Professor Ole Humlum, formerly of the University of Oslo, Norway points out that new data on rising ocean temperatures raise interesting questions about the source of the heat. “We can detect a great deal of heat rising from the bottom of the oceans. This obviously cannot be anything to do with human activity. So although people say the oceans are warming, in reality there is still much to learn.”
'Since 1979, Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extents have had opposite trends, decreasing and increasing, respectively.'
'Tropical storms and hurricanes...no overall trend towards either lower or higher activity. The same applies for the number of continental hurricane landfalls in the USA, in a record going back to 1851.'
"Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent...since 1972, however, snow extent has been largely stable."
Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: '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.'
'If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama's very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.'
'But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free -- quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.'
Claim: ISIS-OPEC coordinated attacks to kill UN climate treaty
Warmist Oliver Tickell of The Ecologist asks: Were Paris attacks 'in any way motivated by a desire to scupper a strong climate agreement at UN climate summit] COP21?'
'Failure to reach a strong climate agreement now looks more probable. And that's an outcome that would suit ISIS - which makes $500m a year from oil sales - together with other oil producers.' Tickell asked, is “ISIS Inc defending its corporate interests?”
Der Spiegel 'then writes that Oslo economist Halvard Buhaug is quoted saying that Hsiang and his team 'ignored data'. Worse, Buhang says that the 'authors used data that produced the strongest results.'
Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg was also highly critical of Hsiang’s methodology, saying that alternative explanations were “wiped off the table” in order to give climate fluctuations maximum power as an explanation. Spiegel writes: All in all, Marotzke says that he is “skeptical when it comes to the robustness of the results'.
UN IPCC Lead Author & professor Richard Tol of University of Sussex also has expressed 'massive criticism' on the Hsiang paper, saying that the authors confused weather as climate. Spiegel writes: Most of the Hsiang-Team’s evaluated studies had to do with weather phenomena, Tol believes. ‘Forecasts on the conflict-enhancing effect of future climate was therefore strongly exaggerated’.'
Harvard Mag: These are all important questions—but even they ignore a central certainty that no one appears to be addressing: what Dan Schrag calls “climate change’s dirty little secret.” “Even if we could become carbon-neutral tomorrow,” says the director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, “the climate will keep changing for thousands of years, the ice sheets will keep melting, and the seas will continue to rise.”
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "So now an allegedly esteemed Harvard professor admits that controlling the climate is futile. Are we supposed to be surprised at this 'secret' that climate skeptics have always known? Even the climate activists will now have to concede that the climate will not stop changing if we refuse to enact the UN Paris pact and the Green New Deal."
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London, points out that “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. It's scientific nonsense."