Arvid Pasto
By now, almost everyone knows that “the world is warming”, and has been told over and over by the mainstream media that it is due to man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally but not limited to carbon dioxide (CO2). This claim is largely due to the efforts of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
A history of this institution is very instructive, as its roots trace back to the Club of Rome (a MUST read is https://climatism.blog/2018/12/19/draconian-un-climate-agenda-exposed-global-warming-fears-are-a-tool-for-political-and-economic-change-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-actual-climate/ Jamie W. Spry).
I quote extensively from this reference below, in brackets […]:
[The Club of Rome was a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked. The Club of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. They noted that “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that…the threat of global warming…would fit the bill…the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Not surprisingly, their study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’: “We are unanimously convinced that rapid, radical redressment of the present unbalanced and dangerously deteriorating world situation is the primary task facing mankind…Concerted international measures and joint long-term planning will be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent…This supreme effort is…founded on a basic change of values and goals at individual, national, and world levels…”(Arvid’s bold italics)
Around the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them were disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb”.
The conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea was to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.
The creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism, Maurice Strong, founded the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and its ‘science’ arm, the UN-IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.
Strong’s, and the UN’s, ‘Climate Change’ agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of climate change was butchered and tortured to fit the Global Warming narrative…
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program (UNEP)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP
Why Did They Choose CO2 as the Villain?
Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examined the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why carbon dioxide has become the center-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonize it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
Energy rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialization. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving the Planet”.
STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current ‘climate change’ scare:
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University/Royal Society fellow ]
(end of cited article by Spry)
This introduction to the IPCC ought to set the reader up to expect nothing but political polemic from them. However, to make their stand successful, they had to have some science behind the vilification of CO2. This “science” had long been prophesied, from Joseph Fourier in France in 1824, with evidence provided by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. John Tyndall showed evidence in 1896. But the effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. [Names/dates from Wikipedia, e.g.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science ]
With this scientifically proposed mechanism as a means to vilify CO2, the IPCC was off to the races! The UN gave grants to study the topic, as did many national research institutions in various countries. As academic, and non-governmental organization (NGO), scientists realized how much money there was to be had, the topic ballooned. The UN constructed the UN-FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change), with almost all of the countries in the world as “parties” to it.
The IPCC convened yearly meetings, where up to 30,000+ government, academic, NGO, media, and other interested people appeared. These were usually in very nice, expensive places, as their conferences were so large that only certain cities could host them. A few noteworthy were the Conference of the Parties (COPs) numbered 3 (Kyoto, Japan 1997), 15 (Copenhagen, Denmark 2009), 16 (Cancun, Mexico), 21 (Paris, France 2015), and 24 (Katowice, Poland 2018). I call these five out because I will describe some of their outcomes, and some telling, typically off-camera, commentary from the attendees as to the REAL purpose of these meetings.
The COP official attendees (representatives of the governments, NOT the press or NGOs) developed plans, many of which became “treaties” to be signed by the countries. For instance, at COP 3 in Kyoto, it was agreed that the world should reduce its GHG output. As WIKIPEDIA puts it [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol ]…
“The Kyoto Protocol implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to reduce the onset of global warming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to “a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (Article 2). The Kyoto Protocol applies to the six greenhouse gases listed in Annex A: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).[6]
The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it acknowledges that individual countries have different capabilities in combating climate change, owing to economic development, and therefore puts the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis that they are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
So, you see immediately that the push is to blame the “developed nations” (read USA), and this mantra becomes the basis of later agreements on “climate reparations” (the US and other developed nations put all of these horrible GHGs into the atmosphere, and thus they should pay those who need the money and DID NOT add significant CO2 to the atmosphere).
Bill Clinton was US President at this time, and he agreed to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, even though it had legally-binding requirements on the US, and would require Senate ratification. George Bush became president in 2001, and the Senate refused to ratify the Protocol, so, for all intents and purposes, it was dead.
Not to be defeated, the IPCC kept pushing each year to get everyone on board. And each time, they ratcheted up their demands on the developed world. The term “Loss and Damage” became the rallying call for the “developing” countries, wherein they could claim that the developed world caused the climate problems they face(d), and they could then sue (us).
