Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather

[mpennery]

This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”


While members of the media may nod along to such claims, the evidence paints a different story. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field.

A year ago, Pielke told the story to an audience at the University of Minnesota. His presentation was recently circulated on Twitter. With so much misinformation nowadays about supposed climate emergencies, it’s worth reviewing carefully.


Read the whole article:

https://business.financialpost.com/o...cians-attacked


Here is the link to all of his evidence in support of the above:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9...883376128.html

I will include just one of the dozens of data points since many people like to say hurricanes have increased (exact opposite of reality).

[Buzzie]

Can anyone please tell me how a tax can change the weather? Seriously.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Carbon tax monetizes pollution. That way, for example, a net-polluting province like Alberta can buy carbon credits from, say, Ontario, when they build wind turbines. The net carbon emission is set by government and then the various companies and industry set up a carbon exchange board. It is a bureaucratic morass more political than functional or pragmatic.

The true purpose of the carbon tax is to make petroleum products more expensive so that alternative forms of energy production that are otherwise far more expensive can compete for market share and turn a profit - like solar, wind and other more exotic methods.

The underlying reason for the carbon tax is that by curbing the amount of fossil fuels consumed, less carbon is released to the atmosphere and thus the carbon load in the air can be mitigated. It is a sound approach but it puts the cart before the horse. It is not reasonable to pass along the expense of 'climate change' to the public in order to sell us cleaner but far more expensive known energy sources.

What should be happening is a redoubled and even tripled effort to explore truly new sources of energy production by actually doing pure R&D. The cost of that research would be many magnitudes less expensive than the present model will cost the average global citizen.

The carbon tax is a form of centralized control that will ensure advances in fundamental research do not take place and the inefficient and expensive solar and wind technologies can be rolled out en masse.

Stop-gap measures like these are always the brainchild of the elite who continually invent ways to centralize control and monetize every aspect of our lives.

The carbon tax is a hoax.

[kfm27917]

i am a new member. I wonder if anybody has done an analysis of how much military fuel consumption (major powers) contributes to CO2 emmissions.

[Intranuclear]

Posted by kfm27917 (here)
i am a new member. I wonder if anybody has done an analysis of how much military fuel consumption (major powers) contributes to CO2 emmissions.

Well, you could google it: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22m...w=1920&bih=977

But the numbers reported I think are garbage. All you have to do is google the number of commercial vessels (oil tankers, shipping tankers, etc) and compare that to number of military planes and military navy numbers and get a very good sense that most articles are extremely biased and use magic math, kind of like the magic math used in climate change.

[AutumnW]

Be careful or carfuel, that you aren't being patsies for Big Oil. Climate IS changing. To dismiss that is foolhardy. There may be other major factors at play here, but carbon emissions are likely a big part of the problem.

I recently moved so I am walking distance to everything, so not reliant on a vehicle.But I also had to move because a hurricane blew through last winter and savaged my neighbourhood. Huge second growth trees falling everywhere. This is entirely uncustomary for this part of the world. It NEVER used to happen. Since 2005, this is the second hurricane to hit here. That was December. Then in February we got 2 feet of snow that stuck around until mid March. Again, unprecedented until recently. Now it is happening yearly.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Although Pielke sees no link between hurricane frequency and climate change, he does not deny that climate change exists, and that humans are contributing to it. He thinks that changing human behaviour, even if it happens immediately, will have little effect on the problems:

(from his Wikipedia entry)

"Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions."[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12]

On the issues of hurricanes and climate change he has argued that the trend in increasing damage from hurricanes is primarily due to societal and economic factors (chiefly an increase in wealth density), rather than change in the frequency and intensity.[13]"

B.

