Satellites Have Recorded No Statistically-significant Global Warming Over Nearly the Past Two Decades

CO2 'Pollution' Is Greening the Planet

May 9, 2016

Larry Bell, Newsmax - If there’s anything that climate crisis theology clerics hate more than fossil fuels, it’s got to be any glad tidings about CO2. Like, for example, results of a global satellite study published last month in the journal Nature. It reported that thanks to that “pollutant,” the planet is producing lots more veggies even the most strident non-carnivorous ideologically-superior planetary salvationists should truly celebrate.

How much more?

Well, according to the 32 researchers from nine countries, it amounted to “a persistent and widespread increase” of greening over 25 to 50 percent of the “global vegetated area” over the past 35 years. Less than 4 percent of the globe showed a reduction. Of the 85 percent of Earth’s ice-free lands, the areas covered in green average about 32 percent of that amount.

The additional leaves laid out in a carpet would cover the continental U.S. twice over.

If you have been holding your breath wondering why this is occurring, go ahead relax . . . take some blameless credit.

Based upon simulated ecosystem models, the researchers credited 70 percent of this green bounty to CO2 fertilization benefits. They attributed another 9 percent to nitrogen fertilizers and 4 percent to shifts in land management, neither of which explain observed added forest growth.

A 2013 study of temperate and boreal forests in the Northern Hemisphere (also published in the journal Nature), reported a substantial increase in water-use efficiency over the past two decades which was much larger than predicted by biosphere models. This was attributed to increased ecosystem-level photosynthesis, net carbon uptake and decreasing evapotranspiration (water loss).

And here’s the part some authors of the most recent report obviously had to struggle with. They attributed the third greatest beneficial influence — 8 percent — to “climate change”. 

This admission must have been particularly painful for co-author Philippe Ciais from the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences in France, who has also served as an author for reliably alarmist UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

True to form, Ciais said: 

“The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.

"Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

Well actually, no. He’s wrong on both accounts.

Regarding the first “fallacy,” as Judith Curry, former chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology has pointed out:

“It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and preference for the empirical [i.e., what has been observed] versus the hypothetical [i.e. what is projected from climate models].”

As for claims that CO2 fertilization benefits are temporary, leading CO2 plant growth authority Craig Idso, who chairs the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, finds no empirical evidence exists to support a model-based claim that future carbon uptake by plants will diminish due to rising temperatures.

In fact, just the opposite has been observed in the real world.

Over the past 50 years, global carbon uptake by plants has doubled. CO2 boosts water use efficiency.

Increased CO2 fertilization enables plant leaves to extract more carbon from the air — lose less water — or both — during photosynthesis, a process that converts sunlight and soil nutrients into sugars which fuel life.

Many plants also tolerate heat better when CO2 levels are higher, a condition evidenced by satellite imagery of deserts and savannas where greenery expansion is more apparent than in wet locations.

Lead author Zaichun Zhu from Peking University told BBC News,

“The greening reported in this study has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system.”

In many regions of the world, a warmer planet will lead to more precipitation and longer growing seasons. This results in far fewer deaths from starvation and winter hypothermia.

And yes, although just not happening very recently, climate change is very real.

Despite “record high” atmospheric CO2 levels, other than 1998 and 2015, ocean El Nino temperature spikes, satellites have recorded no statistically-significant global warming over nearly the past two decades.

Nevertheless, this “pause” is occurring within a nearly two-century-long natural warming trend which began before the Industrial Revolution introduced fossil-fueled smokestacks and SUVs.

Those same fossil fuels displaced use of firewood, preserving more forests to exchange CO2 for oxygen we and Bambi depend upon while also returning plant fertilizer to grow more food in the bargain.

Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University puts the real story into perspective:  

“Global greening is the most important ecological trend on Earth today. The biosphere on land is getting bigger, year by year, by two billion tons or even more.”

That sort of “pollution” deserves a grateful world of gratitude.

Obama's "Clean Power Plan" is Closing Down Coal-fired Power Plants, Which Will Cause Electricity Rates to "Necessarily Skyrocket"

On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global temperature by only one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.

From a review recently completed by the CO2 Coalition (CO2Coalition.org), a new independent, nonpartisan scientific-educational group... (nonpartisans means no one involved has or shows an agenda):

"Carbon dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions."