At COP15 in Copenhagen, the “Parties”, emboldened by the election of Barack Obama to presidency of the US in 2008, agreed to an unbelievable (to me) wording. If we signed on to this, the United States would agree to become subservient to a “government” consisting of over 100 other nations, including giving this “government” the ability to tax the U.S. to pay “reparations” for having burned fossil fuels; to give it permission to tax our GDP up to 2% annually; and other assorted insults!
I put the word government in quotations, because that is the word the proposed Copenhagen Treaty actually used.
Meanwhile at that COP, the press was able to capture some very candid commentary from the attendees:
According to Jacques Chirac, the (1997) Kyoto Treaty is “the first component of an authentic global government.” In the words of Margaret Wallstrom, the EU’s commissioner for the environment, “This is about creating a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world.” Canada’s environment minister Christine Stewart comments “No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits” to global warming policies… “Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” [Leo Johnson, Understanding the Global Warming Hoax, 2009, Red Anvil Press, Oakland, CA, Page 65]
How damning is that? Now we know exactly, that what we thought was true…the goal is NOT to “reduce global warming”…it is to control the world.
Further, at the later Cancun COP, in a candid interview with Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and Lead author of the IPCC’s AR4 (Assessment Report #4), in 2007, he was quoted as saying“…climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection.”
“..the world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit, during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” [http://www.cfact.org/a/1858/Do-you-believe-in-magic—-climate-numbers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cfact+%28CFACT%29 ]
And it gets worse. At COP 21 in Paris in 2015, the UN Climate Chief stated “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to(sic) change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years…since the industrial revolution”. [https://citatis.com/a34446/077687/ ]
My question would be: the “economic development model” has worked for 150 years…why change it now? It has been very successful.
However, at COP 24 in Poland in 2018, the UN doubled down, with the UN climate chief stating…
“Failure to act will be catastrophic.” “We require deep transformations of our economies and societies.” “The impacts of climate change are increasingly hard to ignore.” [ http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/12/03/un-climate-chief-has-solution-to-urgent-climate-threat-we-require-deep-transformations-of-our-economies-and-societies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29 ]
While much of this international subterfuge was happening, the US was under President Obama’s regime, which was fully bought into this socialist doctrine. He knew that there was NO CHANCE of getting any of these UN “treaties” ratified by the Congress. He also had seen that there was no chance of getting any carbon tax, or carbon “cap and trade” agreement passed. So, he unleashed the EPA to do the dirty work.
The EPA managed to get a court ruling that CO2 was “pollution”. Many lawsuits were brought against this “finding”, resulting in its going before the Supreme Court. Without ANY scientific background, the SCOTUS allowed the finding against CO2. Now, under the Clean Air Act, EPA could wreak havoc.
And they tried to, numerous times. For instance, in 2011, they promulgated new rules on carbon dioxide. “Using their own figures: they said that the new regulations would cost the US $78 billion per year.” [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/13/how-much-would-you-buy/ ]
And the EPA chief (Gina McCarthy) said that these regulations were estimated to lower global mean temperature by 0.006 to 0.015C by 2100. (ARVID’s note…this is ABSOLUTELY INSIGNIFICANT compared to the 3+/- degrees of warming that the IPCC was claiming, by the year 2100.) These EPA costs represented $1900 TRILLION PER DEGREE!
What the hell were they thinking? You will see later….
In 2015, EPA released new regulations, designed to bankrupt America. These new regulations were cheaper than the 2011 versions, and would only cost us about $2.5 TRILLION. That is $125 trillion per degree of saved warming. And then, under questioning, EPA’s chief (Gina McCarthy) said thatthe global cooling effect would be less than 0.02F, but that it was important that we do it to set an example to the world!
Really…the US will bankrupt itself to set an example to the world?
And then, in 2016, again under Senate questioning, the truth comes out: “…she says the rule is about “driving investment in renewables…,[and] advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution”. McCarthy says, “That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.” https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/05/12/epa-chief-concedes-no-climate-impact-from-climate-rule-its-about-reinventing-a-global-economy/ ]
McCarthy has to be some special kind of stupid, or a raging socialist, or both!
At this point, I don’t even need to get into the incredibly poor “science” used by the IPCC and then totally swallowed by the lamestream media. I can talk about it until the world ends, but surely to no avail.
Many people with access to world-class computers have shown the ridiculousness of the IPCC’s attempts to “control global warming”. Some examples follow:
‘If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.’
The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.’
An analysis in 2013 showed that…
“…if the US as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction, or a “savings”, of approximately 0.08C by the year 2050, and 0.17C by the year 2100…amounts that are, for all intents and purposes, negligible.”