[mpennery]

This is not a debate about climate change Fellow Aspirant and AutumnW. Yes, we all know climate has been changing for billions of years, long before we were here, and will continue to do so long after we’re gone. However, the IPCC has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to manipulate and cherrypick data to suit their alarmist, globalist agenda. It’s founders have admitted in emails released by wikileaks exactly this and justified their unethical unscientific actions by essentially saying it was better for the planet to lie on the side of protecting it. They cannot therefore be trusted for science.
I can easily present a case showing ALL establishment narratives of climate change and global warming are based on exactly the same manipulated data but this is not the place for this. The purpose of this post was to dispel the false claim that climate change, whether natural or man influenced, has NOT led to extreme weather events. And this conclusion was reached by dozens of scientists in peer reviewed journals from the side of the alarmists!
Also, one or two strange hurricanes in one part of the world cannot be used to make judgements on GLOBAL trends. Did you even read the findings? 🙄

Matt

[Fellow Aspirant]

I always check out the bona fides of anyone making sweeping claims about our planet. I'd not heard of this guy before, so my first step was to have a look at his history, thus, the Wiki check. I have yet to read the full article, but I will now, as he seems a reasonable person. And I say reasonable, because he is on record as believing in the statements published by the IPCC. As such, I find it very curious that you think that you can would use his data to slag the IPCC. He agrees with them. No one can use his claims as "proof" that climate change is a hoax.

His departures from most ways of responding to the threat of climate change seems to be that a) climate change is not responsible for extreme weather events, and b) that most of the pushed for changes with respect to human behaviour (ex carbon taxes) are a matter of "too little too late".

I look forward to finding out what human behaviour modifications he has in mind to ameliorate the already evident changes to our planet that climate change is bringing.

Brian

[chancy]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Be careful or carfuel, that you aren't being patsies for Big Oil. Climate IS changing. To dismiss that is foolhardy. There may be other major factors at play here, but carbon emissions are likely a big part of the problem.

I recently moved so I am walking distance to everything, so not reliant on a vehicle.But I also had to move because a hurricane blew through last winter and savaged my neighbourhood. Huge second growth trees falling everywhere. This is entirely uncustomary for this part of the world. It NEVER used to happen. Since 2005, this is the second hurricane to hit here. That was December. Then in February we got 2 feet of snow that stuck around until mid March. Again, unprecedented until recently. Now it is happening yearly.

Hello everyone:

Piers Corbyn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

is the man when it comes to climate change. We started out as global warming and now we are at climate change. A way to make people believe in global warming BUT the earth is cooling so climate change is correct BUT the global warming activists have led us down a trail of baloney that most people believe without ever checking the evidence.
Piers Corbyn definitely believes in climate change..just not warming....

chancy

[yelik]

As I understand changes in the sun's activity and possibly wider causes changes to the climate across the solar system.

To me pollution is the big killer which has been blamed on the masses to support the global warming hoax and climate change for the purposes of stripping wealth.

100 Global Energy and chemical firms are responsible for some 71% of global pollution

So changes in the sun's activity and increase in global pollution will alter weather patterns, especially when they have weaponized weather by ionising the atmosphere through chemtrailing and HAAP technology which mess with the jetstream

[mpennery]

[sigh] The environmental movement has been highjacked by this global warming /climate change NONSENSE. We argue over these fake issues while REAL environmental catastrophes (corporate and government created) go unreported and ignored.

https://www.iceagenow.info/25-simple...-for-a-change/

25 simple bullet points proving CO2 does not cause global warming: by a geologist for a change
June 9, 2019 by Robert
‘Bullet points’ proving CO2’s innocence.

Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022. Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.
– Geologist Dr. Roger Higgs
___________________

25 simple bullet points proving CO2 does not cause global warming: by a geologist for a change

Dr Roger Higgs,
Geoclastica Ltd, Technical Note 2019-11,
6th April 2019, on ResearchGate

We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves.



https://www.researchgate.net/publica...T_for_a_change

Here are the 25 bullet points proving CO2’s innocence:

1) Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022 (see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.

2) IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in manmade or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by CO2 emissions. Moreover its appointed authors, mostly government and university researchers, are nearly all biased by strong vested interests in AGW, i.e. reputations (publications, lectures) & continuance of salaries & research grants. Similarly, major universities have abandoned their scientific impartiality & integrity by hosting research institutes mandated to confirm & act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.



3) The often-repeated ‘97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man’s fault’ (CO2 emissions) is untrue. It refers in fact to surveys of just a relatively small group of ‘climate scientists’ (a fairly new type of scientist, with strong incentives for bias; see Bullets 2 & 15), moreover only those who are ‘actively publishing’.

