Grist Mag: "According to a recent update of a study originally published in Nature Climate Change, fossil fuel pollution has bounced back rapidly as lockdowns have started to lift around the world. In early April, when billions of people were sheltering in place, global daily carbon dioxide emissions were 17 percent lower than they were in 2019; now, it’s almost as if the lockdowns never happened." ...
"Fear of the coronavirus is also pushing people to get in their cars, instead of taking public transit. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidelines encouraging people to drive to work solo, instead of taking the bus or the subway...Last Monday, 800,000 people rode the New York City subway, the highest number since March — but that’s still only 15 percent of normal." ...
"The researchers still expect emissions for the whole of 2020 to be down 4 to 7 percent compared with last year, depending on the pace of reopening. But that’s not even close to enough to slow down climate change. Keeping global warming below dangerous levels would require a 7.5 percent drop in emissions every year."
Moment of Clarity: “People want to move on with their lives,” Jackson said. “We can’t reduce emissions just by locking people at home.”
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen's new study published in The European Physical Journal:
The "doubled-CO2 effect has less than 1/5th of the impact that the net cloud effect has. And yet we are asked to accept the “implausible” claim that change in one variable, CO2, is predominantly responsible for altering global temperatures."
"A causal role for CO2 'cannot be claimed' for the glacial-to-interglacial warming events because CO2 variations follow rather than lead the temperature changes in paleoclimate records and the 100 ppm total increase over thousands of years produce “about 1 W/m²” of total radiative impact."
"Climate science didn’t used to be alarmist prior to the late 1980s. Scientists were instead sufficiently skeptical about claims of climatically-induced planetary doom. That changed during the years 1988-1994, when climate research centered on CO2 and global warming received a 15-fold increase in funding in the US alone. Suddenly there was a great financial incentive to propel alarming global warming scenarios."
"Concepts like 'polar amplification' are 'imaginary'."
Collister Johnson to Prof. Nordhaus: "Most importantly, the theory of man-made global warming does not pass the sniff test - the test of common sense. It simply does not follow common sense to believe that an increase of one human-caused atmospheric CO2 molecule out of ten thousand over eighty years should result in ruination of the planet." ...
"Once again - I know. By questioning this climate orthodoxy, by committing heresy against the church of man-made global warming, people like me are called “deniers” - as in “Holacaust deniers”. Let’s be clear. We are not denying anything. We are affirming what we believe to be the denial of the truth by others. Nevertheless, for expressing these views, we are shunned and ex-communicated. The political, academic, and global bureaucratic elites have spoken. Man-made CO2 is evil. Drastic measures must be take to banish this malevolent CO2 from reaching the atmosphere."
The new figures from the Mauna Loa Observatory show humans are irrelevant. Despite the Ultra-Revolutionary-Carbon-Reduction-Program far beyond anything the UN has every dreamed of, Global CO2 hit 417ppm. This is a record high since humans discovered test tubes but the 300 millionth time since life on Earth evolved. It shows how all plans for carbon reduction known to mankind are futile.
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: "It would be difficult to see a downturn in the anthropogenic source of CO2 unless it was very large (say, over 50%) and prolonged (say over a year or longer)."
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."