
“When the history of climate alarmism is written” – The climate realists have to win first.
“History is written by the winners” – Napoleon Buonaparte.
But on the TV news at noon today they had a 20’s something “expert” telling us about how unprecedented this year’s weather is and then “if we stop putting this extra carbon into the air the temperatures will immediately stop going up.” I kid you not, he really said that.
Some are deep into the fantasy.
This battle will be won, I am sure of it. But it won’t be won in the halls of academia or science labs or the halls of Congress. It will be won when the average guy has finally been convinced that he/she have been lied to and cheated for the last few decades. All of the science and studies need to be done but in the end someone has to boil it down in plain language so that the average teenager can understand it. If we do that the green devils are finished. When a large enough minority of the population learns how badly they have been deceived all that will be left for us to do will be sit back and watch the fireworks.
Cooling while CO2 increases will be the spell-breaker.
The alarmists need for the temperatures to continue to climb in order to maintain the scare.
The current warming seems to be running out of gas.
Will temperatures reach or exceed the temperatures of 2016, before the year 2030? I would bet no. Will temperatures cool and switch over to a temperature downtrend by the year 2030? I would say there’s a good chance of that happening based on what’s going on now and what has gone on in the past.
Time will tell.
“There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.” This is weak. Why not say “There is no statistical evidence that hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, are intensifying or becoming more frequent at all.”