Operation Hymn-Sheet: identifying points on which skeptics agree
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The restless and eternal search for objective scientific truth is of its essence skeptical, not consensual (e.g., Aristotle, Refutations of the Sophists; Popper: Logik der Forschung). While the totalitarians responsible for originating and maintaining the climate-change scam and the consequent targeted economic destruction of the hated West all parrot the same Party Line, which they rebrand as an imagined “consensus” of supposed “experts”, skeptics do not usually sing from the same hymn-sheet, for we are no less skeptical of our own arguments than of the totalitarians’ arguments.
Welcome, then, to Operation Hymn-Sheet. The purpose is to identify a series of perhaps one or two dozen powerful and irrefutable climatological, economic or pragmatic propositions on which we can all or nearly all agree, so that in our interactions with governments hitherto deceived by the totalitarians we can speak as far as possible with one voice.
The following are the suggested criteria for including a proposition in our Hymn-Sheet:
First, each proposition should be of sufficient importance that, if it were generally known about and understood, it would materially influence the climate-change debate.
Secondly, each proposition should be clear enough and simple enough to be expressed, explained and justified in not more than 100 words. Complex theories have no place here.
Thirdly, for the sake of argument each proposition should be based on mainstream, midrange data and generally-accepted methods as far as possible.
Fourthly, though each proposition should be simple and clear, it should be sufficiently rigorous to be unimpugnable by any legitimate method.
This is where you come in, gentle reader. In comments, please put forward, explain and justify each proposition that should, in your opinion, stand part of Operation Hymn-Sheet.
Once the Hymn-Sheet has been compiled, we can all draw upon it in briefing our governments, so that they will no longer hear only the hysterical, endlessly-chanted mantras of the totalitarian enemies of the West and the host of useful idiots they have fooled.
Here are some sample propositions for the Hymn-Sheet.
If it’s consensus it’s not science: if it’s science it’s not consensus
The imagined “consensus” that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic was fabricated. Police investigated and concluded that the report by Cook et al. (2013) of a 97.1% consensus constituted a “deception”. In reality, Cook had marked only 0.5% of the 12,000 papers on his list as having stated that recent warming was chiefly anthropogenic. In any event, his consensus proposition does not say global warming is dangerous. Moreover, argument from consensus conflates the two shop-worn logical fallacies of mere headcount and of appeal to the imagined authority of supposed experts. Argument from consensus has no place in science.
Wind and solar power cannot get us anywhere near net zero
Unreliables are the currently-favored method of trying to reach net zero emissions. However, weather-dependent renewables must be backed up at all times by thermal generation capable of supplying the entire demand on a grid. Wind and solar are, therefore, a deadweight capital and operating cost. They also increase thermal-generation operating cost because spinning-reserve backup is inefficient. In any event, installing nameplate capacity of wind and solar power in excess of mean hourly grid demand cannot further reduce emissions: yet most Western nations’ installed renewables’ capacity already exceeds the demand limit.
Warming since 1990 is less than half the then midrange prediction
In 1990 IPCC presented four emissions scenarios. Scenario B predicted that the effect of annual emissions would remain constant at 1990 levels until 2025. Scenarios C-D predicted the effect would decline. Instead, emissions have increased by more than half since 1990. Thus Scenario A, the business-as-usual scenario, has proven closest to reality. It predicted 0.3 C/decade midrange warming over the 21st century, but only 0.13 C/decade, or 45% of the midrange prediction, has been measured in the 33 years since 1990.
Even worldwide net zero would cut 2050 temperature by less than 0.1 C
Our influence on temperature has increased at 1/30th unit/year since 1990, with another 0.9 units by 2050 on business as usual. If all nations went straight to net zero by 2050, 0.45 units would thus be prevented. Unit warming is the ratio 0.46 C per unit of 1.8 C midrange transient 21st-century doubled-CO2 warming to 3.93 units midrange doubled-CO2 forcing. Finally, adjust for the ratio 0.45 C/C of 0.136 K/decade real-world warming to the predicted 0.3 K/decade warming since 1990. Then worldwide net zero would abate <0.463 C: that is, less than 0.1 C.
