By Larry Bell
The fact that despite increased atmospheric CO2 levels they can’t explain why temperatures haven’t risen for 17 years, the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report now warns that planetary peril is far worse than even their previous alarmist 2007 report predicted.
For good measure, just to be certain it got full news coverage, the new summary version aimed at the media and politicians threw in lots of scary stuff about rising and acidifying oceans, superstorms, and famines.
Not to worry though. All of this is nothing that billions of dollars more in wind and solar subsidies along with wealth transfer from rich countries for them to redistribute can’t cure, providing that we abandon the fossil fuels that enable that prosperity. Don’t you wish that everything were that simple?
Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution of Science in California, overall lead author of the report warned: “We live in an era where impacts from climate change are already wide spread and consequential.” He went on, “Changes are occurring rapidly and they are sort of building up that risk.”
Yes, “risk.” Throughout the recently-released 49 page summary, that word appears about 5 1/2 times per page. According to the report, competition over scarce water and food may even cause world peace to hang in the balance. It predicts that the highest level of risk will first hit plants, and then animals, both on land and in the acidifying oceans.
Climate change, caused by rich countries of course, will worsen problems such as poverty, sickness and violence. It will break down the benefits of a modernizing society, blocking economic growth and stifling efficient crop production.
If you imagined that flat temperatures since the time most of today’s high school students were born would indicate some problems with IPCC’s previous failed computer model-based doomsday projections, we’re certainly not offered any reason for complacency.
Unlike previous reports which attributed severe weather events only partly to man-made warming, this one also includes broader risks where disastrous consequences like deadly storm surges such as occurred with 2013’s Typhoon Haiyan, 2012ís Superstorms Sandy and 2018ís Cyclone Nargis might possibly be augmented by rising oceans.
Early study author Richard Toll, a University of Sussex economist asked to have his name removed from the summary due to excessive alarmist harping about risks. He said “It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them.”
Let’s briefly review a few reasons why he is absolutely correct.
First, no one I know disputes the fact that climate changes. And while the Arctic has recently been warming slightly (although it is cooler than 1,000 years ago), Antarctica is colder. Even the IPCC has finally had to acknowledge that observational evidence indicates Earth’s climate system is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than they previously claimed.
Regarding IPCC’s future prognostications, Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, compared predictions of 90 climate models with observed temperatures and found that 95 percent significantly over-forecast the warming trend since 1979.
As for those super storms, of the 35 cyclones in the last 800 years that have killed more than 10,000 people, 33 occurred when carbon dioxide levels were below 350 ppm (now 400 ppm). And despite all the hype about Sandy, 2013 was actually one of the quietest hurricane seasons in recent history. It occurred at a time when the U.S. is enjoying its longest-ever eight-year period without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.
Mass starvation and civil strife caused by carbon-fueled warming influences upon food supplies? Well, probably not. Satellites have recorded roughly 14 percent increased greening of the planet over the past 30 years in all types of ecosystems. We might assume this is at least partly due to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 which enable plants to grow faster and use less water. Incidentally, this benefit applies also to marine life, including corals, which evolved at CO2 levels that were two to seven times higher than now.
Have no doubt that the IPCC’s latest science fiction installment is welcomed in efforts to help sell the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan aimed at imposing more energy regulations. The timing coincides with Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent reference to global warming as the greatest terrorist threat. On the other hand, President Obama has stated that he worries most about a nuke attack in New York.
So here’s a thought. If the U.N. has a good plan to end countless millions of years of global climate change terrorism, do you suppose they might be willing to lend a hand in addressing modern threats posed by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Syria as well?
Larry Bell is a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston, where he directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and heads the graduate program in space architecture. He is author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax,” and his professional aerospace work has been featured on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel-Canada.
Want to be a “climate scientist”? Well you can be within a week. Simply write a paper on the weather or whatever, have it peer-reviewed, then publish it in some dodgy Green journal and voila! Youíre a “scientist!” Now you can start reporting your conclusions to the UN’s IPCC about how we are all about to die of sun stroke while drowning in high tides at the same time. They are looking forward to hearing from you, after all it is the first of April.
Of course, if you want to be an oceanographer or a meteorologist, it may take a few years longer and the IPCC will not want to hear from you at all. For God’s sake let’s put this IPCC global-warming rubbish to bed! No member of this fraudulent UN organisation is even a “climate scientist” anyway, they do no research, they are unqualified soothsayers and their outrageous predictions exceed those of the disgraced Al Gore’s.
The way it works is this:
The IPCC is charged with the job of scaring the pants off you in order to get governments world-wide to give them lots of your money via a tax on CO2, which is not a pollutant but a critical plant food.
Most of the circulated footage of “smoke” from all those chimneys is actually steam!
Less than 50 percent of the world’s nations are IPCC members. Most countries have wisely refused to be involved in the scam. So, who are these galahs who warm the leather seats in plush Geneva offices?
Well, they are a bunch of ideological, brain dead, hirsute Green gophers charged with collecting other Green gophers’ alarmist reports and presenting them to media as “science”. Media then slavishly report it to you as fact.
William Schlesinger, IPCC backer and President of the “Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies” has reluctantly been forced to acknowledge that over 80 per cent of IPCC members has absolutely no qualification or background in anything concerning climate.
Its Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri (pictured) is an ex Indian railways worker for Christ’s sake!
The remainder are probably ageing, frustrated weather girls.
Governments’ “global warming” Agencies have also been conspiring with Green groups to defraud taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars.
“Sue and Settle” practices, also referred to as “friendly lawsuits”, are cosy deals whereby far-Left radical Green groups file lawsuits against sympathetic Government “warmist” Agencies.