"We support the cost-effective control of real pollutants associated with the use of fossil fuels — for example, fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or smog-forming volatile hydrocarbons. But CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and there’s no reason to control it."

"Warming” from CO2 has been much less than predicted by the climate models the Administration bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions."

City officials working to keep DTE Energy Trenton Channel Power Plant open

February 24, 2016

The News-Herald - Despite DTE Energy’s announcement in September of plans to close 25 power plants in Michigan by 2020, Trenton officials remain hopeful the Trenton Channel Power Plant will remain open if it is selected for conversion from coal fueled to natural gas.

Under the administration of President Barack Obama, the Clean Power Plan -- a policy aimed at combating pollutants causing climate change -- was proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in June 2014.

Under terms of the plan, Michigan must reduce its carbon emission rate by 39 percent by 2030. With the expected plant closures, Michigan would be at a 17 percent reduction by 2020.

The transition to natural gas plants is expected to cut carbon dioxide in the air by 50 percent to 60 percent over using coal, according to the plan.

Dating to 2014, the announcement of two of three units slated to close at the Trenton facility left residents wondering about the plant’s future.

At the time, DTE Energy spokeswoman Randi Berris said Unit 9, the largest generating unit at the Trenton Channel, was expected to be the only section open. She said it would continue to provide “reliable, affordable” power for DTE Energy customers.

Despite the Trenton Channel being on the list of plants expected to close between 2020 and 2022, City Administrator Jim Wagner said he is “optimistic that something will be done and DTE Energy’s Trenton Channel Plant will be saved.”

Wagner, council members and other city staff plan to meet with DTE Energy representatives to seek options to keep the facility open.

Closing the plant would impact city services by about 25 percent as it is the municipality’s largest current taxpayer, Wagner said.

Not only would plant workers lose their jobs, but a reduction in firefighters, police officers and sanitary engineers also would have to be made, he said.

“If the Trenton Channel Plant closes, it will leave a much greater impact farther than the city of Trenton,” Wagner said. “… Coal producers will see layoffs in their business from the production standpoint. Rail company profits will reduce because there will be less coal being transported.

“There are many ramifications from closing the plants. … We can only assume that with the reduction of these DTE Energy plants, electricity rates will also go up.”

Carbon Taxes Will Help Fund World Government: Emission-cut Pledges to Cost $1 Trillion a Year

"Carbon taxes can raise substantial amounts of government revenue, are a highly practical extension of existing administration for fuel taxes, and can be in countries’ own national interests due to domestic health and other co-benefits. Emissions prices can be aligned with mitigation pledges. Cap-and-trade systems are another option, but generally they should be designed to look like taxes through revenue-raising and price stability provisions." - International Monetary Fund

CO2 is a normal part of the carbon cycle and is essential to all life on earth.

It's not global warning, it's climate change stupid! The fact DC has more snow than last year is proof of climate change! I bet next year will be less snow and there you have it -- climate change again.  Climate change is real, and it's time to turn over our economy and our freedom to elites and "authorities" to manage our lives from birth to death. Once we accept this we can all hold hands and sing "we are the world". On a serious note, climate change is perfect for the ruling class. Unlike global warming or cooling, it is a hypothesis that can never be rejected and, as such, is a tautology that can always be used to support the collective over the individual.

They want to condemn the poor of the world (and the middle class) to government controlled subsistence living, and their attack on fossil fuels is the means. 

All evidence points to climate change, a fact of life, as being a political exercise with little to nothing to do with science. We might as well accept that the subject is just the handiest one available for elitists/statists to push their agenda that leads to worldwide equality––a dystopia for everyone and a return to the Stone Age. It is long past time to put away all pretenses of what the debate is really about. At its core, it is about statism against humanity.

The people who believe in AGW will not be swayed by data, and for them the debate is over. For those of us willing to look at data, we know that science is never settled and every hypothesis must be supported by observation and the data. After all is said and done, AGW is only a theory supported by computer algorithms but not by data. The current warming trend is modest, has plateaued since 1998, and is most consistent with historical patterns in climate changes predating industrial CO2 production. AGW appears to be a religion more than a science, and though I don't wish to disparage another person's religion, I don't wish to put my money into the collection basket.