Individual nations would contribute infinitesimally to cutting warming
Since even worldwide net zero would reduce global warming by less than 1/10 C, individual regions’ or nations’ contributions to that minuscule reduction in global temperature would be infinitesimal. Chinese net zero would prevent only 1/30 C warming; Western net zero would also prevent only 1/30 C; US net zero would prevent 1/70 C; UK net zero would prevent 1/1000 C; Chilean net zero would prevent 1/10,000 C.
Each $1 billion spent would prevent one ten-millionth C warming
The UK’s grid authority estimates that net-zeroing the grid will, on its own, cost $3.6 trillion. Electricity generation accounts for only a fifth of total UK generation. On this basis, UK net zero would cost $18 trillion and global net zero would cost $1800 trillion. McKinsey Consulting reckon the capital cost of global net zero at $275 trillion. Opex, at least twice capex, would raise the total cost to $900 trillion. Using the lesser estimate, each $1 billion spent on emissions abatement would prevent future warming of only one ten-millionth C – the worst value for money in history.
Weather-related disasters are not increasing as predicted
Hurricanes, tropical cyclones, tropical storms and tornadoes show no trend in combined frequency, intensity or duration. The frequency and extent of forest fires and the frequency of record-breaking temperatures have declined since they peaked in the 1930s. The global land area under drought has decreased for several decades. Floods have not increased in frequency, intensity or duration. Global rainfall has risen beneficially: the world’s longest record (UK Met Office), shows an uptrend of just 2 inches in 250 years. Sea level is rising at only 4 to 8 inches/century.
More CO2 and warmer weather have benefits
Benefits of emitting CO2 and warming the planet include recent planetary greening by >15% and increases in global crop yields by CO2 fertilization; a 96% decline over a century in weather-related deaths; and a reduction in deaths from cold exceeding any increase in deaths from heat by an order of magnitude, both globally and in each region. In Africa, there are 40 times more deaths from cold than deaths from heat. Such benefits are widely unreported.
Exaggerated predictions arose from an error of physics
Climate feedbacks respond not only to 8 K natural and 1 K anthropogenic direct greenhouse warming but also to the dominant 260 K emission temperature. In 1850, final warming per 1 K direct warming was not 28 / 8 = 3.5 K/K but (260 + 28) / (260 + 8) < 1.1 K/K. But only a 10% increase in feedback strength since 1850 would hike 21st-century warming from 1.3 K to 3 K, since the difference between feedback strengths for 2 K and 5 K final warming is only 0.03 units per degree. Thus, feedback analysis cannot reliably predict warming.
Observational methods suggest only 1.4 C warming this century
Climate scientists had thought they could omit the 260 K emission temperature in their feedback calculations because in control theory the base signal is usually omitted because it is tiny and the feedback-response signal is orders of magnitude larger. In climate, though, it is the other way about: the 260 K base signal exceeds the feedback-response signal by orders of magnitude. That is why feedback analysis cannot reliably predict warming. Yet IPCC (2021) mentions “feedback” >2500 times. Warming since 1990 is only 1.4 C/century equivalent. The energy-budget method, not dependent on feedback analysis, shows a similar value.
Models’ predictions of global warming are purely speculative
An elementary error of statistics in the interpretation of climate models’ outputs led climatologists to assume that dangerous warming was very likely when, on correction, all predictions based on the outputs of models are proven to be no better than guesswork. Climate scientists had not realized that propagation of uncertainty in models running hourly time-steps over decades implies that any global-warming prediction falling between –12 and +12 C (as all do) is statistically insignificant and thus speculative. The paper by Dr Patrick Frank establishing this fact was published in 2019 and has not been refuted in any learned journal since.
Selectively targeting the West increases global emissions
Climate treaties are selectively targeted against the West on the specious pretext of purported “climate debt”. Therefore, manufacturing – particularly if it is energy-intensive – is being priced out to chiefly Communist-led nations that are greatly expanding inexpensive and affordable coal-fired generation. The unintended consequence of the West’s economic hara-kiri is to transfer manufacturing to nations with far higher emissions per unit of production than the West, increasing global emissions – precisely the opposite of what was intended.
.o0O0o.
Now, gentle reader, it is your turn. What are the main points that every schoolboy would know about global warming if it were not for the outright censorship now inflicted upon nearly all media by the hate-filled, totalitarian far Left?