I hope you got that…if the US “completely disappeared”, it would NOT stop global warming.
The UNIPCC Conference(s) of the Parties have continued, with gatherings in major world sites, from COP-22 in Morocco through COP-28 in Dubai (for complete listing, see https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/supreme-bodies/conference-of-the-parties-cop ).
At each of these, the world’s leaders convened, and wrangled over thorny issues, trying to push to a “FINAL” agreement. Two major issues were (1) trying to end production and use of fossil fuels, and (2) implementing a means of “loss and damage”, whereby those countries deemed to have produced the most global warming via fossil fuels would compensate those countries most affected by “climate change”.
In Dubai in 2023, the participants came close to agreeing to stop fossil fuels. The closest they could come to “stopping” fossil fuels was to agree to “phase down” their production and use. This was most unsatisfactory to the strongest climate alarmists. “However, many countries walked away from the talks frustrated at the lack of a clear call for a fossil-fuel “phase-out” this decade – and at a “litany of loopholes” in the text that might enable the production and consumption of coal, oil and gas to continue.” [ https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop28-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-dubai/ ]
Regarding the second topic…” Despite an early breakthrough on launching a fund to pay for “loss and damage” from climate change, developing countries were left disappointed by a lack of new financial commitments for transitioning away from fossil fuels and adapting to climate impacts.” [ https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop28-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-dubai/ ]
Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions, principally CO2 and methane, have been inexorably increasing, even as thousands of megawatts of renewable energy have been brought on line. And global temperature has been slowly increasing. And the alarmists and liberal media continue their shrill voices demanding “change”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would have agreed with Malthus and the others back in the 1970s.
However, since then, every expectation has failed.
Now we face a natural population peak later this century and likely a long term decline thereafter.
All the alarmists are past their sell by dates but have gained so much that they will not loosen their grip until they die.
They said that science progresses one death at a time but now it is their turn.
They’re in ecology classrooms today. If they live as long as Ehrlich?
Not to worry; we’re all going to die. Just ask them.
My primary concern is spending sufficient time fishing, before that momentous cataclysm arrives.
VERY Nice post.
A gentle correction. Tyndall was 1859. Arrhenius was 1896.
I would add two famously noteworthy further thesis ratifying quotes. One by former UNFCC head Figueres that (longish summed) ‘it is really about wealth redistribution’, and then later by IPCC WG3 head Edenhofer that “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
I would also have added a reference to the 1967 publication “The Report From Iron Mountain”, detailing the need to manufacture a crisis in the absence of perpetual war. It suggested several possibilities, from space alien invasion to environmental degradation. It was dismissed by the establishment as satire, and called fodder for “conspiracy theorists”, but it essentially details the efforts we have witnessed with regard to the “climate crisis”.
When what we really need is weather redistribution. LOL
First link is bad. I haven’t checked the others ones yet.
If you copy-paste the link it works.
https://climatism.blog/2018/12/19/draconian-un-climate-agenda-exposed-global-warming-fears-are-a-tool-for-political-and-economic-change-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-actual-climate/
Not sure if it’s just my computer, but first link goes to: “Sorry, page unavailable”
This is really important.
“it’s the product of all plant respiration”
Product or an input?
In this carbon cycle diagram from a while back, photosynthesis takes up 120GtC of carbon dioxide annually. Plant respiration accounts for 60 GtC of emissions.
(1 GtC is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.66 billion metric tons of CO2.)
Plants “respire” as they metabolize sugars, etc.
Microbial respiration and decomposition accounts for another 60 GtC of emissions.
Nature absorbs slightly more CO2 than it emits in the annual carbon cycle. That’s why the atmospheric CO2 level has been declining for billions of years. About 50 years ago humans began recycling sequestered underground carbon in sufficient amounts to increase atmospheric CO2. So far the result has been a better climate and improved plant growth
Yet still the human contribution is only 4% of all CO2 flux.
We can, and should, do more.
China, India are doing their bit, by stupid western nations are destroying their economies in a vapid attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.
Both. Plants use CO2 in photosynthesis. Plants emit CO2 when they respire ( build cells).
:Anthropogenic Global Warming is Political, Not Physical, Science”
The author used a HUGE number of words to show that the science of global warming was being abused, with scary predictions, for political purposes. As if he was being paid by the word.
He did nothing to refute the science that manmade CO2 emissions cause global warming.
