A Climate Depot Exclusive
MADRID, Spain – How to Talk About Climate Change Issues & Alleged “Solutions” – 2020
INTRODUCTION: Global warming hype and hysteria continue to dominate the news media, academia, schools, the United Nations, and the U.S. government. The Green New Deal being pushed on Capitol Hill and in the 2020 presidential race is based upon “solving” an alleged “climate crisis.”
Teen school-skipping climate activists are testifying to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations and young children are being recruited for lawsuits against the U.S. government for its alleged climate “inaction.” The phrase ‘climate emergency’ has emerged as the favorite for climate campaigners.
But the arguments put forth by global warming advocates grossly distort the true facts on a host of issues, ranging from rising sea levels and record temperatures to melting polar caps and polar bears, among others. In short, there is no “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency.”
The UN, climate activists, the media, and academia are using the climate scare as an opportunity to lobby for their alleged “solutions” which require massive government expansion and central planning.
This talking points memo is designed to arm people with the voices of the rising number of scientists, the latest data, peer-reviewed studies on key facts so they can better engage in climate change debate with those advocating the UN/Al Gore/Green New Deal positions.
The global warming movement has morphed into a coalition of “climate cause deniers.” They deny the hundreds of causes and variables that influence climate change and instead try to pretend that carbon dioxide is the climate “control knob” overriding all the others factors and they pretend that every bad weather even it somehow “proof” of their “global warming.”
Footnotes and weblinks are provided to source material in this document.
Claims of an alleged “97% consensus” of scientists are “pulled from thin air”
Despite former Vice President Al Gore’s claim in 2019 that “It’s beyond consensus of 99 percent of the scientists,” the facts say otherwise. There is absolutely no scientific “consensus” about catastrophic man-made climate change. Claims that 97 or 99 percent of scientists agree are not backed up by any “credible” study or poll.
UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.”
Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer in 2017 drew parallels to the “consensus” on witches. “I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 percent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed,” Happer quipped.
CO2 is not the “control knob” of the climate
There is a lack of connection between higher levels of CO2 and warming. During the Ice Age, CO2 levels were 10 times higher than they are today.
There are many, many factors which impact climate – including volcanoes, wind oscillations, solar activity, ocean cycles, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, and land use. CO2 is just one factor, and not the control knob of the climate.
University of Pennsylvania geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack has declared, “CO2 is not the villain that it has been portrayed.”
Today’s levels of roughly 400 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 are not alarming. In geologic terms, today’s CO2 levels are among the lowest in earth’s history.
“Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets. Its scientific nonsense,” University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted.
There is no “climate emergency”
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, a former Trump Science Advisor ripped the claims of a “climate emergency” in 2019. “We are here [at the UN climate summit in Madrid] under false pretenses, wasting our time talking about a non-existent ‘climate emergency.’” Happer explained from Madrid. “It’s hard to understand how much further the shrillness can go as this started out as ‘global warming’ then it was ‘climate change’ or ‘global weirding’, ‘climate crisis’, ‘climate emergency’. What next? But stick around it will happen. I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the holiness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end.”
University of Colorado’s Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explained how the UN helped shape the hysterical nonsense of a ‘climate emergency.” The UN IPCC switched to “extreme scenarios” in the most recent report and thus “helped to create the climate apocalypse, a scary but imaginary future,” Pielke explained in 2019.
The world is not going to end in 11 or 12 years due to “climate change.”
But relax. AOC is wrong.
Climate Tipping Points date back to at least 1864. Explained: “As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,” and he warned of “climatic excess, as to threaten the depravation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’”
In 1989, the UN was trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric to the public. U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989 – According to the 1989 AP article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”
It’s difficult to keep up with whether it is hours, days, months, or a millennium. Here are a few recent examples of others predicting “tipping points” of various duration.
Months: Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009
Years: 2009: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only Has First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’ or Flashback Oct .2009: WWF: ‘Five years to save world’
Decades: 1982: UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the ‘world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.’
Prominent scientists say don’t fear CO2 and instead tout its benefits.
Excerpt from Marc Morano’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:
“Einstein’s Successor” Touts the Virtues of Carbon Dioxide: Renowned physicist Freeman Dyson of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, who has been called Einstein’s successor, says, “I like carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. It’s good for the vegetation, the farms, essentially carbon dioxide is vital for food production, vital for wildlife.”
Princeton professor Dr. William Happer testified to Congress: “Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind … CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning.”
MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen mocked claims that carbon dioxide is dangerous. “CO2 , it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher),” he said in 2017.
Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever explained: “The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years (which, by the way, I believe you cannot really measure) we are doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels…You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal life span, but nevertheless the Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health.”
The Green New Deal is neither “Green” or “New”
“Global warming” is merely the latest environmental scare with the same big government solutions. The deal claims to be “a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War II to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”
But the “Green New Deal” has very little to do with the environment or climate. The Deal claims free college or trade schools for every citizen, ensuring “safe, affordable, adequate housing,” incomes for all who are “unable or unwilling” to work, etc.
The cost of the Green New Deal is not cheap. Bloomberg News reported in 2019 that it could cost $93 Trillion (or $65k per year per family) over 10 years, according to the group American Action Forum. “That includes between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion to meet the plan’s call to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $42.8 trillion and $80.6 trillion for its economic agenda including providing jobs and health care for all.”
The Green New Deal is using the “global warming” scare as merely the latest environmental scare with the same solutions of wealth redistribution and central planning. 2019 Green New Deal proposed “solution”: Government would have “appropriate ownership stakes” in ALL Green New Deal businesses.
Flashback: The 1970 proposed solution to overpopulation: Amherst College professor Leo Marx warned in 1970 about the “global rate of human population growth. All of this is only to say that, on ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.”
Architects of Green New Deal admit it is NOT about the climate
AOC’s staff has bragged that the Green New Deal is about wealth redistribution, not climate. Former Ocasio-Cortez campaign aide Waleed Shahid admitted that Ocasio-Cortez’s GND was a “proposal to redistribute wealth and power from the people on top to the people on the bottom.”
In addition, AOC’s Chief-Of-Staff Saikat Chakrabarti also revealed that the Green New Deal was not about climate change. The Washington Post reported in 2019: Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Claims of “Hottest Year on Record” are scientifically meaningless
Global temperatures have been holding nearly steady for almost two decades according to satellites from the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).
2018 is the 3rd year in a row of cooling global temperatures – So far 2018 was the third year in a row that the globe has cooled off from its El Nino peak set in 2015.
Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report”: “After the warm year of 2016, temperatures last year (in 2018) continued to fall back to levels of the so-called warming ‘pause’ of 2000-2015. There is no sign of any acceleration in global temperature, hurricanes or sea-level rise. These empirical observations show no sign of acceleration whatsoever.”
While 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2016 were declared the “hottest years” or “near -hottest,” based on heavily altered surface data by global warming proponents, a closer examination revealed the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.”
Earth’s temperature is not outside the range of natural variability.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever points out that “.8 degrees is what we’re discussing in global warming. [Just] .8 degrees. If you ask people in general what it is, they think – it’s 4 or 5 degrees. They don’t know it is so little.”
Award-winning climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson stated: “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified … there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic.” “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
Green New Deal would have NO impact on climate even if you believe the UN & Al Gore’s scientific claims
A 2019 study by American Enterprise Institute found that Green New Deal Would Have ‘No Effect’ On Climate Change – even if you use UN ‘science,’ GND’s temperature impact would be ‘barely distinguishable from zero’. Excerpt: A new study from the American Enterprise Institute: “In total, completely enacted, funded, and efficiently meeting goals, – things AEI does not anticipate the GND would ever do — – the full plan would cut the global increase in temperature by a whopping “0.083 to 0.173 degrees,” a number, the report says, is “barely distinguishable from zero.”
In 2019, Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels ran the Green New Deal’s alleged climate impact through the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s so-called “MAGICC” climate model simulator, developed with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency. The results? “I seriously think the effect would – at best – be barely detectable in the climate record,” Patrick Michaels explained. “The year-to-year variation is very close to the total amount of warming that would be ‘saved’ by 2100, according to EPA’s own model,” Michaels said.
Youth climate activists badly misled by adults (who should know better)
Teen school-striking activist Greta Thunberg has declared: “I want you to feel the fear I feel.” Thunberg also explains: “This is my cry for help. Why should we be studying for a future that’s soon to be no more?”
Thunberg told the UN in 2019, “How dare you!?” “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back at school on the other side of the ocean…You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.”
The Green New Deal, the UN Paris agreement, carbon taxes, and EPA regulations can’t control the climate
University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, noted in 2017 about the UN Paris agreement: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree … the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. … Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.” Lomborg added: “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”
Sea level rise is not accelerating
Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. Global sea levels have been naturally rising for ~20,000 years. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any effect of mankind on sea levels. According to tide gauges, sea levels are rising LESS than the thickness of one nickel (1.95 mm thick) per year or about the thickness of one penny (1.52 mm thick) a year.
Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s research showed: “Sea level rise, which was occurring long before humans could be blamed, has not accelerated and still amounts to only 1 inch every 10 years.”
Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report”: “Data from tide gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1–1.5 mm/year, while the satellite record suggests a rise of about 3.2 mm/year. The large difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation.”
The UN and other organizations push manmade “global warming” fears to further a political agenda
The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism designed to promote a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and “save” us from bad weather and “climate change.”
UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
In 2009, former Vice President Al Gore touted U.S. cap-and-trade legislation as a method to help bring about “global governance.”
UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.”
Greta Thunberg explained in 2019: “The climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.”
Thunberg’s advisor, environmentalist George Monbiot explained in 2019 that in order to prevent “climate breakdown,” a complete change to our way of life has to occur: “We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it,” Monbiot explained.
The UN IPCC climate panel is a political organization masquerading as a scientific body
After extensive analysis, climate data analysis John Mclean concluded: “The UN IPCC is, in fact, no more than a craftily assembled government-supported lobby group, doing what lobby groups usually do.” Essentially, the UN IPCC is a lobbying organization that seeks to enrich the UN by putting it in charge of “solving” climate change. If the UN fails to find man-made global warming a problem, it no longer has a reason to continue the climate panel and therefore cannot be in charge of proposing “solutions” to climate change.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds … I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” said Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warned in 2019 of the UN led “drive to manufacture a scientific consensus” and the ‘tremendous political pressure on scientists’ to support policy making goals.
Curry explained: “For the past three decades, the climate policy ‘cart’ has been way out in front of the scientific ‘horse’. The 1992 Climate Change treaty was signed by 190 countries before the balance of scientific evidence suggested even a discernible observed human influence on global climate. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was implemented before we had any confidence that most of the recent warming was caused by humans. There has been tremendous political pressure on the scientists to present findings that would support these treaties, which has resulted in a drive to manufacture a scientific consensus on the dangers of manmade climate change. Fossil fuel emissions as the climate ‘control knob’ is a simple and seductive idea. However this is a misleading oversimplification, since climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways.” … We have no idea how natural climate variability (solar, volcanoes, ocean circulations) will play out in the 21st century, and whether or not natural variability will dominate over man-made warming.”
Polar bear extinction fears not based on data
New 2019 Study: Polar bears ‘thriving’ as their numbers may have ‘quadrupled’ – Attempts to silence research – In The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, a book published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Dr. Susan Crockford concludes that polar bears are actually thriving: “My scientific estimates make perfect sense and they tally with what the Inuit and other Arctic residents are seeing on the ground. Almost everywhere polar bears come into contact with people, they are much more common than they used to be. It’s a wonderful conservation success story.”
STUDY: Polar bear numbers reach new highs – Population increases to the highest levels in decades. “Far from the 2007 predictions of a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers, the new report reveals that numbers have risen to the highest levels in decades. The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005. In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000–31,000)7 but additional surveys published 2015–2017 brought the total to near 28,500. However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,5009 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973.”
Gore makes no mention of polar bears in his sequel
The polar bear catastrophe that never happened has been so embarrassing that Al Gore, after helping make the bears the poster child of his cause in his first film, failed to even mention them once in his 2017 sequel.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature 2017 estimate of the current polar bear population is “the highest estimate in 50 years.”
Evolutionary biologist and paleozoologist Dr. Susan Crockford of the University of Victoria: “Polar bears have survived several episodes of much warmer climate over the last 10,000 years than exists today.”
She also wrote, “There is no evidence to suggest that the polar bear or its food supply is in danger of disappearing entirely with increased Arctic warming, regardless of the dire fairy-tale scenarios predicted by computer models.”
Extreme weather failing to follow predictions
In 2017, Prof. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. testified to Congress there was simply “no evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing.”
On nearly every metric, extreme weather is on no trend or declining trend on climate timescales. Even the UN IPCC admitted in a 2018 special report that extreme weather events have not increased. The IPCC’s special report found that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”
The IPCC report also concluded that there is “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale.”
Prof. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s 2014 testimony on the current state of weather extremes: “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”
But on nearly every metric, extreme weather is on no trend or declining trend on climate timescales. Climatologist Dr. John Christy explained why the extreme weather claims are unscientific: “The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, ‘whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.’ In other words, there is no event that would ‘falsify’ the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in any way informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is ‘anything may happen.’ In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science.”
Tornadoes failing to follow “global warming” predictions
Big tornadoes have seen a drop in frequency since the 1950s. The years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 all saw at or near record low tornado counts in the U.S.
