Category Archives: United Nations

More Alarmist Predictions That Did Not Happen


When you next read in your newspaper that global warming will visit some terrible thing upon you, try to think back to any of the predictions of doom that have ever really taken place.  

From time to time I have posted, prediction after prediction made by the alarmists that have failed to come true. In the meantime, I write letters to the editors asking why they continue to publish the latest warmer prediction. I ask, “do you ever, (the editor of the newspaper), review the alarmist’s previous predictions”? 

Enough of that. Here are a new batch of predictions that haven’t come true.  The following is a reblog of Not A Lot Of People Know That posting titled “April Fools”:

Continue reading

Dr. Judith Curry Believes the RoadMap to Zero CO2 Emissions Is Infeasible.


 

 

I have promised some critical views from skeptics regarding the Paris Agreement Roadmap to zero CO2 emissions by 2050.  If you need to get up to speed regarding  the Paris Agreement Roadmap,  please review my last two postings. 

Let’s begin with Judith Curry’s thoughts on this topic from her posting of 25 March titled A roadmap for meeting Paris emissions reductions goals”.

JC reflections

Apart from the issues raised in this paper, there are several other elephants in this room:  there is growing evidence of much smaller climate sensitivity to CO2; and even if these drastic emissions reductions occurred, we would see little impact on the climate in the 21st century (even if you believe the climate models).

I think that what this paper has done is important:  laying out what it would actually take to make such drastic emissions reductions.  Even if we solve the electric power problem, there is still the problem of transportation, not to mention land use.  Even if all this was technically possible, the cost would almost certainly be infeasible.

As Oliver Geden states, its time to ask policy makers whether they are going to attempt do this or not.  It seems rather futile to make token emissions reductions at substantial cost.

Deciding that all this is impractical or infeasible seems like a rational response to me.  The feasible responses are going with nuclear power or undertaking a massive R&D effort to develop new emission free energy technologies.  Independent of all this, we can reduce vulnerability from extreme weather events (whether or not they are exacerbated by AGW) and the slow creep of sea level rise.

 

Dr. Curry’s remarks are very succinct.  To be a success, the roadmap requires many inventions that to date have been sought after but not delivered.  And she points out, as noted in this blog on a number of occasions, the climate sensitivity used by the warmers gives temperature increases that are unsupportable.  This roadmap is necessary in large part because it is predicated on those exaggerated temperatures the climate models produce.  That is Dr. Curry’s “elephants in the room.”

And she thinks it is way too costly.  I believe she is spot on.

Dr. Currys posting can be accessed this link https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/25/a-roadmap-for-meeting-paris-emissions-reductions-goals/

Some additional comments to follow in the next posting.

cbdakota

Is The Paris Agreement Realistic? Part 1 Background


Time for some background on the Paris Agreement (PA) that was adopted by consensus in December of 2015 at the 21st Conference of Parties (21COP), a UN organization.  These COP meetings are gatherings of warmers, NGOs, and politicians (seeking to tax and regulate their citizens) usually at some exotic place. The attendance is in the 20,000 range, most of them traveling to Bali or the like in fossil fuel powered jet airplanes in order to attend several weeks of meetings in large air conditioned rooms. A little bit of hypocrisy on display, perhaps.

The objective for the PA in general is described by Wiki as follows:

“(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”

Continue reading

Dr. Judith Curry Says Global Climate Models Are Not Good Enough To Make Policy Decisions


 

Dr. Judith Curry posts  “Climate Models for the layman”.  The Executive Summary may be enough for some readers.   Here is the link to the full posting where the reader can gain an in depth understanding of Dr. Curry’s thinking that she used to derive the Key Summary Points shown below: 

currygcmfullpage

 

 

cbdakota

The Paris Agreement Has It Wrong–Developed Nations Are Not The Primary Sources Of Greenhouse Gases.


The website EnergyMatters’ posting titled “Attributing the blame for global warming” is one of the most intriguing postings I have read lately.   The posting discusses a report made by a UN group to determine who is responsible for the man-made greenhouse gases that the warmers say have damaged the Earth. The Paris Agreement, for example, blames the Developed Nations and wants them to pay reparations to the rest of the world. The posting, on the contrary, persuasively argues that the developed nations aren’t not the primary sources of greenhouse gases.  Further the folly of the “Developed Nations are at fault theme” is that when projected into the future the evidence says it is even less true.  For those of us that believe that nature is the primary forcing agent with regard to global climate change, who is to “blame” is not particularly our big issue, but it is for the warmers.  This posting seems to point out they continue to get it wrong:

Continue reading

Daily Mail Says–NOAA Duped World Politicians With Manipulated Global Warming Data


Whistleblower Dr. John Bates really has stirred up a hornet’s nest.  He says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s(NOAA)  global temperature revisions made just before the Paris COP meeting are suspect.  Skeptics have been critical of those revisions from the very beginning.  The UK Daily Mail posted “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.”    The Daily Mail opened up their posting with this:

“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

dupped-politicians

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

Continue reading

Undoing Obama Administration Regulations


There are many regulations  issued by ex-President Obama that the current Administration would like to rescind.  But if you have been following this issue, you would have probably heard that only new regulations passed within the last 60 days can be rescinded by President Trump.  In fact it appears the law may not be so limiting.  One of the authors of the Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA), Todd Gaziano says the law gives the Republicans much more power to overrule the regulations.  Scott Johnson posted on the PowerLine website “Review This.” A review of Kim Strassel’s WSJ posting “A GOP regulatory game changer”—(Behind a paywall.).

“The accepted wisdom in Washington is that the CRA can be only used against new regulations, those finalized in the past 60 legislative days.  That would allow the Republicans to reach back to June 2016 , teeing up 180 rules or so for override.  Included are biggies like the Interior Department’s “streams” rule, the Labor Department’s overtime-pay rule, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s methane rule.

“But what Mr Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.”

Strassel goes on to explain”

“ It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating  a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60 day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—which ever comes first.

“There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.”

Also from the posting is the following:

cra-regulatory-loop-hole

 

Some of the regulations that deserve to be overruled may have followed the rule by submitting a report to Congress which apparently makes them exempt.  Let’s hope that no report was submitted for the most of them.

 

cbdakota