The title of the article is a deception
If that was the author’s title, then he is a hack looking for attention.
“He did nothing to refute the science that manmade CO2 emissions cause global warming.”
Many people on this web site have shown that is of little importance and certainly not worth changing civilization.
The fact that CO2 emissions cause global warming is very important. That basic science has allowed wild speculation about feedbacks that amplify the mild warming from CO2.
Conservatives too often become AGW deniers and then no one will listen to them. They are scared to admit, or dumb in the case of BeNasty, that CO2 has an effect on the climate.
The average climate model in the 1970s predicted a +3 degree C. rise of the global average temperature for CO2 x 2. the actual increase has been about +2.4 degrees C. per doubling so far, based on surface average temperatures.
With the predicted warming rate in the ballpark of reality, it’s a very tough job to convince people that climate models are just an average of wild guesses.
The actual warming was 25% less than the models, and the warming was not 100% due to CO2. That’s too complicate for most people.
What causes people to think is asking them how they were harmed by the past 48 years of actual global warming.
Here in SE Michigan, most people realize our winters are not as cold as in the 1970s and 1980s, and we have far less snow. They may not realize there were scary predictions of global warming doom each year as our winters were getting milder. It’s my job to tell them.
A surprising number of people have no idea greenhouses use CO2 enrichment in the winter and spring.
A surprising number of people have no idea their current Michigan properties were covered by a thick glacier 20,000 years ago … that melted in 10,000 years … long before people started burning fossil fuels.
Ordinary people will reject false claims that humans have no effect on the climate, or CO2 does nothing, or there has been no warming since 2015. If you claim, or imply, 100% of consensus climate science is wrong, you will be ignored. Because you are wrong.
Again, No actual scientific evidence,
Just a rant followed by a stupid call to a fake consensus.
Please show us the human caused warming in the UAH data.. you have continually FAILED to do so.
Being a zero evidence AGW apologist/collaborator, plays right into the far-left agenda.
Ah, once again we are presented with the drama of the bromance between Richard Greene and whoever the hell is hiding behind the “bnice2000” cowardly moniker. I really wish you losers would advance from kindergarten to a level where there can be an adult discussion.
Once again we have a fool that likes to lick RG’s boots.
Humans do contribute to global warming, but do not cause it.
As we alter the environment, for example, has its effects. Consider the UHI.
The unanswered question is, what would be going on with the Earth’s energy equilibrium if no humans were present. Probably much the same as it is now.
“or there has been no warming since 2015″
Show us the warming since 2015 that is NOT associated with non-human-forced El Ninos.
You do know that even GISS showed cooling from 2017 to just before the recent El Nino, don’t you ?
At least you seem to be admitting there was no atmospheric warming from 2001-2015, while CO2 levels continued to climb.
What ”effect” are humans having?
There has been no warming since 2015 notwithstanding the temporary spike this year.
Perhaps RG thinks that the 2023/24 El Nino was caused by human SUVs and electricity production !
Who knows what stupid anti-science dwells in that little pseudo-brain.
El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
PART I
Impetus of El Niños
Near the Equator, a 9000m-deep plateau, near Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, has major periodic, volcanic activity, that influences the world’s weather. The plateau covers about 150,000 square miles. It is:
1) One of the most geologically active regions on Earth
2) Home to the junction of five active fault systems, the second-largest, ocean-floor lava plateau on Earth,
3) Has hundreds of ocean floor volcanoes, and a large number of ocean-floor hydrothermal vents. See URLs
https://www.plateclimatology.com/why-el-nios-originate-from-geologic-not-atmospheric-sources
https://climatechangedispatch.com/geologist-how-geologic-factors-generate-el-nino-and-la-nina-events/
.
The plateau has several tectonic plates slide over each other. There are hundreds of vents and lava eruptions.
The cause of sliding is mostly gravitational pull of the moon. The forces must be enormous to move around so much water every 24 hours.
Just as the oceans react with tides, the floating land masses react as well, but with much smaller amplitudes, except at weak points, such as the 9000-m deep plateau. The Pacific Rim has many weak points, with vents and eruptions, as does the mid-Atlantic rift.
That is the normal situation, but every 3 to 7 years additional sliding occurs on the plateau. This causes additional venting and eruptions and additional heating of the already warmish water; the impetus of an El Niño, rated weak to very strong, whose development and consequences are well known. This water rises, and with pre-vailing currents, arrives at Peru. That El Niño process takes several months.