4) ‘Climate change denier’ & ‘global warming denier’ are despicable & dishonest terms for ‘AGW doubters’. No educated person disputes global warming, as thermometers measured 1°C rise from 1850 to 2016 (with pauses).

5) The ‘Greenhouse Hypothesis’, on which IPCC’s belief in AGW is based, is that atmospheric gases trap heat. But this old (19th century) notion is merely an idea, not a hypothesis, because it is untestable, impossible to prove in a laboratory as no experimental container can imitate Earth’s uncontained, well-mixed atmosphere.

6) IPCC computer models are so full of assumptions as to be extremely unreliable, e.g. forecast warming for 1995 to 2015 turned out to be 2-3 times too high ! A likely reason is that the greenhouse idea is nonsense, as explained in recent publications by several scientists. See Bullet 19 for an equally drastic failure of IPCC models. See also https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-bl...-of-the-water/ https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-...ory-1980-2018/

7) For about 75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to 15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, CO2 enabling plant photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown.

8) Through the last 12,000 years (our current Holocene interglacial period), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm (parts per million), near plant-starvation level, until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply. Nevertheless CO2 today it is still only 412ppm, i.e. under half of one-tenth of 1% of our atmosphere



9) Until man began adding CO2 about 1850, warming (determined from ‘proxies’ like tree rings) since the 1600AD Little Ice Age peak was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in ice cores). A simple explanation is CO2 release by ocean water, whose CO2-holding capacity decreases upon warming.

10) Supporting this sign that CO2 is a consequence, not cause, of global warming, a published study of 1980-2011 measurements showed that changes in warming rate precede changes in CO2’s growth rate, by about a year.

11) Since the 1850 start of man’s additions, CO2’s rise has generally accelerated, without reversals. In stark contrast, the post-1850 to present-day continuance of warming out of the Little Ice Age was interrupted by frequent small coolings of 1-3 years (some relatable to ‘volcanic winters’), plus two 30-year coolings (1878 to 1910, 1944 to 1976), and the famous 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ (Wiki).

12) This unsteady modern warming instead resembles the unsteady rise of the sun’s magnetic output from 1901 toward a rare solar ‘Grand Maximum’ peaking in 1991, the first in 1700 years !

13) Modern warming reached a peak in February 2016. Since then, Earth has cooled for 3 years (now April 2019).

14) The ‘Svensmark Theory’ says increased solar magnetic flux warms Earth by deflecting cosmic rays, thus reducing cloudiness, allowing more of the sun’s warmth to heat the land and ocean instead of being reflected. In support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 32 years (1979-2011) showed decreasing cloud cover.

15) Vociferous IPCC-involved climate scientist Dr Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the German government’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, recipient of a US$1 million personal research grant from a private foundation, wrongly said in his 2008 article ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’: “there is no viable alternative … [to CO2 as driver of modern warming from 1940 to 2005 because] … different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase” during that period. Yet nine years earlier, in 1999, famous physicist Dr Michael Lockwood (Wiki; FRS) wrote, in ‘A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field During the Past 100 Years’, published in prestigious Nature journal: “the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” and 2.3 since 1901 !! See for yourselves the striking overall 1964-91 climb in solar-magnetic output, recorded by the strong overall fall in detected neutrons (proportional to cosmic rays), in graph 3 here … https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi



16) Lockwood showed averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value ! Bullets 17 & 18 likewise back Svensmark’s theory…

17) … after the previous solar Grand Maximum (4th century, long before industrial CO2), in the next decades Earth warmed to near or above today’s temperature. Then ‘sawtooth’ cooling proceeded, through the Dark Ages and ‘Medieval Warm Period’, into the Little Ice Age, paralleling a 1,000-year unsteady solar decline; and …

18) … before that, between 8000 and 2000BC, Earth was occasionally warmer than today for hundreds if not thousands of years, as shown by tree rings, shrunken glaciers, etc.. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC into the Little Ice Age paralleled unsteady solar decline following the Holocene’s ‘super-Grand’ Maximum near 3000BC.

19) This 4,500-year cooling contradicts IPCC computer models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in CO2. This is the ‘The Holocene Temperature Conundrum’ of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.

