Lomborg writes in 'The Australian': "Enough is enough. We must confront climate change, but hyperbole and bluster do the planet no favours. This is the time we should be having a sensible discussion on cost-effective ways to reduce the worst of climate change’s damages...Alternative energy has increased so little because green energy remains incapable of meeting all of our needs met by fossil fuels. Replacing cheap and reliable fossil fuel energy with more expensive and less reliable energy alternatives weighs down the economy, leading to slightly lower growth. This means the Paris treaty is likely to cost between $US1 trillion and $2 trillion ($1.5 trillion and $2.9 trillion) a year, making it the costliest treaty in history. Not surprisingly, research shows that it will increase poverty. Its effects are not evenly felt; increasing electricity prices hurts the poor the most."
"We know there is simply no basis for climate alarm. All 'scientific' predictions have failed, life has survived happily with much higher CO2 in the past, the medieval warming period a thousand years ago was much warmer than today, the small temperature variations of the 20th century are easily explained by natural causes, and the IPCC reports confirm that there is no increase in extreme weather events and no economic harm from CO2. And yet the hysteria is increasing by the day." Sanjeev Sahblok, leader of the Swarna Bharat Party writes in The Times of India. (Note: slight error about the middle when he incorrectly names Maurice Strong as "Michael")
Jill Stirling, of the Friends of Science Society in Canada reads and discusses a letter from Dr Ross McKitrick to a Canadian MP vilified by climate alarmists, in which Dr McKitrick presents convincing rebuttals of the alarmists'claims.
Anyone concerned at the misinformational peddled about alleged adverse effects on Earth's climate arising from of emissions of methane (CH4) by farm animals must read this 2014 paper by U.S. scientist Dr Tom Sheahen, in which he first applies to CH4 the term "irrelevant", a term since picked up by other scientists such as Dr Will Happer.
A short video in which US meteorologist Mark Mathis explains why the term "greenhouse effect" does not represent the truth about effects of carbon dioxide on Earth's temperatures. After watching the video, scroll on for more interesting info in the comments that follow.
In a lecture to the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT, said: " None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history."
Interesting comment by Melanie Phillips in The Times (London): Link to Melanie
Lindzen tells Daily Mail global warming ended 20 years ago Link to Mail
In the light of a new report by a science group, the Argonauts, showing that the UN IPCC made a fundamental error of physics which predicted warming at three times the rate actually recorded, a New Zealabd trust, Environomics (NZ) Trust, has called on its government to either refute the Argonauts' f...
This detailed report prepared by Dr Ole Humlum for the Global Warming Policy Foundation covers all the aspects of "climate change" and shows we have little or nothing to worry about - unless it is future cooling. Dr Humlum is former Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard, Norway, and Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, Norway.
“We are plunging now into a deep mini ice age,” says British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, “and there is no way out.....The fact is the sun rules the sea temperature, and the sea temperature rules the climate,” explains Corbyn. “What we have happening now is the start of the mini ice age … it began around 2013. It’s a slow start, and now the rate of moving into the mini ice age is accelerating.
"The IPCC well knows that halving CO2 emissions in 12 years is politically impossible, economically unaffordable and climatically unnecessary." Guest essay on WattsUpWithThat by Barry Brill, chair of New Zeakabd Climate Science Coalition.
Anthony Watts has just announced on his blog WUWT this message from Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball: "Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs, Tim Ball." Watts adds: "This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more.". And when that "more" arrives we'll post it here.
Read this subsequent analysis of Dr Ball's victory, and the adverse consequences for IPCC:
Dr Jay Lehr and Tom Harris post at World Commerce Review: "Most of the periodic temperature increases and decreases observed in human history are average amount of the energy that we receive from the Sun. The mild heating and cooling per degrees Fahrenheit reflect changes in solar activity rather than exponential increase in temperature from 1880 to 1935 as the Littlre Ice Age ended. It decreased from 1935 to 1990, and has since levelled off. Temperature changes do not mirror emission changes."
Bjorn Lomborg posts at Project Syndicate: "Because honest and deep emissions cuts are staggeringly hard to make, achieving carbon neutrality anytime soon is an empty ambition for almost everywhere. But countries continue to make big promises and massage their emissions numbers to give a false sense of progress on combating global warming."
"A movement has been growing for decades to replace hydrocarbons, which collectively supply 84% of the world’s energy. It began with the fear that we were running out of oil. That fear has since migrated to the belief that, because of climate change and other environmental concerns, society can no longer tolerate burning oil, natural gas, and coal—all of which have turned out to be abundant. So far, wind, solar, and batteries—the favored alternatives to hydrocarbons—provide about 2% of the world’s energy and 3% of America’s. Nonetheless, a bold new claim has gained popularity: that we’re on the cusp of a tech-driven energy revolution that not only can, but inevitably will, rapidly replace all hydrocarbons. ....This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a 'new energy economy.'
The news media should be cautious about linking hurricane activity to global warming, according to National Hurricane Center Science and Operations Officer Chris Landsea, in a posting to WattsUpWith That.
A post that goes so far, but not far enough, but is informative nevertheless: "The results are meagre from thirty years of debate about a public policy response to climate change. There is little support in America for action, the IPCC’s AR5 has disappeared from the news, much of the public no longer trust climate scientists, and debate has almost stopped. The weather will determine future policy, not our foresight."
From New Zealand comes a brilliant poetical put-down of the"global warming". Well known NZ iconoclast, John Ansell has a brilliant put-down of the scam and its origins. (Note: the reference 'Go to Vic to watch ‘debate’ refers to Victoria University of Wellington, home of many of New Zealad's climate hysteria fomenters.
Retired New Zealand agricultural research scientist offers sensible advice to children who marched on 15 March to draw attention to climate change.
UK academics draw attention of parents, children and teachers to dangers of brainwashing in schools (courtesy of Global Warming Policy Foundation).
Contributor Suze to New Zealand Whaleoil blog adds this constructive contribution to the debate
Australian climate analyst, David Archibald, explains in full detail at WentworthReport.com, how the global warming myth was conjured up in 1980, and why, and rebuts the false claims by warmist propagandists. As Archibald says: "There is only one true path. This is dictated by physics, chemistry, and economics." THIS IS A MUST-READ.
Anyone in doubt about why Earth, its people and its plants, needs MORE rather than less Carbon Dioxide (CO2) must watch this YouTube conversation with Professor William Happer, of Princeton University, who has been recruited by US President Donald Trump to bring scientific sense to the debate about "man-made global warming" and the greenhouse effect.