Michaels: 'Do you really expect scientists who have been paid for decades to study the effects of warming and to create models that by the way have too much warming, do you expect them to testify in front of Congress when asked do we need more research? They would say no, it's really a non-problem? They'd get thrown out of their jobs if they did that.'
'Surface temperature of the planet is warmer than it was a hundred years ago about 9/10th of a degree Celsius...It's not a lot. There are two periods of warning, one in the early 20th Century that could not have been caused by human beings because we hadn't put enough CO2 in the air, and one in the later part of the 20th Century that either slows down or ends depending upon whose data you use somewhere in the late 1990s, only to resume with the big El Nino that covered the news the last couple of years.'
'So the theory is right, but the application of it is wrong. It is nowhere near as warm as it's supposed to be.'
'There are 32 families of computer models that are used by the United Nations, each government sponsored. And all of them are predicting far, far too much warming.'
'In "Science" magazine in late 2016, and there was a paper that was published by a French climate modeler called "The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning," and in it, he speaks of parameterizing -- we could say fudging -- the models to give, his words, an anticipated acceptable range of results.'
'The models systematically predict that as you go up in the atmosphere in the tropics which are 40% of the earth that the temperature should rise dramatically as you go further up in the atmosphere. So when you get to the level of the jet stream, the computer models are predicting seven times. I didn't say seven-tenths of a degree, I said seven times more warming than is being observed.'
'It's a fantastic systematic error, and again, that along with the difference between the surface temperatures or rather the lower atmospheric temperatures and what's being observed, that's sufficient to kill the endangerment finding.'
Fracking, that's right. And so we're substituting natural gas which is cheaper for coal for electrical generation, and that produces about half as much CO2 per unit electricity as a coal plant does, and so our emissions are going down,
NYT asks Geologist and Moonwalker Dr. Harrison Schmitt about UN IPCC report:
The New York Times’ Nicholas St. Fleur: "...as one of the leading climate change deniers, when there was a huge report that just came out last week [talking about] the risk and what is going to happen … as soon as 2040. I’d love to know if you see any irony in your views on people who denied man walking on the moon vs. your views on climate change.”
Schmitt: “I see no irony at all. I’m a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change, it is going through climate change at the present time. The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change? Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence." [Note: Schmitt joins other moonwalkers and NASA scientist in climate skepticism. See: New Study: EARTH IS SAFE FROM ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ SAY THE MEN WHO PUT MAN ON THE MOON]
"The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns..."
"I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the U.S. government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear. That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research."...
"If NASA’s interested in a particular conclusion, then that’s the way the proposals come in for funding. So it’s a very, very serious issue, and I hope the science writers in this room will start to dig deeply into whether or not science has been corrupted by the source of funds that are now driving what people are doing in research, and what their conclusions are.”
The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy infrastructure. One environmental economist said the UN’s goal is “not feasible.” Scientists have also called into question spending trillions based on flawed climate models.
That’s a price tag of between $51.2 trillion and $122 trillion by 2050 just for energy investments. Environmental economist Richard Tol said, given the high cost, the IPCC’s report is totally unrealistic. “No, 1.5 degrees Celsius is not feasible,” Tol, an economics professor at the University of Sussex, told The Daily Caller News Foundation via email.
Donna 'The IPCC does not do science. The IPCC is a bureaucracy whose purpose is to write reports. The primary function of those reports is to pave the way for UN climate treaties. A set of facts need to be agreed-upon by all parties in advance, so that negotiators can start from the same page. IPCC reports get written by government-appointed scientists, according to predetermined guidelines. Portions of IPCC reports then get re-written by politicians, bureaucrats, and diplomats (in effect, this is an unofficial round of negotiating, in advance of the official negotiations that take place later). International treaties are political instruments. The IPCC exists to make climate treaties possible. The ‘science’ involved has therefore been selected and massaged to serve a political purpose. Let’s ditch the naiveté. How likely is it that experts appointed by governments that have spent billions fighting climate change, would conclude that man-made climate change doesn’t exist?'