All leisure, travel and sports activities are not necessary so to most people, it seems like they are just levels of the same thing. Car racing, jets(travel), luxury yachts, speed boats, quads, 4×4 trucks, helicopters are all high fuel use so where do we draw a line. Over consumption and waste are real issues but high fuel use is only an issue if you believe the advocacy around CO2. People are gradually catching on that the Climate Change issue is much more than just science and physics. They also have to believe in the input assumptions and theories and the projections from climate models and then impact forecasts from notoriously unreliable economic models. Even if you believe the warming disaster forecasts, it may take much less GDP and be better for the environment and the economy to adapt to the warming versus spend trillions and cripple the economy to try control climate by reducing the increase in CO2.
What if we waste all that money and debt and it turns out that the warming is all due to natural causes?
The whole world votes on Climate Change every day with their behavior. They choose to continue to grow crops, feed their families, heat their homes, commute to work, power their industries, run their electronics, drive, fly and travel to the beach, the parks and mountains. They spend their money to survive and to enjoy life.
Climate Change has been sold as an end of the world crisis but people can sense the hype, the over sold, the exaggerations… No matter how passionately anyone “believes” in Human caused Climate Change, the reality is that almost no one sees or experiences real reasons to force them to change their behavior.
Another Reality is that Cheap plentiful energy has been really good for the world.
People are gradually catching on that Climate Change is much more than just science and physics. They also have to believe in the input assumptions and theories and the projections from climate models and then impact forecasts from notoriously unreliable economic models. It may take much less GDP and be better for the environment and the economy to adapt versus spend trillions to try reduce CO2.
The theories project that adding CO2 from burning hydrocarbons will destabilize the global climate but the world has been through a lot of natural glacial and warming cycles. It has been much hotter, had much more CO2 (up to 20X), had faster temperature and CO2 changes and yet runaway warming has never happened. This is what is expected as all long term systems in nature are self-correcting. The climate changes naturally and the climate is within natural ranges so is there really much effect from man?
In a nonpolitical world, this Testimony by this prominent of an expert would be viewed by anyone who understands science as Checkmate, game-set-match, QED to the Climate Alarmist view of CO2 as a Climate Control Knob.
The GHG Theory and the Positive Feedback theory both manifest themselves ( in Climate Models) first as an increased temperature in the mid Troposphere which is the main layer measured by the balloon and satellite data sets.
None of the 4 balloon or 3 satellite data sets are measuring anything close to the predicted increases so the predicted “Climate Sensitivity ” to changes in CO2 is over estimated by several times. Carbon Dioxide has continued to rise and over a third of the total man made CO2 has been produced in the last 20 years and yet reality is that Temperatures have not risen as predicted. The empirical measurements say the theory is busted.
The surface temperature data sets show more warming but are also way below predictions despite the “hottest year ever” claims. The surface set is subject to UHI error , adjustments, estimates for large areas like the arctic and questionable handling of ocean data (70% of the area!).
It is also worthwhile to read the appendix as he shows how many of the claims about adverse effects of climate change are not happening. There is no increase in droughts, wildfires, crop losses and he could have included actual decreases in tornados and hurricanes and hurricane strength.
This has become such a stupid political football and is being used to justify expensive and damaging policies such as denying cheap fossil fuel energy to the third world which will continue to cost many lives.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Oh – wrong doomsday.
The Earth is warming! The Earth is warming! Oh – wrong doomsday. No amount of shrieking about the warmest year ever (only by hundredths of a degree and only on some Surface data sets) will offset the fact that the Model forecasts are too high by 50 to 150% despite large increases in CO2 in the last 25 years. The models track temperatures before 2000 because they have been matched to that data but forecasts based on high CO2 sensitivity are where the models over forecast temperature increases. Note that surface temperatures are estimated for as much as 60% of the world area versus measured and then adjusted which may be why surface data sets no longer reliably track the satellite temperatures. Climate Sensitivity and specifically positive feed backs to changes in CO2 content in the models appears to be way over estimated.
The climate is changing! The climate is changing! Oh – the climate has changed for billions of years. There have been hotter periods, worse storms, longer droughts, more hurricanes, higher CO2 levels and so on in history so this is all within the normal range of natural variation. The earth has warmed up since the little ice age and vast majority of glacier melting occurred long before man added enough CO2 to theoretically affect climate( the 1980’s). The warming from the positive half of the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) from late 80’s to 2005 appears to have been mis-attributed to CO2.
The estimates of Sensitivity are continuously being adjusted down and most estimates are now below the so called safe limit of 2 C. What Crisis?
This hysterical nonsense is way over estimated and over hyped. Runaway warming is very unlikely and mild warming periods have always been good for humans.