The Paris climate talks consisted of a bunch of bureaucrats and NGOs figuring out how keep to themselves in the ruling class.  You're either at the table or on the menu, as they say.  We've been had (but whether it is for breakfast, lunch, or dinner, we don't yet know!).

How does a carbon tax impact other businesses and individuals? Companies and individuals pay higher prices for GHG-intensive energy (and other goods and services) as the costs of a carbon tax are passed down to consumers. The extent to which these higher energy prices impact the overall income of companies and individuals depends on how the tax revenues are used. The overall impact on a company also depends on how much fossil fuel-based energy it uses, how higher energy prices affect their business, and a company’s ability to either minimize or avoid increasing costs (e.g., by using fuel more efficiently or using cleaner fuels) and/or pass along costs to its customers. For example, a carbon tax policy might lessen overall economic impacts on consumers by including provisions to make the carbon tax “revenue neutral.” This involves returning the carbon tax revenues to businesses and individuals through rebates or changes in the tax code (e.g., reducing corporate or capital gains taxes). A carbon tax policy might also direct revenues to fund programs that provide longer-term benefits to consumers and businesses, such as research and development programs or transportation infrastructure.

What is debatable, and always should be, is what accounts for the fluctuations in climate that have existed for millions of year.  One year it may be shifts in solar output, another changes in the earth's orbit, another volcanic activity, another earthquakes and shifts in the earth's crust and yet another year it may be several of these together. Everything that is happening now has happened before and with equal suddenness.  Our planet is effected by many forces that have nothing to do with humans.  Climate change ideology or "warmism" has taken on many of the characteristics of an apocalyptic doomsday cult. It's similar to a primitive tribe imagining that an eclipse is a sign from the gods to obey their witch doctors, or that sacrificing virgins will make the local volcano stop erupting. We could regiment our lifestyle, surrender to the climate ideological elite, and begin executing skeptics and "denialists," as other totalitarian cults have done -- and climate will still change.

There probably isn't a serious climate scientist in the world who thinks that climate is well understood and that the science is settled in any final sense. The term "settled", enormously abused by politicians and the media, refers to the fact that virtually no real scientist believes that human CO2 emissions have no effect on climate. It is "settled" science to acknowledge humans influence climate, the degree to which we have an impact is hotly debated within the field. Another poster herein has said it better than I will, but it is time for the right wing to acknowledge that AGW is real--to some degree--so they can have a seat at the table to discuss policy.

Here is my issue with climate change alarmists:  Look, I get it that we need to protect the earth, its resources and the environment. I breath the same air and drink the same water as you guys do. I REALLY like going out to the wilderness and seeing wild animals frolic and clear streams flowing. But when I hear that some theory is SETTLED and that debate is no longer considered politically correct, and that "deniers" should be prosecuted as Bernie Sanders wants to happen... then suddenly I get the whiff tyranny in the air. I get the same feeling that book reading intellectuals got when the Red Brigades went around in Communist China making sure that an dissent was snuffed out and people were "re-educated". You KNOW you guys are doing that don't you?  You are stifling dissent on a subject that is FAR from settled.  Your militant authoritarianism isn't reassuring at all.  It makes me want to oppose you, even if your ideas may have merit.  You guys really need to look again at your methods. We really need to protect the Earth....and make sure those that told us we need to protect the Earth get RICH for doing so! I can show you the news reports of a lawyer hired by Green groups to do NOTHING but make editorial changes to Wiki articles on warming.  In the Summer before he got caught, he made 150,000 changes to wiki articles, all geared towards deleting anything that refuted warming fears. Wikipedia is good on settled FACTS!  Things that are still up for debate -- it is a terrible source!