2018 saw a record low tornado death toll & no violent (EF4 or EF5) tornadoes for first time since records began in 1950. The Weather Channel reported that the United States saw the fewest tornado deaths on record with no EF4/5 tornadoes hitting the U.S. It marked the first time that none have hit in a calendar year since that record-keeping began in 1950, according to The Washington Post.
Hurricanes are not getting worse
An August 2019 NOAA statement concluded: “It is premature to conclude … that global warming has already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity.” The NOAA statement added that U.S. landfalling hurricanes “show a slight negative trend’ since ‘late 1800s.”
Norwegian Professor Ole Humlum explained in his 2018 “State of the Climate Report”: “Tropical storm and hurricane accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) values since 1970 have displayed large variations from year to year, but no overall trend towards either lower or higher activity. The same applies for the number of hurricane landfalls in the continental United States, for which the record begins in 1851.”
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. noted that the federal National Climate Assessment released in 2018 ignored one of its own expert reviewers, who wrote: “National Hurricane Center going back to the 1800s data clearly indicate a drop in the decadal rate of US landfalling hurricanes since the 1960s … instead you spin the topic to make it sound like the trends are all towards more cyclones.”
In 2019, extreme weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. explained: The WMO (World Meteorological Organization) concluded, “no observational studies have provided convincing evidence of a detectable anthropogenic influence specifically on hurricane-related precipitation,” but also that an increase should be expected this century … The WMO assessment concludes: “anthropogenic signals are not yet clearly detectable in observations for most TC (tropical cyclones) metrics.”
A study by a NOAA Hurricane Researcher Chris Landsea found that using 1940s observational methods “only 2 of these [recent] 10 Category 5s would have been recorded as Cat 5 if they had occurred during the late-1940s period.”
Hurricane Maria, which hit Puerto Rico in 2017, was not an unprecedented storm, with the eighth-lowest landfall pressure (917 mb) on record in the Atlantic Basin. Meteorologist Anthony Watts noted, “With Irma ranked 7th, and Harvey ranked 18th, it’s going to be tough for climate alarmists to try connecting these two storms to being driven by CO2/global warming. But they’ll do it anyway.”
Droughts are NOT getting worse
“Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century,” Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. observed.
A 2015 study found megadroughts in past 2000 years were worse and lasted longer than current droughts.
In 2017, drought conditions in the U.S. dropped even more, as they were limited to only 1.6% of the continental U.S and California’s “Permanent Drought” came to an end.
Wildfires are not increasing
There is ”less fire today than centuries ago,” as scientists and multiple studies counter the claim that wildfires due to “climate change.”
The following is an excerpt from author Marc Morano’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.
A 2016 study published in The Royal Society journal found: “There is increasing evidence that there is overall less fire in the landscape today than there has been centuries ago, although the magnitude of this reduction still needs to be examined in more detail.”… “The ‘wildfire problem’ is essentially more a social than a natural one.”
Antarctica ice melt fears not based on data
A 2015 NASA study found that Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and “not currently contributing to sea level rise,” but actually reducing sea level rise.
The NASA study found that the ice mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet are greater than their losses.
In 2018, the NASA research confirmed that Antarctica was still not losing ice mass. See: NASA researcher: Despite recent claims, Antarctica is still GAINING ice – NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally is working on a paper that will show the eastern ice sheet is expanding at a rate that’s enough to at least offset increased losses the west. The ice sheets are “very close to balance right now,” Zwally said.
Other Antarctica ice studies receive lots of media hype, but miss the key scientific significances.
A 2019 hyped study that alleged a 6 times increase in Antarctic ice melt was found to be “statistically insignificant” by climate analysts. “Such a tiny loss in comparison to the total mass of the ice sheet, it’s microscopic … statistically insignificant.”
In addition, though this 2019 Antarctic ice study used observational data, it also relied on climate models – not actual data –– to simulate what the authors thought the actual ice conditions were and it gave them a huge ice fudge factor.
In addition, the Associated Press has a long history of hyping alleged catastrophic Antarctic melt fears. The AP recycled the same scary Antarctic melt claims from 2014, 1990, 1979, 1922 & 1901.
Arctic sea ice not disappearing, despite “ice free” predictions
Recent Arctic ice changes are not proof of man-made global warming, nor are they unprecedented, unusual, or cause for alarm, according to experts and multiple peer-reviewed studies.