The upwelling weakens the trade winds , which changes air pressure and wind speeds, and push warm water toward the west coast of South America. See Image 11
At higher latitudes, these changes in the tropics allow the Pacific Jet Stream, a narrow current of air flowing from west to east, to be pushed south and spread further east. The jet stream steers weather systems, thereby determining the weather patterns seen across a wide geographic area.
Water Vapor
Near the Equator, the sun shines on the Pacific surface nearly vertically, while the water travels, causing much evaporation and huge cloud formation.
As the water vapor and warm air rises, other air flows in to fill the “vacuum”. This causes winds, which ripple the surface, which causes greater rates of evaporation, which causes increased winds and waves, which causes even greater rates of evaporation, etc.
Hunga Tonga Underwater Eruption
Now comes along a rare event, the very large Hunga Tonga eruption on January 15, 2022, which sent 146 million metric ton of WV into the upper atmosphere and stratosphere within a few DAYS, which caused a 10 to 15% increase in total WV in the atmosphere, which had minimal impact on worldwide WV ppm, but a major impact on local Pacific WV ppm.
WV is a strong green house gas (CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas), so the El Niño process likely would GRADUALLY heat the lower atmosphere, aka troposphere, by say 0.5 C (measured from the start of 2023, blue line), as shown by NASA satellite measurements. The Hunga Tonga eruption likely would add another 0.5 C (measured from the start of 2023, blue line), for a total of 1.0 C, as shown on Image 2
It may take up to 5 years for the increased WV to dissipate, and while this happens, the lower atmosphere would have elevated temperatures, which would gradually decrease to more normal levels.
.
Image 1, updated monthly, shows 45 years of temperatures of the lower atmosphere, based on satellite measurements by NASA.
It shows the peak of the El Nino of 2019 – 2020 and the low-point of the La Nina of January 2022, but does not yet show the up/down spikes of the subsequent El Nino/La Nina.
Those spikes have nothing to do with CO2 emissions, manmade and natural, all of which are gradually increasing, due to increased world wide greening, increased use of fossil fuels, and other causes.
Because La Niña and El Niño cycles often span multiple consecutive years, the last La Niña event impacted the Pacific during the winter of 2020-2021 and then again in the winter of 2022/2023, as shown in this analysis by Meteorologist Paul Dorian, “La Nina Conditions Continue Across the Equatorial Pacific.”
See images in URLs
Only in your mind.
You mean deniers of an hypothesis which even the IPCC admits is undetectable (and will always remain undetectable??
Wow, that must really trouble you eh?
You included. Please understand that climate models only exist to entertain certain people and are capable of nothing else.
The climate models are weapons used to threaten and scare people into submission. To some that may be entertainment, but….
And what has that to do with ”AGW”?
100% of consensus climate science is wrong wholly or partly – which of course means wholly.
It’s your job to make a fool of yourself as often as possible and you are doing admirably.
The fact that CO2 emissions cause global warming is very important.
The problem with your approach is that you do not distinguish between a short term forcing effect and a longer term effect on climate.
It is undoubtedly true that a rise in CO2 will have a forcing effect. That is just physics. Whether that forcing effect will result in a rise in global temperatures is a completely different thing, its a question about how the climate responds to forcings of all kinds, its about feedbacks of all kinds.
When we come to look at the trend in Michigan winter temperatures over the last 50 years (I assume there really is one) there is a real problem of attribution. How much of it is due to natural cyclical or random variation, and how much of it is due to the forcing effect of the increase in CO2 ppm during that same period? And how much of it will be eliminated by regression to the mean of a random or cyclical process involving feedbacks?
It is perfectly reasonable to doubt that CO2 increases have any significant long term effect on global temperatures, while at the same time accepting that they, like many other factors, do have a forcing effect. The observational studies I’m aware of seem to indicate that there is a long term effect, but a very small and not alarming one.
It is very misleading to say that its scientifically proven that CO2 increases produce warming, without distinguishing the two. They do have a forcing effect. Whether that forcing effect produces a permanent rise in temperature is very doubtful, and its still more doubtful that any effect of this kind is large or alarming.
CO2 as a force in not true. This forcing function is a contrived phrase using established language that is repurposed to push a narrative.
CO2 has a minor/trivial affect on energy transport within the atmosphere and that is all.
The fact that CO2 emissions
causemake a minor contribution to global warming isvery importanttrue.You might want to change the phraseology.
