Monday, December 14, 2015

LOL.  An unenforceable agreement to do the impossible!

The Greenies are right about the climate agreement just signed in Paris.  They think it's a crock.  It is.

Here's what the Solons agreed to in Paris:

1. A long-term goal to limit global warming to 2C, or 1.5C if possible

2. National pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the 2020s

3. A plan to make countries pledge deeper emissions cuts in future, improving their plans every five years

4. Rich nations to provide funding to poorer ones – ‘mobilising’ $100bn a year until 2025, and more thereafter

5. A plan to monitor progress and hold countries to account

It's all just an expression of intentions with the only definite goal being to limit global warming. But they have no means of doing that.  Warming does not track CO2 and they have made no firm committments to control CO2 anyway.  And since the warming has already stopped the goal is pointless.  You can't close a door that is already closed!  And most of the goals are nicely in the future when most of the signatories will be hors de combat

And it has no enforcement mechanism anyway

There were tears of joy as delegates finally agreed to the world's first comprehensive climate agreement after two weeks of negotiations in Paris.

The Paris Agreement was passed with no objections by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, bringing to an end four years' of discussion and debate.

Nearly 200 nations adopted the global pact, calling on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution - but imposing no sanctions on countries that don't.

To a reception of whoops and cheers, Laurent Fabius told the hall: 'I now invite the COP [conference of the parties] to adopt the decision. I see no objections. The Paris agreement is adopted.'

The plenary hall then rose to give him a standing ovation.

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said: 'I used to say we must, we can, we will - today we can say we did.'

The first draft of the 'historic' legally binding agreement had been reached around midday.

The report confirmed countries - if they accept the 31-page draft - will be expected to work towards limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels.

However, the agreement took several more hours to reach - with one western diplomat revealing it was held up for two hours by the U.S., which was unhappy with one word.

The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. wants the word 'shall' changed to 'should' in a clause on emissions targets out of fears that it might require the Obama administration to seek approval from the Republican-controlled Senate.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the universal climate deal agreed in Paris 'means that the whole world has signed to play its part in halting climate change', adding: 'It's a moment to remember and a huge step forward in helping to secure the future of our planet.'

President Barack Obama tweeted: 'This is huge: Almost every country in the world just signed on to the on climate change—thanks to American leadership.'

Christine Lagarde, the IMF's managing director, said: 'The Paris Agreement is a critical step forward for addressing climate change.'

Kevin Watkins, executive director of the Overseas Development Institute, said: 'It is a tough message to deliver after two weeks of intense negotiations that have delivered an ambitious deal, but the challenge governments are facing can be summarised in five words – 'now for the hard part'.'

Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace praised the accord was a good start but isn't enough.

'Today the human race has joined in a common cause, but it's what happens after this conference that really matters,' he said. 'This deal alone won't dig us out the hole we're in, but it makes the sides less steep.'

But Friends of the Earth said it was a 'disaster'.

In a statement released by the group, they said: 'The draft Paris agreement puts us on track for a planet three degrees hotter than today. This would be a disaster.

'The reviews in this agreement are too weak and too late. The finance figures have no bearing on the scale of need. It's empty.'

Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, added: 'It's outrageous that the deal that's on the table is being spun as a success when it undermines the rights of the world's most vulnerable communities and has almost nothing binding to ensure a safe and liveable climate for future generations.'


The trillion pound bill: That's what this respected expert says the climate summit may cost the world each year. And yet, he argues, it will hardly change a thing  

By Bjorn Lomborg

As you might expect, the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, which reached an agreement yesterday to limit the rise in global temperature to less than 2C, has been an international festival of hot air.

The bland, suburban conference centre hosting the two weeks of talks is populated by oversized animal cut-outs – a blue giraffe, a red camel – that we attendees use as landmarks to find our way around.

You hear people shouting into their phone, ‘I’m waiting by the pink kangaroo!’ But the outwardly cheerful menagerie is actually a Noah’s Ark installation designed to remind delegates of the perils of inaction. Woe to the pink kangaroo if the delegates fail to halt global warming.

Even the ‘welcome bags’ are worthy, made out of politically correct recycled cloth.

Our French hosts are quick to point out that their government will purchase ‘carbon offsets’ – somewhere a lot of trees will be planted – to balance the environmental damage caused by this massive talkfest.