Recent Arctic ice changes are not proof of man-made global warming, nor are they unprecedented, unusual, or cause for alarm, according to experts and multiple peer reviewed studies. Six New Papers Link Arctic/North Atlantic Climate Changes To Natural Factors.
‘A surprise’: NASA 2019 Study: Key Greenland glacier growing again after shrinking for years. “A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds. The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Nature Geoscience.”
Climatologists: ‘The death of the Greenland disaster story’ – ‘Taming the Greenland Melting Global Warming Hype.’ Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels in 2016 on Greenland: “Humans just can’t make it warm enough up there to melt all that much ice.”
A 2006 peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research concluded, “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.” The paper, authored by B. Vinther, K. Andersen, P. Jones, K. Briffa, and J. Cappelen and titled “Extending Greenland Temperature Records into the Late 18th Century,” examined temperature data from Greenland going back to 1784.
A study by Danish researchers from Aarhus University in the same year found that “Greenland’s glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.” Glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde was quoted in an August 21, 2006, Agence France-Presse report explaining that the study was “the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland’s glaciers.” As Yde explained, “Seventy percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s.”
Global warming does not cause wars, it is not a national security threat
The data and studies reveal that warm periods coincide with less conflict. This same argument was used by the CIA in 1974 to claim that “global cooling” would cause conflict and terrorism.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies report noted the opposite of recent claims regarding “global warming” and war. “Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars.”
How many times do we have to “save the world”?
But back in 2015, the UN Paris climate pact was supposed to have saved the planet! Here is how it was promoted:
Al Gore in 2015 on Paris pact: “Years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity’s moral courage to solve the climate crisis and they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act.”
Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2015: “This is a tremendous victory for all of our citizens, – not for any one country or bloc, but a victory for all of the planet, and for future generations.”
French foreign minister Laurent Fabius in 2015: “History is coming, in fact, history is here,” he said. “On 12 December 2015, we can have a historic day, a major date to go down in the history of mankind. The date can become a message of life.”
Now that the UN treaty ‘solved’ global warming in 2015, can we all just move on to something else?
Obviously not, as 2019 brought a huge expansion of the UN regulatory climate agenda, with new UN tipping points and reports on the alleged climate linked species extinctions. See: Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore’s testimony to Congress: The UN is using species ‘extinction as a fear tactic to scare the public into compliance.’
Despite being told we already “saved” the planet with the 2015 UN Paris pact, we are being lobbied daily for the Green New Deal, carbon taxes, EPA and new species regulations, as well as meat -eating restrictions. A whole new round of proposals to ban energy and other products is under way. Bans have been proposed on everything from plastic straws, fracking, coal plants, lightbulbs, oil drilling, and meat. “Climate change” is not about the climate.
Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger explained how climate fear is distorting public policy. “Journalists and activists alike have an obligation to describe environmental problems honestly and accurately, even if they fear doing so will reduce their news value or salience with the public. There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over,” Shellenberger wrote.
Excerpt from Marc Morano’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change:
It bears repeating: if we actually faced a man-made climate crisis and we had to rely on the UN or the EPA or Congress to save us, we would all be doomed! But more importantly, if we actually did face catastrophic global warming, the last “solution” we would want to seek would be one that saddles us with sovereignty-threatening, central-planning, wealth-redistributing, economy-crippling regulations and the most expensive treaty in world history.
If we did face a man-made climate change crisis, we would want to unleash the free market and entrepreneurship to come up with new technologies and make them viable and affordable—without banning or regulating current fossil fuel energy out of existence until we had replacements. If Al Gore is correct in his assertions that there are financial fortunes to be made for young entrepreneurs and inventors in developing new forms of energy—and Al Gore himself has already made his climate fortune many times over—then all that is really needed is advancing technology.
The day Americans, or anyone on planet Earth, can go to their local Walmart and buy a solar panel and install it on their roof and get off the grid is the day climate “solution” debate ends. There is no need for central planning, or banning energy that is cheap and abundant in favor of energy that needs massive subsidies and is not yet ready for prime time. No need for a UN Paris pact, no need for carbon taxes and no need for a Green New Deal.
We need to stop climate campaigners from using an alleged climate change scare to get impose a political agenda on the U.S. and the world that couldn’t otherwise get implemented. As the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, (CFACT) has noted, “There is all pocketbook pain, and no climate gain, from any plan to eliminate fossil fuels in the US. And any talk of a ‘climate emergency’ is an absurd attempt to force an irrational debate on a complex issue.”
Lord Christopher Monckton, the former Thatcher adviser, summed up the climate “solution” debate this way in his testimony to the U.S. Congress: “The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.”