And have courage! The very fact that the Left now find it essential to spend so much time and effort on silencing all debate on climate (their number one topic) and on a growing range of other topics shows that the Left themselves know that if free speech were once again permitted they would lose the debate, and lose it comprehensively.
Recall that the execution by Robespierre of a dozen pious, habited nuns, who chanted hymns of praise and joy as the guillotine fell and the normally noisy crowd of sans-culottes stood utterly silent, led to the execution of Robespierre himself scarcely two weeks later, ending the Reign of Terror. Perhaps, then, the climate nonsense – and, as the above instances show, it is obvious, arrant nonsense – is the last gasp of totalitarianism. Perhaps, as it dies, so will die with it the notion that free speech should be curtailed so that Communism may continue to advance, slaughter and destroy. Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit!
It seems to me that there is a simple and concise rebuttal to the climatistas, and especially to the public at large, with whom we need to provoke a groundswell of counter outrage. That is a continual showing of the paleo chart of temperature vs CO2, which shows that CO trails, not leads temperature.
Good idea- but- the vast majority of the public of all nations will never know about it- so I suggest winning through superior intellectual argument will not succeed. What will succeed is continually informing the unwashed masses just how unwashed they will be if this new religious cult continues to grow in power. Tell them that they can forget owning a pickup truck and a decent home and a refrigerator freezer full of their favorite meet, and they can learn to appreciate a normal summer heat wave without an air conditioner- they can forget about affording to bring their children to Disneyland. And, inform them that their superiors will continue to enjoy their mansions, their yachts, their private jets and whatever food from anywhere on the planet. And remind them how much their “betters” look down on them and call them deplorables.
When “the masses” get angry enough- the politicians will notice. So, I think this “revolution” must be from the bottom, not the top- but developing a powerful argument for the few educated people who’ll pay attention is also helpful. It’s going to be a long struggle.
I am always intrigued by the range of arguments to the effect that nothing can or should be done to assert scientific truth against those who, for political ends, have succeeded in distorting it so gravely.
As Francis Cornford used to say, “There is only one argument for doing anything. All the rest are arguments for doing nothing.”
We think we have found a mechanism by which those in authority over us are compelled to realize that global warming is not a problem; that their chosen method of addressing it (wind and solar) cannot address it; and that even if all nations attained net zero emissions by 2050 global temperature would barely change.
More about that mechanism in another posting.
Climate scientists routinely blame all warming since their chosen start date as being caused by human generated CO2 without doing any analysis to determine the accuracy of that assumption.
Yes, it appears that the only “evidence” they have is their models. Moreover, from numerous books I’ve read by people who say they have reviewed the code in those models, the only driver in them is CO2. The models apparently don’t even consider any other possible effects.
The models purport to incorporate all relevant natural and anthropogenic influences on climate. They attempt to solve the Navier-Stokes equations in computational fluid dynamics for tens of millions of cells each 100 x 100 x 1 km in extent over hourly timesteps carried forward for centuries.
It is true, however, that the modelers assert that there is a linear (and inconsistently also a logarithmic) relationship between anthropogenic forcing of the climate and changes in global temperature.
However, the models incorporate a number of known errors that the usual suspects refuse to admit or to correct. After correction, it becomes evident that there is no climate crisis or emergency or cataclysm or apocalypse.
“We Need an Independent Global Climate Temperature Database”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/06/why-we-need-an-independent-global-climate-temperature-database/
“Argument from consensus has no place in science”
That needs to be reworded as consensus does have a place in science, for practical reasons. You can’t argue that it is beyond questioning because of consensus, but you can’t start research without treating much of your knowledge from text books as scientific fact. You would never get started on the original research if you didn’t.
You also cite other work in the way that says no body else had issues with that finding so I’m treating it as fact. It’s just that there are problems if only one person puts forward a good argument that it was wrong.
No: consensus has no place whatsoever in scientific endeavor. It plays no part whatsoever in the scientific method. It is contrary to the most ancient and elementary principles of logic. It is a totalitarian political concept and not a scientific concept.
The deception by Cook et al., reporting a 0.5% “consensus” as though it were 97.1%, is just one of many reasons why argument from consensus is impermissible in the sciences. For the alleged “consensus” may not (and, in the climate question, does not) exist in reality.