Court “consent orders” are then issued based upon the prearranged settlement amounts made in advance behind closed doors.
One observer described the scam as: “The Government Agency throws the case, somewhat like Breír Rabbit agreeing to be thrown into his favourite brier-patch.”
Tens of millions are extorted from uncomplaining Green governments and given back to Green groups like Earthjustice, who recently netted $4,655,000, the US based Sierra Club, $967,000 and the Natural Resources Defense Council, $252,000.
The IPCC then creams the normal 10 per cent of the ongoing scam.
That’s only the tip of the “melting” iceberg of scams the IPCC is involved in using the greatest scamster of all, Al Gore, as their figurehead who then makes squillions insider-trading carbon credits through his own bank of carbon credit companies.
The scam will continue as long as people like Bob Brown can beguile opportunistic crooks like Julia Gillard.
The IPCC rejects any report that doesn’t claim anthropogenic warming, and always throws in a few goodies like its recently discredited, “the Himalayas will soon be devoid of snow” nonsense.
Figures are massaged, graphs are inverted and reports are altered in an attempt to convince the gullible of their expertise in “climate science”. “Climate” can be a science but these charlatans are certainly not scientists!
Long lunches are spent inventing emotive doomsday phrases designed for you to elect Green-sympathetic governments, like Julia Gillard’s, that will happily give them billions more of your taxes.
There is no global warming, it would be good if there was, but both ice-caps have increased in area, Europe and the US have just recorded three years of record cold conditions, atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to vary by the normal 0.1 per cent, US “Tornado Alley” had 30 per cent fewer tornados last season, there are no tidal increases anywhere and the climate is still changing normally in its own erratic way, as it always has.
The only regulators of the world’s CO2 levels, the oceans, the sun and volcanos, are the only regulators IPCC reports don’t account for.
Thank God the Abbott Government only pays lip service to this global warming myth.
Reading between their lines you can see they don’t have their hearts in it.
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
In its usual over the top fantasy world special report by the committee chaired by Chris Fields, the IPCC projects dire consequences for agriculture and the environment. They claim the risks from extreme weather events, including heat waves and flooding are also high at 1C.
Now considering that Kentucky is 2.1C warmer than neighbor Illinois, that has to be the most ridiculous statement ever made by an agenda driven. How could they sleep at night knowing what they say is totally bogus. Oh I forgot the billions of dollars in grants at stake. Also no changes in droughts, floods, and declines in heat waves, tornadoes and hurricanes have occurred. But never mind the real world. We live in a virtual computer world.
This is the world their computer models, failing miserably project for a 3F increase.
The NIPCC report on environmental consequences shows the very opposite has occcurred with the gentle warming 1979 to 1998 and the stable temperatures (starting a precipitous decline) since. CO2 is a plant fertilizer. They pump it into greenhouses. The increase in CO2 with improved hybrid seeds has resulted in a 3 to 5 fold increase in yields for rice, corn, wheat and beans worldwide, allowing us to feed more people. Until the recent turn to colder, the growing areas have expanded not been displaced with more production from Canada and Russia.
Here is the NIPCC finding based on real world data and studies not tinker toy models. “Global-Warming / Climate Change POLICY, not the weather, is a threat to National Security in the UK and Europe; Miliband’s (a UK alarmist like Fields) claims are as deluded as the charge of the light brigade” - Piers Corbyn
Biological Impacts Summary
* Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a non-toxic, non-irritating, and natural component of the atmosphere. Long-term CO2 enrichment studies confirm the findings of
shorter-term experiments, demonstrating numerous growth-enhancing, water-conserving, and stress alleviating effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants growing in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
* The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing a great greening of the Earth. All across the planet, the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has stimulated vegetative productivity. This observed stimulation, or greening of the Earth, has occurred in spite of many real and imagined assaults on Earth’s vegetation, including fires, disease, pest outbreaks, deforestation, and climatic change.
* There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
: Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.
* Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels ("acidification") will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.
* A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.
Source: Idso, C.D., Idso, S.B., Carter, R.M., and Singer, S.F. (Eds.) 2014. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute.
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.” Instead, climate change policy is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” UN IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer in November 2010
As an PhD engineer/scientist suggested:
Both the global economy and the global atmospheric systems are extremely large, complex, dynamic and chaotic. Both systems have many relationships that are well understood by economists and scientists, but both have far more relationships that are not understood or not even known at this time. But unlike science, the discipline of economics readily admits (and sees on a daily basis) that the global system is not understood and is not predictable.
Climate scientists may argue that the global atmosphere is far more complex than the global economy and should not be compared. But if that is the case then they should also admit that they also do not fully understand what is a far more complex system. Economics has been a discipline of study for centuries while atmospheric studies has really only been around for several decades. If the economy is less complex, yet economic analysts acknowledge they do not fully understand it, then climate scientists should acknowledge that they do not understand how the far more complex climate system works.
One way to help people understand the absurdity of the outsized impact “scientists” are putting on CO2 is to make the following analogy.
The argument made by the global warming alarmists is that the increasing levels of CO2 is having an enhanced warming impact on the atmosphere. The impact is such that the 0.04% of the atmosphere is driving substantial changes in the rest of the atmosphere. It is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.
Considering this in the context of the global economy, the country of Latvia represents about 0.04% of the global GDP. There is no economist on earth who would credibly claim that even outsized (non-natural) changes in the economy of Latvia would drive global GDP trends. Ever. Yet that is the same type of argument the climate scientists are making about CO2.
Given all the back and forth on this I thought this would be a good analogy to show the absurdity of the climate scientists alarmism. Global GDP = Global Atmosphere, Latvia = CO2!!