Within limits, of course. Though there are an astonishing 40,000 people here (30,000 more than recent conferences), the French will ‘offset’ the emissions of just 22,000 official delegates. The other 18,000 should presumably plant their own trees.

The first two days belonged to politicians, and were dominated by lofty rhetoric. Nearly 150 world leaders gathered, delivering speeches that were fairly interchangeable: there was much talk of ‘ambition’ and ‘the next generation’.

Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe stood out, lambasting the West for causing global warming, and declaring that Africa would not cut its carbon emissions.

Then, soundbites duly issued, the leaders jetted home, leaving hundreds of national delegates bustling from meeting to press conference to side event, and activists exhorting them via press releases to commit to ever-bigger carbon cuts.

Yet after two weeks of negotiations about rising temperatures, the main thing that has risen is expectations. When a deal couldn’t be reached, the conference was extended into ‘extra time’. Delegates talked around the clock, agreeing the fine print for an agreement that will commit the world to massive economic costs while doing very little for the environment.

In a peer-reviewed research paper based on pre-conference pledges, I measured the environmental impact of every nation fulfilling every carbon-cutting promise between 2016 and 2030. I found that the total temperature reduction will be just 0.048C by 2100.

Even if we assume that every one of these promises would not only be fulfilled but extended for another 70 years (and countries don’t just import more products from carbon polluting nations) then all the promises made in Paris will reduce temperature rises by 0.17C by 2100. This is very similar to a finding by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology.

Much higher figures have been bandied about by activists, delegates and even the United Nations’ global-warming body, the UNFCCC.

The problem is that such claims are based on a wholly unrealistic scenario where governments do little now, then embark on incredibly ambitious and unlikely climate change reduction policies after 2030.

This is vanishingly unlikely. The only global treaty to agree a cut in carbon emissions – the Kyoto Protocol – failed when it was never ratified by the US, and eventually abandoned by Canada, Russia and Japan. In the 1990s and early 2000s, we learned that the only surefire way to make substantial emissions cuts was to go through a major economic recession.

Emissions dropped precipitously when the Soviet Union collapsed, and again during the 2008 financial crisis. Understandably, this approach is not very popular with politicians or voters.

But still the politicians make lofty carbon-cutting promises. And what they don’t talk about is the cost. In Paris you won’t hear it mentioned that this is likely to be the most expensive treaty in the history of the world. If you try to cut carbon dioxide, even with an efficient carbon tax, you end up making cheap energy more expensive and this slows economic growth.

Energy-economic models, including the gold standard Stanford University Energy Modelling Forum, show the EU’s GDP will have grown 1.6 per cent less by 2030.
Dishing out solar panels is feeble - even immoral

That means the Paris agreement will cost Europe £200 billion in lost GDP every year by 2030 – and this is if the EU enacts its regulations most efficiently. Otherwise the cost could double to £400 billion a year. For the United Kingdom, that could mean £50 billion lost every year. And for the world, this bill could run from £600 billion to £1.2 trillion per year.

Why so expensive? Because current green technology is inefficient. If it were economically advantageous to dump fossil fuels, why would we need to sign a treaty? Every right-thinking nation on the planet would stampede to cut CO2.

There has been much focus in Paris on the £65 billion committed to ‘climate aid’. This includes £4 billion from the UK. Much of that money – including the UK’s portion – is coming from cash intended for global development. Yet climate aid is a feeble response to global challenges.

Concerned about agriculture? Then invest directly in agricultural research and better farming technologies, not subsidising inefficient wind turbines.

Worried about ‘extreme weather’ events? These hit the poor the hardest: helping people out of poverty is a thousand times more effective than relying on carbon cuts.

Nor is climate aid what the world’s poor want. A global poll of 9.7 million people shows that the citizens of the world’s poorest countries say climate action is their lowest policy priority, behind education, healthcare, jobs and governmental reform.

When two billion people suffer from some form of malnourishment, and it is an underlying cause of death of 2.6 million children each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.4 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, then dishing out solar panels is a feeble – and even immoral – response.

We can help them better, cheaper and more effectively.

However there has been some good news from Paris – and it has nothing to do with the agreement. It’s something that was announced on the sidelines on the first day, when Microsoft founder Bill Gates, other wealthy individuals and about 20 governments revealed that they will double green energy research and development.