The Supreme Court Sided with Objective Science Against Obama, and Now Justice Scalia is Dead

In December 2015, President Barack Obama vetoed two measures that would have blocked steps that his administration is taking to address climate change. One would have nullified carbon pollution standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The second would have voided a set of national standards designed to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants. In a letter notifying Congress of his decision, Obama says climate change is a "profound threat" that must be addressed. Obama has made addressing climate change a priority. He recently praised a new international climate agreement reached at a Paris conference and credited his administration as being a driving force behind the deal. He rejected the measures through a rare "pocket veto," intended to be used when Congress has adjourned. A pocket vote essentially takes effect when the president fails to sign a bill within 10 days. [Source]

Tuesday night, February 9, 2016, even as votes were being tallied in New Hampshire, the Supreme Court shocked many — including the Obama administration — by putting on hold the president’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, pending resolution of a lawsuit against it by a number of states, utilities and coal companies. Everybody knew the Clean Power Plan would face major legal challenges, but few thought they’d significantly derail it so early on. One legal expert, the Sierra Club’s Bruce Nilles, told The Washington Post it was “unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stay a rule at this point in litigation. They do this in death-penalty cases.”

Saturday morning, February 13, 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in a hotel room. Scalia spent his final hours as part of a group of about 35 weekend guests who had arrived at Cibolo Creek Ranch, a West Texas resort, at around noon Friday. [Source]

The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama

February 15, 2016

New York Post - In his State of the Union Address, President Obama invited “anybody [who] wants to dispute the science around climate change . . . to have at it.”

The Supreme Court’s response? Thank you, Mr. President, for the offer. We will.

On Feb. 9, the court upheld a delay of Obama’s war on fossil fuels, which is supposed to “stop climate change,” in the form of new restrictions on factories’ greenhouse-gas emissions. Apparently a majority of the court is less confident of the “science around climate change” than Obama is.

As well they should be. Obama’s policies will have negligible effects on the climate and will be all pain with no gain.

Two critical points about “the science around climate change” stand out in a review recently completed by the CO2 Coalition, a new independent, nonpartisan scientific-educational group (CO2Coalition.org).

First, carbon dioxide, CO2, is emphatically NOT a “pollutant.” All living things are built of carbon that comes from CO2. An increase in essential CO2 in the atmosphere will be a huge benefit to plants and agriculture. Satellite measurements show that the increase of CO2 over the last few decades has already caused a pronounced greening of the planet — especially in arid regions.

For tens of millions of years, plants have been coping with a “CO2 famine.” Current CO2 concentrations of a few hundred parts per million (ppm) are close to starvation levels compared to the several thousand ppm that prevailed over most of history.

We support the cost-effective control of real pollutants associated with the use of fossil fuels — for example, fly ash, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur or smog-forming volatile hydrocarbons. But CO2 isn’t a pollutant, and there’s no reason to control it.

Second, the “warming” from CO2 — and yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” — has been much less than predicted by the climate models Obama bases his policies on. For 20 years, the temperature has been virtually unchanged, in stark contrast to model predictions.

The war on fossil fuels isn’t based on science but on unreliable climate models. Rather than trying to correct the models, Team Obama is trying to “dispute the science” by trying to manufacture scary warming trends.

A recent letter to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology by more than 300 experts on data quality pointed out that the feds’ attempt to erase or ignore evidence of the recent lack of global warming arguably violated the Data Quality Act of 2001, which requires that “highly influential scientific assessments,” bearing the imprimatur of the federal government, be subject to rigorous external peer review.

It exposes the hollowness of the left’s claim that “97 percent of scientists” support Team Obama’s version of climate science.

Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures are the genuine gold standard — and they show negligible warming for the past two decades. Since the Obama administration can’t read just satellite data (as they have tried to do with surface data), they have unleashed a campaign to discredit the satellite temperature record.

The observational record indicates that the temperature increase by the year 2100 will be less than 1 degree Celsius as a result of CO2 emissions. This small temperature increase, together with the robust benefits to plants and agriculture, will benefit the world.

How about other concerns? Some claim that more CO2 causes extreme weather, accelerating a rise in sea levels or other horrors. But extensive global measurements reveal no increase in extreme weather: The trends in tornadoes, droughts, floods and hurricanes are flat over the past generation. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate they did before the rising concentrations of CO2 during the past century.

Inexpensive, reliable energy from fossil fuels has raised living standards in the developed world to levels that only the wealthy could dream of a few centuries ago. Eliminating fossil fuels would do nothing to stop climate change, but it would keep much of the developing world in poverty.

Rising energy costs would hurt the less privileged populations of the developed world as well.