Furthermore, the “experts” on whose opinions the notion of scientific “consensus” relies are not necessarily expert. In the climate question, they are not expert – for instance – in feedback theory, in elementary statistics or in macroeconomics, just three of the many fields in which they have perpetrated grave errors.
There is a reason why every schoolchild is taught to prove the Pythagorean theorem. It is an example of a proposition that is demonstrably and definitively true. Therefore, it matters not whether or to what extent there subsists a “consensus” as to its truth.
Finally, argument from “consensus” is easily exploitable by totalitarians wishing to enforce a scientifically unsound narrative for fell political ends.
For all these reasons, consensus indeed has no place whatsoever in science.
I live in the US Northwest and have some number of friends and acquaintances who are involved in regional wildlife conservation and wildlife habitat preservation efforts.
These people make extensive use of the climate change narrative in promoting their conservation work and in asking for donations to their conservation organizations and to their habitat preservation projects.
I tell these friends and acquaintances that Net Zero is far and away the greatest long-term threat to the future success of their conservation and preservation work.
My basic position is this. If Net Zero goes forward on its current schedule, and if wind farms and solar farms then come to dominate our rural landscape, both the perceived value and the real value of that rural landscape for purposes of wildlife conservation and habitat preservation will be greatly diminished.
In other words, all their dedication and all their hard work will be for nothing. Net Zero will erase most, if not all, of the conservation work they have done in the past, or will do in the future.
The arguments I use to justify my position are a combination of Dave Fair’s arguments, Steve Case’s arguments, and my own evaluation of today’s climate science topics.
Dave Fair’s arguments:
1) 100+ year record of unremarkable extreme weather metrics.
2) Unreliable UN IPCC CliSciFi models heating 2 to 3 times faster than observations.
3) 43+ year UAH6 trend of 0.13C/decade w/o tropospheric hot spots.
4) No SLR acceleration.
5) The political nature of the UN IPCC giving out hysterical Leftist/Marxist nonsense.
Steve Case’s arguments:
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
My own evaluation of today’s climate science topics:
— The earth’s climate system has been warming for 180 years or more, possibly for 300 years.
— This warming is occurring from some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes.
— The predictions of the IPCC climate models are running too hot.
— When in doubt, predict that current trends will continue.
— The most likely outcome is for another 1C of warming between now and the year 2100.
— Total warming between the year 1850 and the year 2100 represents +2C over pre-industrial.
— Nothing humans do over the next eighty years can, or will, change this outcome.
Here is the kind of pushback I usually get when making these arguments, and my various responses to that pushback:
Pushback: I trust the science.
My response: “I trust the science” is merely a slogan. It is not a scientific argument.
Pushback: You are not a climate scientist.
My response: Neither are you a climate scientist.
Pushback: I trust the experts.
My response: I trust in my own ability to examine scientific arguments with an open mind and to reach my own conclusions about those arguments.
Pushback: We cannot take the risk of choosing to do nothing.
My response: Nothing anyone does individually or collectively can interrupt the long-term trend in rising global mean temperatures.
Pushback: We have a moral obligation to preserve our environment for future generations.
My response: Covering large areas of the United States with wind farms, solar farms, and many thousands of miles of new transmission lines will not preserve our environment for future American generations.
Pushback: Even if we wanted to, we cannot stop Net Zero, or the wind farms, or the solar farms.
My response: If your goal is to preserve our environment for future generations, then your actions must be in alignment with your goals.
Arguments being made to public policy decision makers must have more structure and more substance that those described above.
Monckton’s general approach is within the envelope of what is needed for influencing those in a policy making position who are willing to look at the skeptic arguments.
When people say they “trust the experts,” ask them how they define “expert.” Can an ex cartoonist like John Cook be an expert in determining the scientific consensus on climate change? Point out that one can find an expert on any side of any argument. How does one choose which expert to believe? Is there a degree in expertise one has to earn from an accredited source? Do they need to have a record of correct predictions? Is Paul Krugman considered an expert on the economy just because he won a Nobel Prize? Expertise is a very tough thing to nail down. Question their beliefs so that they understand they are just that, beliefs and not facts.
Although I agree CO2 is a green house gas, I have yet to see any peer reviewed study with data that actually ties increases in temperature only to CO2. Gorp’s chart supposedly shows temperature and CO2 rising and falling in unison, but close analysis shows that temperature rise increases before CO2, However, even that is correlation which we should all agree means absolutely nothing. I want the climate terrorists to provide absolute, peer-reviewed data, that CO2 is the leader in all things that cause a temperature increase.