Scary climate model forecasts of large warming like 4 degrees C or higher depend on two separate theories. Carbon Dioxide is a GHG(Green House Gas) but doubling the CO2 alone can only add about 1 C because of the logarithmic decline in back radiation from CO2 let alone balancing from negative feedbacks. The forecasts of greater than 1 degree C assume a second theory of large positive feedbacks (amplification) from large increases in humidity which is supposed to cause runaway warming. The 30+ years of balloon and satellite readings of the Troposphere show that is not happening. (Google missing hot spot.) The positive feedback or amplification theory has always been suspect because positive feedbacks in nature have to be local, short term or balanced by negative feedback in long life systems.
Bottom line is the climate models based on positive feedbacks forecast warming rates that are high by 3 to 4X versus reality so it is now becoming apparent that the warming is way overestimated. The forecasts are so far outside reasonable confidence ranges that CO2 levels cannot be considered a major climate control knob. There are new peer reviewed papers that have been published since the IPCC AR5 that have dramatically reduced the climate sensitivity to less than 1.5 degrees C.
Glaciers, sea ice, ocean heating, cycles, storms, weather, etc are all just distractions and noise. The main theory that ¾ of the warming is based on doesn’t work and is wrong! The scare is over but the general public will take a while to see that man cannot control the climate. The next big realization is that mild warming and higher CO2 levels are net positive for the planet!!
The world has been constantly bombarded with the message that 97% of scientists “Believe” in Global Warming and that man is “to blame” for some of that warming. Let us breakdown that politically worded message. The world has warmed up about .8C since the Little Ice Age; so yes, it has warmed and yes, man has influenced climate by deforestation, irrigation, desertification, urbanization (UHI), real air pollution and the effect of CO2 but how much of the temperature rise is natural? Science is not about belief but about the scientific method where theories are proposed, facts are collected and theories are tested. Scientists should not jump to conclusions and have to be open to changing their minds if the theories fail.
Now that the climate model forecasts are shown to be overestimating the warming and that climate sensitivity estimates have to be reduced, the real question is how many scientists would be willing ”to stake their lives”(interesting phrase!) on the possibility that CO2 levels will cause enough warming to cause problems. Mild warming has historically been good for the planet and humanity.
Strongly held religious and political beliefs have caused and continue to cause wars, genocides and atrocities. That is why most of the world has tried to separate the powers of the government, the church and the military because sometimes those beliefs are wrong. A Canadian example is the combination of religion, politics and social science with great intentions created the residential school system.
Do you not find it ironic that someone with a theology degree would call for people with different “belief” to be burned at the stake (sorry – suffer consequences). Skeptical scientists are people who are still trying to determine the correct answer using the scientific method.
Terms like “Denial and Denier” are political/religious terms and have no place in a science discussion. We should immediately distrust anyone using terms like that because they are abusing their positions to make political points.
Many people with no scientific background just adopt the thinking that comes down from the leaders of their social and political groups. The need to belong is stronger than the need to confirm the “received knowledge”. Current Political and social leaders are abusing that trust as they use it to create a political divide of them and us to the point of demonizing or dehumanizing the other side so they can justify “burning them at the stake” for holding a different opinion.This did not start out as a scam but now many people’s trust is being misused for political purposes.
Climate Change – Note that forecasts of large warming like 4 degrees C depend on two separate theories. Carbon Dioxide is a GHG(Green House Gas) but doubling the CO2 alone can only add about 1 C because of the logarithmic decline in back radiation from CO2 let alone balancing from negative feedbacks. The forecasts of greater than 1 degree C assume a second theory of large positive feedbacks (amplification) from large increases in humidity which is supposed to cause runaway warming. The 30+ years of balloon and satellite reading of the Troposphere show that is not happening. (Google missing hot spot.) The positive feedback or amplification theory has always been suspect for engineers. Positive feedbacks in nature have to be local, short term or balanced by negative feedback in long life systems.
Bottom line is the climate models based on positive feedbacks forecast warming rates that are high by 3 to 4X versus reality so the warming is way overestimated. The forecasts are so far outside reasonable confidence ranges that CO2 levels cannot be considered a major climate control knob.
Glaciers, sea ice, ocean heating, cycles, storms, weather, etc are all just distractions and noise. The main theory that ¾ of the warming is based on doesn’t work and is wrong! The scare is over but the general public will take a while to see that man cannot control the climate.
The next big realization is that mild warming and higher CO2 levels are net positive for the planet!!
A good level of CO2 for most plants is 1500 to 2000 ppm versus current level of 400 ppm(from Greenhouse experience). Plants die at less than 200 ppm and 1000’s of feet of biomass was laid down in the Permian when CO2 levels were 7,000 to 9,000 ppm. Note humans/mammals breathe out 40,000 to 50,000 ppm every breath!