This could put us on a pathway towards finally solving global warming. A huge increase in spending on research and development is the most efficient way to find new breakthrough energy technologies cheaper than fossil fuels.

When the thousands of Paris attendees meet again for a review, maybe they will realise that they should forget about their futile policies that throw away trillions of pounds in lost input and invest instead in something with a real chance of working – innovation.


Reprieve! Binding Paris treaty now voluntary mush

But Obama still wants to send US energy use and living standards backward

Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek

Paris climate talks became frenzied, as delegates desperately tried to salvage an agreement beyond empty promises to do something sometime about what President Obama insists is the gravest threat to our planet, national security and future generations.

Determined for once to lead from upfront, he took a 500-person greenhouse gas-spewing entourage to the City of Light, to call for preventing increasing droughts, floods, storms, island-swallowing rising acidic ocean levels, and other disasters conjured up by alarmist computer models.

Legally binding carbon dioxide emission targets were too contentious to pursue. So was modifying “differentiated responsibilities,” the notion that countries which historically caused the recent atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up must lead in cutting their emissions, while helping developing countries eventually do likewise, by pouring trillions of dollars in cash and free technology into the Green Climate Fund for supposed adaptation and compensation. Developing countries had insisted on that massive wealth redistribution as their price for signing any binding document.

Although China now emits far more CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) than the USA or EU, it refused to fast-track reducing those emissions. China and wealthy petro-states also opposed paying into the Climate Fund. Other major bones of contention were likewise never resolved.

Thus, in the end, what we got out of Paris is voluntary emission caps, voluntary progress reviews, no international oversight or enforcement of voluntary progress, and voluntary contributions to the Fund.

Of course, the entire climate cataclysm mantra is based on the claim that carbon dioxide has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history. Now, merely tweaking CO2 emissions will supposedly stabilize climate and weather systems.

President Obama fervently believes this delusion. He will likely use the Paris gobbledygook to say America somehow has a “moral obligation” to set an example, by de-carbonizing, de-energizing, de-industrializing and de-developing the United States. Thankfully, Congress and the states will have something to say about that, because they know more anti-fossil fuel edicts will destroy jobs and living standards, especially for poor, working class and minority families.

The impacts would be far worse than many news stories and White House press releases suggest. Those sources often say the proposed climate treaty sought seek GHG reductions of 80% below predicted 2050 emission levels. The real target proposed by the White House, EU, Germany and Britain was 80% or more below actual 1990 levels by 2050.

Those targets meant the world would have to eliminate some 95% of the greenhouse gases that all humanity would likely release if we reach world population levels, economic growth and living standards projected for 2050. The United States would likely have to slash its CO2 and GHG reductions to zero.

Moreover, current 2050 forecasts already assume and incorporate significant energy efficiency, de-carbonization and de-industrialization over the next 35 years. They are not business-as-usual numbers or extrapolations of past trends. Further fossil fuel and CO2 reductions beyond those already incorporated into the forecasts would thus be increasingly difficult, expensive, and indeed impossible to achieve.

As we explain in our analysis, there is a strong positive relationship between GDP and carbon-based energy consumption. Slashing fossil energy use that far would thus require decimating economic growth, job creation and preservation, and average per-person incomes. In fact, average world per capita GDP would plummet from a projected $30,600 in 2050 to a miserable $1,200 per year.

Average per capita GDP in 2050 would be less than what Americans had in 1830! Many futuristic technologies might still exist, but only wealthy families and ruling elites could afford them.

That would be catastrophic for jobs, health and welfare in developed countries – and lethal to millions in poor nations, who would be denied the blessings of electricity and fossil fuels for decades to come. That is indefensible, inhumane and immoral. And for what?

Mr. Obama and the Paris alarmists insisted that drastic GHG reductions will hold global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 F) above pre-industrial, post-Little Ice Age levels, since 1860. We’re already halfway to that. And now some even claim the upper safety limit is 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F), which would require even more draconian energy and emission cutbacks. Otherwise we face climate and weather calamities, they insist. It’s utter nonsense.