CO2 has a minor affect on the atmosphere.
much the way the ipcc does the opposite
“He did nothing to refute the science that manmade CO2 emissions cause global warming.”
There’s no evidence to refute. There is no evidence that CO2 has raised the temperatures enough to be measurable. That amounts to there being no evidence that CO2 emissions cause global warming..
There are no tropospheric “Hot Spots” as required for the AGW Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (EGE) speculation.
“There’s no evidence to refute. There is no evidence that CO2 has raised the temperatures enough to be measurable.”
There is 127 years of evidence that nearly 100% of scientists believe.
There is no evidence of intelligence i your comment.
Funny little Tourettes tantrum response again
No actual evidence produced, of course.
That still means basically nothing
Yeah, that’s not an argument.
Just because someone believes something doesn’t make it true.
I assume that you are referring to Arrhenius’ paper in 1896?
Richard is the king. Y’all are queens! 😂
This is standard AGW fare presenting their chosen Groupthink belief as scientific consensus, when it is nothing of the sort.
Today AGW has become anti-science , beloved by the gullible and innumerate, with its rejection of challenges and increasingly desperate attempts to frighten people into alignment with claims of being the cause of extreme weather events.
Dave Fair has refuted the evidence of dangerous global warming.
No Tropical Hotspot = No Dangerous AGW.
Without the feedback from water vapour, there is no dangerous global warming.
It is not significant. You are concerned about something that is real, but irrelevant.
May I suggest you campaign against rainbows causing traffic accidents by being distracting. It’s also real, related to the weather, and slightly more dangerous than AGW.
Most scientists actually disagree.
The modelers and politicians and academicians who are party to the ideology are the ones who agree.
You are the hack looking for attention. Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house, bub
Mister Bub, to you
Pathetic arrogance from such a scientific and personal non-entity.
Humor is a difficult concept.
These days its damn near inaccessible. Let there by Woke.
You have done absolutely nothing to produce any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
It really is just a RELIGIOUS BELIEF to you.. and all AGW apologists and collaborator.
You have shown that the title is totally correct.
Well done. 🙂
The science denier and El Nino Nutter does his best to make all conservatives appear to be science deniers. The leftists celebrate his nonsense comments.
Poor RG, yet another tantrum.. with ZERO evidence.
You haven’t produced any science.. so nothing to deny.
The leftists love such petty support for their scam.
Your use of “science denier” to individuals who know more science than you is offensive.
Only offensive if it is from someone worth taking offence from.
I don’t worry about yapping Chihuahuas..
What science?
You know, the hypothetical bullshit that doesn’t apply in the real world.
You have done nothing to refute the evidence (the quotes) that the AGW is political and not scientific. When someone tells you who they are and their ultimate goals (e.g., control of our lives), believe them.
AGW science based on data is not used to scare people
CAGW predictions not based on data are used to scare people
There is a huge difference between claiming humans can affect the climate (AGW) and human climate change is dangerous (CAGW)
But some conservatives are not sophisticated enough to differentiate between AGW and CAGW. Dingbats such as BeNasty, for one glaring example.
“AGW science based on data “
Please point to the AGW in the UAH data.
Please present your “data” that proves CO2 causes warming.
Still waiting !!!
You are still failing.
He’s done it before many times and y’all just squeal like biznatches 😂
Some AGW-apologists are too dumb to differentiate between AGW, and AUW.
And too empty to produce any evidence of actual AGW.
RG thinks his science is cast in stone. And that is wrong. Due to the complexity of interacting and never settled into equilibrium of elements in the climate ( unlike in a lab) any claim to truth is stating an obvious falsehood. That is why RG almost always refers to a consensus. Because he HAS to. Proving anything in a complex system like the climate is problematic from the start. You can use statistics/ data.
Or you can assume, as i do, that climate science is simply a set of stated hypotheses mostly not reaching the level of theory and that proof that A>B is only valid for simply mechanisms that dont need a set of underlying assumptions to be reasonably accepted.
Well said.
Please show what predictions are based on data
The problem with the expression AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is that it intrinsically assigns all change to human activities. Global Warming (GW) is real and very little of it is due to humanity.
Catastrophic AGW is just AGW on steroids to create fear of doom.
It seems you are not sophisticated enough to differentiate between GW and AGW and CAGW.
“He did nothing to refute the science that manmade CO2 emissions cause global warming.”