20) Embarrassingly for AGW promoters, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18) was already, ironically, named the ‘Holocene Climatic Optimum’, before today’s CO2/AGW hysteria began. The warmth probably benefitted human social development. Indeed, it was cold episodes, bringing drought and famine, that ended civilisations.

21) Cross-correlating post-1880 graphs of solar-magnetic flux versus Earth’s temperature suggests a 25-year timelag, such that the 2016 peak temperature corresponds to the 1991 solar peak. The lag is probably due to the ocean’s high thermal inertia due to its enormous volume and high heat capacity, hence slow response to warming.

22) IPCC, ignoring the possibility of such a time-lag, claims that simultaneous global warming (until 2016) and solar weakening (since 1991) must mean that warming is driven by CO2 !

23) The last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived ! CO2 was then about 275ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8).

24) The simultaneous rise of temperature & CO2 is a ‘spurious correlation’. Warming’s real cause was a solar build-up to a rare Grand Maximum, which man’s industrialisation accompanied by chance. So IPCC demonising CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless & ineffectual efforts to reduce it.

25) Global cooling now in progress since February 2016 can be predicted to last at least 28 years (i.e. to 2044), matching the sun’s 28-year decline from 1991 to today, and allowing for the 25-year time-lag (Bullet 21). Inescapable conclusion: IPCC is wrong − the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming.

Here’s some information about Dr. Higgs
http://www.geoclastica.com/BudeGeoWalks.htm

Thanks to Dr Roger Higgs for this link

Contact rogerhiggs@hotmail.com for literature sources for any of the aforementioned ‘Inconvenient Facts’

[TomKat]

It appears carbon dioxide CANNOT cause warming. Here's a blurb from last night's Coast to Coast guest:

In the first half, research geophysicist with the United States Geological Survey for 27 years, Dr. Peter Langdon Ward weighed in on the climate change controversy. He helped develop and manage a major national research program, chaired a committee at the White House, testified before Congress, worked on a committee for Vice President Gore, and published more than 50 scientific papers. Ward confirmed that climate change and global warming are real, but instead of being caused by greenhouse gases, he argued that it was brought about by ozone depletion. Though the majority of scientists subscribe to the greenhouse warming hypothesis, Ward suggested that it's based on faulty assumptions and has never been scientifically proven. The theory that greenhouse gases absorb thermal and infrared energy from Earth which cause the planet to get hotter is flawed because "a body cannot be warmed by its own radiation," he stated.

The ozone layer, while continually replenishing itself, becomes depleted and thinner because of the overuse of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and this is what has led to the warming, Ward continued. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, phased out the use of substances responsible for ozone depletion, but it was recently discovered that since 2010, parts of China had a major increase in the use of chemicals such as CFCs. Once this was revealed by international agencies, the Chinese government took action to stop the usage of these problematic substances, Ward reported. Climate changes, he added, are not so much cyclic as erratic, as exemplified by the chaotic effects brought upon by volcanic activity.

[BMJ]

Creator Of Global-Warming's Infamous "Hockey Stick" Chart Loses 'Climate-Science' Lawsuit

Quote:
"Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.....

Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the “hockey stick graph” that appears to show global temperatures taking a noticeable swing upward in the era when humanity has been burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

The graph was first published in 1998, prominently featured in the 2001 UN Climate Report, and formed part of Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth."

Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...cience-lawsuit

[rogparan]

Posted by mpennery (here)
We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves.

Fully Agree .. and I would like to add a kind of "counter-inteligence" argumentation,
that is not in the 25 listed, and does not need much knowledge to comprove it.

The control of CO2, ultimately implies the control of Life Resources,
(because plants use the CO2 to form organic molécules and free oxigen)
(that feed all the whole food chain).

At first, the more CO2, plants (phytoplanktons) and (sun)Light, more O2 and organic molecules could be produced by nature.

that way, CO2 tax can be seen as an Life TAX, and could be considered an absurd.

note, I'm not talking anythink against pollution control -- its only about the CO2 and the organic substances.

CO2 it's innocent .. represents only 0,035% of atmosphere gases