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’.'
Hulme: "January 12021, a new World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) climatological standard normal came into effect. The ‘present-day’ climate will now formally be represented by the meteorological statistics of the period 1991-2020, replacing those from 1961-1990. National Meteorological Agencies in member states are instructed to issue new standard normals for observing stations and for associated climatological products. Climate will ‘change’, one might say, in an instant; today, the world’s climate has ‘suddenly’ become nearly 0.5°C warmer. It is somewhat equivalent to re-setting Universal Time or adjusting the exact definition of a metre." ...
"So, what is the significance of the move to a new 1991-2020 WMO normal in January 2021? On the one hand, it is a pragmatic move to redefine ‘present-day’ climate for operational applications to that of the most recent 30-year period. On the other hand, it puts into play a third climatic baseline. Already existing is the ‘pre-industrial’ climate of the late nineteenth century and the ‘historic’ climate’ of 1961-1990, the latter about 0.3°C warmer than the former. And now there is the new ‘present-day’ climate of 1991-2020, in turn about 0.5°C warmer than the ‘historic climate’ of 1961-1990." ...
"Combining a climatic tolerance of 2°C—or indeed 1.5°C—with a pre-industrial baseline yields a very different climate target than, say, using a 1986-2005 baseline, the period widely adopted by IPCC AR5 Working Group I as their analytical baseline. The choices of both baseline and tolerance are politically charged. They carry significant implications for historic liability for emissions (La Rovere et al., 2002), for policy design (Millar et al., 2017) and for possible reparations (Roberts & Huq, 2015)."
Christopher Monckton: "At long last, following the warming effect of the El Niño of 2016, there are signs of a reasonably significant La Niña, which may well usher in another Pause in global temperature, which may even prove similar to the Great Pause that endured for 224 months from January 1997 to August 2015, during which a third of our entire industrial-era influence on global temperature drove a zero trend in global warming. ... As we come close to entering the la Niña, the trend in global mean surface temperature has already been zero for 5 years 4 months.
However, the new Pause is at a surface-temperature plateau 0.3 C° above the old Pause."
Scientists continued defying the “unprecedented” global warming narrative by publishing nearly 150 papers in 2020 that show large regions of the Earth (a) haven’t warmed in recent decades, (b) were as-warm or warmer within the last several centuries, and/or (c) were 1-7°C warmer than today just a few millennia ago.
Greanpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "What a farce the IPCC Paris Accord and all previous 'agreements' to reduce CO2 emissions have been. If only the collective billionaire-class would recognize that CO2 is entirely beneficial we could get on with making the world a better place."
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "Get ready for more futility as the Green New Deal will continue meaningless 'climate action.'"