Specifically, what empirical evidence and/or science – your belief does not count – are you referring to? And “manmade CO2”? Does that have a different effect than natural CO2? Time to get beyond generalizations and get down to the nitty-gritty.
Whiner.
And a Luser.
Here’s a few Political “Science” quotes:
— “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
— “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
Enter Richard Greenpeace….
Very nice post worth bookmarking. At the very least, there are a lot of facts here that would help future historians understand exactly how the Left sold us down the river into serfdom.
Great Post.
There is also another part to the climate fraud – climate modeling.
Starting in the 1960s Manabe’s group at the old US Weather Bureau decided to ‘double dip’ their funding and try to predict CO2 induced climate warming as well as weather. In their 1967 model, Manabe and Wetherald claimed that a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm would produce an increase in ‘equilibrium surface temperature’ of 2.9 °C for clear sky conditions. This temperature rise was just a mathematical artifact of the simplistic one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) model that they were using. They spent the next 8 years building their 1967 algorithms into every unit cell of a ‘highly simplified’ global circulation model (GCM) [M&W, 1975]. They rapidly became trapped in a web of lies of their own making and all of their future work had to show a ‘climate sensitivity’ to a CO2 doubling that matched their earlier work. Later, in 1979 they added to the fraud by including a simplified ‘slab’ ocean layer in their model [Manabe and Stouffer, 1979]
The climate modeling fraud then grew through ‘mission creep’ as other government agencies began climate studies. When funding was reduced for NASA as the Apollo (moon landing) program ended in 1972, the planetary atmospheres group was told to switch to ‘earth studies’. In 1976, they blindly copied the 1967 M&W paper and created warming artifacts for 10 ‘minor’ species including methane and nitrous oxide [Wang et al, 1976]. In 1981 they copied Manabe and Stouffer and added a ‘slab’ ocean model. In addition, they claimed that they could simulate a ‘global temperature record’ with this model by using changes in CO2 concentration, volcanic aerosols and changes in solar flux. This established the pseudoscience of radiative forcings, feedbacks and a climate sensitivity to CO2 that is still used in the climate models today [Hansen et al, 1981].
As funding was reduced for nuclear programs, the US National Labs, incorporated into the Department of Energy in 1977, also jumped on the climate bandwagon. This gradually evolved into the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) that has become a major source of fraudulent climate model results for the IPCC climate assessment reports.
Later as computer technology improved, the original 1-D steady state models were replaced by atmospheric GCMs and then by coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs. Starting with the Third IPCC Assessment Report in 2001, the radiative forcings were split into ‘natural’ and ‘anthropogenic’ contributions. A dubious statistical argument was used to claim that the anthropogenic forcing could cause an increase in ‘extreme weather’. This provided the argument for Net Zero. Little has changed since 2001.
These modeling errors are discussed in ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’ Science of Climate Change 4(1) pp. 1-73 (2024) https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17
_____________________________________________________
There’s this:
IPCC TAR Chapter 14 page 774 pdf6
In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
Also saved on The Internet Archives Way Back Machine
They’re always banging on about Big Oil but can’t see Green Gravy staring at them in the mirror-
Disbelief as Australia smashes 400-year-old record: ‘Off the charts’ (yahoo.com)
Peter Ridd basically told them they were a bunch of doomster drama queens with coral bleaching which only came to attention with the widespread use of SCUBA in the 1980s. When he was right with the facts as the coral recovered just like he said it would did he get a humble apology from the doomster Groupthinkers?
Nup there’s just double down with King James or some such drivel and yet these are the same panic merchants who in the next breath will tell us how we should all pay homage to the first inhabitants and their 60000+ year history. Makes eminent sense for them as without a written record and only the Dreamtime they can make it all up too as they go along. Hippiedom and drugs started all this.
400 years.. middle of the LIA.
Yes there has been some warming…. THANK GOODNESS.
Older proxy data tells us a much different story.
MUCH warmer during the period before the LIA.. and coral reefs LUVED it !!
Meanwhile, the entire population of the United States could comfortably fit in just the State of Texas with room to spare.
I’m pretty sure Texans would not welcome an influx of far-left woke trans-degenerates from California and NY !
10 star article. This is the root of it all. It is about raw power in the hands of a few. They want to reorder every aspect of your life like the plots of many dystopian sci-fi tales. When you research these people and the groups they founded, you will find the rabbit trail. They’re anti-human demons trying to reorder and overthrow God’s creation.