Your “Exaggerated predictions arose from an error of physics” and “Observational methods suggest only 1.4 C warming this century” do not meet your criteria #2. They both had me scratching my head trying to follow your example. I am 74, with a degree from the UofMinn in Forestry and Masters work and teaching in statistics, and have followed and read just about everything related to the global warming hoax since the late 1980’s so I am not easily confused.
Please rewrite those two to follow your criteria #2.
Fully to understand the error of physics, one needs some knowledge of control theory, the science of feedback-amplifier analysis in engineering physics. We are proposing to send governments a copy of our four-page paper explaining the error, and they will be invited to pass the paper to their own experts, with a request that the experts should say whether the result is faulty.
Some suggestions.
1. The burden of proof is on the activists to show that emissions are the main factor in warming and it is not reversed by the precautionary principle.
2. Models are hypotheses not evidence and do not prove anything unless backed up by observation.
3. The correlation between rising emissions and temperatures vanishes if you look at change in the rate of change.
4. Heat is not signal, cold is not noise.
Great post Monckton of Brenchley,
You correctly and quite often quote that the rate of warming since 1990 is 0.13K/decade which is less than half of the predicted warming of 0.3K/decade in the first assessment report published in 1990. Mount Pinatubo erupted in June 1991 sending large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere and blocking some sunlight and hence cooling. Looking at the Christy and McNider 2017 paper this eruption cooled the planet by 0.5K in 1992 and then the effects started to decay slowly with a half life of approximately 24 months. See the attached figure.
The equation for the Mount Pinatubo signal is on p513 of (Christy and McNider 2017).
This volcanic cooling signal is documented in the literature of the climate alarmist, hence there is great agreement on volcanic cooling.
I recommend to update your earth’s temperature graph that extends back to 1990 and account for cooling effects on Mount Pinatubo early in the record. I would find this rather interesting and will reduce the 0.13K/decade to a much smaller rate.
References;
Christy and McNider 2017, Satellite Bulk Tropospheric Temperatures as a Metric for Climate Sensitivity.
I suspect that the temperature datasets already reflect the temporary cooling caused by Pinatubo. What is significant, however, is that there has been no such giant eruption since – and the period without a very large eruption is an unusually long one.
1. Our current climate started warming 200 years BEFORE man’s CO2 emissions started to rise . NOT before.
2. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now.
3. Solar fits climate better than CO2
4. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
5. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
6. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
7. Man emits only 5% of annual CO2. Plus CO2 only causes 9-26% of greenhouse effect.
8. Human CO2 release warms the climate less than 0.03◦C https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf
There is nothing unusual about today’s climate
5000 years ago, there was the Egyptian 1st Unified Kingdom warm period
4400 years ago, there was the Egyptian old kingdom warm period.
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
1000 years later, came our current warm period.
Climate alarmists are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years to stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and thus CO2 is not causing warming or any unusual climate effects that are frequently blamed on warming.
Evidence that those warm periods actually occurred:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/climatehistory.html
Evidence that the Roman & Medieval warm periods were global:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/warm_periods.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/page216.html
Even the IPCC says that most reports of unusual weather are not supported by the evidence.
1. Earth only warmed 0.78 degree C up to 2012. (1850 to 2012=0.48 C/century)
“Using Had-CRUT4 and its uncertainty estimates, the warming from 1850–1900 to 1986–2005 (reference period for the modelling chapters and Annex I) is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] C (90% confidence interval), and the warming from 1850–1900 to 2003–2012 (the most recent decade) is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] C (Supplementary Material 2.SM.4.3.3).”
Pg. 209 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
2. Man emits about 6% of total emissions.
Add the numbers on this NASA diagram: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page1.php
3. CO2 causes only about 26-32% of the greenhouse effect. H2O causes 60-75%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases which is based on Table 3 of: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 78, No. 2, February 1997 –
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%281997%29078%3C0197%3AEAGMEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2
4. We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased.
“Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
5. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased.
“Confidence in large-scale trends in storminess or storminess proxies over the last century is low owing to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). {2.6.4}”
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
6. No evidence that normal sea level increase has accelerated.
(Note that sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age – the issue is whether it is rising faster.)
