Patrick J. Michaels / Kevin Dayaratna: "Here is a dirty little secret that few are aware of: All those horrifying future temperature changes that grace the front pages of papers of record aren’t really the predicted warming above today’s level. Instead, they are the difference between two models of climate change. The “base climate” isn’t the observed global temperature at a given point in time. Instead, it is what a computer model simulates temperatures to be prior to any significant changes in carbon dioxide.
Statistician Kevin Dayaratna: "Dubbed by some as 'the most important number you’ve never heard of,' the social cost of carbon is defined as the economic damages associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across a particular time horizon. That metric, relied upon heavily by the Obama administration, has been used as the basis for regulatory policy in the energy sector of the economy. ...
Assumptions made by modelers can drastically change the purported estimates and thus beef up the damages as much as they want."
Analysis: Social Cost of Carbon is a “Transparent and Obvious Fraud” - —Francis Menton in 2016: “The ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ can fairly be described as the mother of all government cost-benefit analyses..."In reality, it is a completely dishonest scam that wildly exaggerates costs and ignores benefits in order to justify vast seizures of power unto the government....“
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "Clearly, the social cost of carbon is negative on so many fronts. Perhaps we should be paid for emitting it. It is responsible for up to 70% of increased food crop production (I guess they didn’t factor that in). It is greening the land and presumably the oceans. It is perhaps involved in slightly increasing global temperature above the frigid Pleistocene Epoch the Earth has been locked in for 2.6 million years, although there is no proof of this. It makes all plants more efficient in their use of water. It makes greenhouse production of food 30-60% higher than at ambient levels."
Paul Homewood: "It is absolutely clear that the number of strong tornadoes has declined since the 1970s. Alarmingly, however, this page has been 'disappeared', and the link now comes up with this:
Fortunately Wayback still has a copy of the original web page, and I also have it on file. It is blindingly apparent that NOAA found their original assessment far too inconvenient, something that should be kept out of the public domain at all cost."
Climate chauses wind speeds to decrease...Except when climate change causes wind speeds to increase...
Claim: Atmosphere expert Professor Paul Williams, of the University of Reading, told the Financial Times that winds have ‘generally weakened over land over the past few decades’. He said one explanation for plummeting wind speeds could be ‘human-related climate change’, that would see poles warming ‘faster than tropics in lower atmosphere’ areas. Prof Williams said: ‘This would have the effect of weakening the mid-latitude north-south temperature difference and consequently reducing the thermal wind at low altitudes.’