Predicting the discrete solar forcing of mid latitude heat and cold waves at very long range is highly useful. Predicting the solar forcing of the AMO is vital for forecasts of Sahel drought, especially as the IPCC have it backwards and don’t see any drought returning.
The ersatz world of climate academia regards it all as unforced chaotic internal variability, and then does the double-think of imagining that CO2 driven global heating will increase the extremes of the weather variability.
Yes politicians are milking it, but it begins with the mental masturbations of scientists, who are also actively obstructing the pathway to the science the people actually need.
My comment on the previous post here seems to also relevant to this post.
So I’ll repeat it –
The IPCC is unashamedly by charter a political organisation, not a front-line scientific research collaboration.
Some snippets from various “About” statements –
The IPCC does not conduct its own original research.
The WMO and UNEP therefore created the IPCC as an intergovernmental body in 1988.
Scientists take part in the IPCC as both experts and government representatives.
Member governments must also endorse the reports by consensus agreement.
The IPCC is an organization of governments.
An interesting read also is this boastful article “How The IPCC Got Started” from the Environmental Defense Fund’s website.
Note the pride in their being convenors of an organisation whose
“main accomplishment was to provide official auspices for a more activist group of experts”
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/
Since the planetary mechanism required to support the CAGW conjecture can never exist, political science is the only recourse…
““Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Program (UNEP)”
Later this notion emerged in the IPCC’s charter which read in part “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
In other words, the conclusion that climate change is due to anthropogenic factors is baked into IPCC’s “orders” from day one. This would also explain why empirical evidence that CO2 is not the major driving force for climate change is omitted from IPCC’s reports, resulting in a biased assessment.
Representatives of the UN IPCC have already admitted that their orginal intent was global wealth redistribution and not to protect the Earth, making their goal a political rather than an environmental issue.
UN IPCC Official Admits ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’ | Newsbusters
Not surprising when the ongoing aim of that organisation is to control the emissions and, therefore, economic and population growth of all the nations on Earth.
I did a Bing search on: UN COP 28 Budget, and found that 57 BILLION DOLLARS was pledged or promised by the participant countries for 2023 for variety programs. Some of these programs are economic assistant and development for the poor countries.
Which pales in comparison to the $3 trillion that Janet Yellen claims to need, for the US alone.
It clearly falls inline w ‘the great taking’ by David Rogers Webb https://thegreattaking.com/read-online-or-download.
You can see it as nonsense conspiracy theory but much can be backed up by both evidence in written as spoken statements just like what the article says.
So, you can talk about the science as such or political motivation. They seem to be very tight together these days for reasons clearly stated in both this article and books like The Great Taking and the current situation.
Connected to environmentalism is also the ideology proposed by Marx et al. Uber environmentalism as a way of redistribution of wealth.
I don’t think one can no longer dismiss these points of data as ‘fabricated’.
It also makes talking about The Science as such difficult. There are many who take an absolutist stance and see anyone who disagrees with them and their side as ‘nutters’. I think that climate science is complicated enough to not fall into that obvious trap. There is a very reasonable assumption of uncertainty about every aspect of climate science. It is in essense a series of hypotheses w certain elements closer to the known laws of physics than others. However, definite statements might be made by including saying that NOONE can actually claim The Truth. And we all should know that consensus counts for nothing and that people defending their position on that basis (like RG) are not doing science.
I like the idea of diversity and resent people trying to force their Truth down everybody’s throat which is the main danger we face.
Dodgy dudes attracted to dodgy thin air derivatives-
Solar installers ‘cheated’ out of millions (msn.com)
A reporter named Marjorie Mazel Hecht some years ago described the 1975 conference organized by Margaret Mead, in an article entitled “Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born.” It’s still available here:
http://21sci-tech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
Great piece. Key architect in the climate change movement Maurice Strong was
a very shady player. That fact that needs to be kept alive and up front. The Oil for
Food was one of the more notorious chapters. Kofi Annan Secretary General at the UN,
North Korea and Iraq funneled millions in the pockets of him.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2007/02/06/at-the-united-nations-the-curious-career-of-maurice-strong/
The Climate Borg.
Resistances is futile. You will be assimilated.
Existence as you know it is over.
From article:”Why Did They Choose CO2 as the Villain?”
Because no one would believe a word they said if they used water vapor. And WV is far more abundant.
Why is there a term “heat index” when humidity goes up?