“When a 60-year oscillation is modeled along with an acceleration term, the estimated acceleration in GMSL since 1900 ranges from: 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 in the Ray and Douglas (2011) record, 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2 in the Jevrejeva et al. (2008) record, and 0.012 [0.009 to 0.015] mm yr–2 in the Church and White (2011) record. Thus, while there is more disagreement on the value of a 20th century acceleration in GMSL when accounting for multi-decadal fluctuations, two out of three records still indicate a significant positive value. The trend in GMSL observed since 1993, however, is not significantly larger than the estimate of 18-year trends in previous decades (e.g., 1920–1950). “
Page 306 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
7. No evidence that floods have increased (per IPCC)
“AR4 WGI Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007) did not assess changes in floods but AR4 WGII concluded that there was not a general global trend in the incidence of floods (Kundzewicz et al., 2007). SREX went further to suggest that there was low agreement and thus low confidence at the global scale regarding changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods or even the sign of changes.”
pg 230 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
8. No evidence that droughts have increased
“Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.”
pg 178 of https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
9. Prediction of future climate is not possible.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. “ https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm (IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) Section 14.2.2.2, page 774) and Page 771, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf
This shows that THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY. And that, most likely, our climate is unaffected by man’s CO2.
PS: (You may have read other claims from the IPCC, usually from the Summary For Policy Makers without knowing that the summary is actually a political document written, line by line, by politicians from many countries including those looking for cash handouts. The below is from the science part of the report.)
I think it is important to understand that the politician targets are simple souls. Vain with large egos. Not technically bright. They have been marinated in the concept of global warming for a long time. It is normal for them to accept it.
I feel these arguments need to be very simple and razor sharp.
Perhaps a summary list followed by a more detailed list?
My contribution shall be a bumper sticker:
CO2 + H2O + Sun = Sugar, Starch, Fat
= LIFE
If the Ala Moana Atmospheric CO2 level measurements were converted to percentages, the CO2 level graph would feature a CO2 level curve that was practically a flat line resting along the bottom border of the graph. Anyone looking at such a graph would be hard pressed to consider atmospheric CO2 a driver of the Earth’s temperature and climate. This is because the CO2 level was only 3/100ths of one percent of atmosphere in 1960 and 4/100ths of one percent of atmosphere in 2020. This was an increase of only 1/100th of one percent in sixty years.
Billev makes a good point that the change in CO2 concentration is infinitesimal. However, even that small change could in theory cause something like the direct warming of 1.2 C per CO2 doubling that is currently imagined.
I think that the part about sea level rise needs to be expanded, such as:
Minor increases in temperature over polar regions does not result in rapid sea level rise, or danger of coastal flooding.
Most of the temperature increases over the Arctic have been in autumn and winter, when temperatures are still below freezing, while spring and summer temperatures there have remained steady for decades. Only melting of land-based ice caps (Greenland and Antarctica) contribute to sea level rise, while sea-ice melting does not. Current sea level rise rate is slow (4 to 8 inches per century) and is not accelerating. The cost of building dikes or sea walls to protect low-lying cities is much less that the cost of net zero CO2 emissions.
lets explore the folly here.
item 1 If it’s consensus it’s not science: if it’s science it’s not consensus
ok then if we agree to 1, then its not science. and if one of us, like me disagrees
then it is science.
please note item 1 makes science subjective. the fact of my disagreement changed its nature.
item 2 Wind and solar power cannot get us anywhere near net zero
if we all agree (see item 1 about consensus) this statement –Wind and solar power cannot get us anywhere near net zero– is not science
now you can all see the logical problem with item 1.
skeptics cannot have a list of things that they all agree on. which is the same thing as
saying their beliefs are incoherent.
hard to convince governments even democratic ones of your incoherent positions
Meltdown now in bold typeface.
Mr Mosher shows his desperation as the Party Line on climate change collapses. As usual, he offers no reasoned argument. But he does represent, and advertise, the abject intellectual bankruptcy of climate Communism.
I think one obvious point is: Every scientific work should be recognised and discussed scientifically. This means that work, publication and the free discussion should not be opposed by anyone.
I think that not only the climate sceptics will agree to that but maybe 80 percent og the world’s population.