EPA’s own analyses suggest that its fully implemented Clean Power Plan would bring an undetectable, irrelevant reduction of perhaps 0.02 degrees Celsius (0.05 F) in average global temperatures 85 years from now – assuming carbon dioxide actually does drive climate change.

In the Real World, climate changes regularly, and recent climate and weather trends and events are in line with historic experience. In fact, average global temperatures haven’t risen in nearly two decades; no category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record ten years; Greenland and Antarctic ice are at record levels; and still firmly alkaline sea levels (8.1 pH) are rising at barely seven inches per century.

Many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures, regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.04% (400 ppm). That would pose much greater threats to human health, agriculture and prosperity (and wildlife) than global warming.

Never forget: Fossil fuels facilitated successive industrial revolutions and enabled billions to live better than royalty did a century ago, average incomes to increase eleven-fold, and helped average global life expectancy to soar from less than 30 in 1870 to 71 today.

Carbon-based energy still provides 81% of world energy, and supports $70 trillion per year in world GDP. It will supply 75-80% of global energy for decades to come, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Agency and other studies forecast. Carbon-based energy is essential if we are to bring electricity to the 1.3 billion people who still do not have it, and end the rampant poverty and lung, intestinal and other diseases that kill millions of people in poor countries every year.

Furthermore, thousands of coal-fired power plants are built, under construction or in planning around the world. China and India will not consider reducing GHG emissions until 2030, and even then it will be voluntary and dependent on how their economies are doing. That means atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb, greening the planet and spurring faster crop, forest and grassland growth.

President Obama and the 40,000 climate alarmists gathered in Paris ignored these inconvenient realities, and whitewashed the adverse consequences of anti-hydrocarbon policies. Even binding targets would have minimal or illusory health, climate and environmental benefits.

Instead, they would have horrendous adverse effects on human health and environmental quality, while doing nothing to prevent climate change or extreme weather events. What alarmists wanted in Paris would let unelected, unaccountable activists and bureaucrats decide which industries, companies, workers, families, states and countries win the Climate Hustle game, and which ones lose.

And it’s not just President Obama. He wants to slash America’s carbon dioxide emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 – and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050! Every Democrat presidential candidate demands similar actions: Hillary Clinton wants one-third of all US electricity to come from wind and solar by 2027; Bernie Sanders wants 50% by 2030; Martin O’Malley wants 100% by 2050.

Obligating the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, and send billions of taxpayer dollars annually to dictators, bureaucrats and crony industrialists in poor countries would be disastrous. Thank goodness it did not happen. But we are not out of the woods yet.

Via email

Scientists criticize climate agreement

The researchers — including Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester and a major critic of unrealistic assumptions about how easily the world can limit warming to below 3.6 degrees — were reacting to the latest draft agreement text, released late Thursday.

The document embraces a goal of limiting warming to well below 3.6 degrees above preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 2.7 degrees —a strengthening of goals that many scientists and also vulnerable nations have applauded.

But the text goes on to say that this will be achieved through capping greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, followed by "rapid reductions thereafter towards reaching greenhouse gas emissions neutrality in the second half of the century."

It is the second part of this that drew the scientists’ ire. It’s not clear that a mere peaking "as soon as possible," or "greenhouse gas emissions neutrality" thereafter, will be enough to hit the most ambitious climate targets, they suggested.

Rather, the researchers said, to stay within a given temperature threshold, emissions have to be taken to zero — a word that does not appear in the current text — and for 2.7 degrees in particular, they need to be cut rapidly and immediately.

The current text is "not consistent with science," said Anderson.

"The frustration as a scientist at this point is that once you set that global planetary guardrail, everything else must be consistent with that target," added Steffen Kallbekken, research director for the Climate Economics Unit at the University of Oslo.

"It means reaching . . . 70 to 95 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 as an absolute minimum, and it actually means being careful with statements like ‘greenhouse gas neutrality,’ " Kallbekken said.

Kallbekken, Anderson, and the other scientists suggested that the language about "greenhouse gas neutrality" could open up a massive door to so-called "negative emissions" technologies that could theoretically remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the air, even as humans keep on emitting it.

If we emit too much carbon dioxide to stay within a given temperature target, meanwhile, negative emissions technologies might theoretically cool the planet back down again, allowing for a temporary overshoot without too much lasting planetary harm.

However, scientists have recently been highly critical of assumptions that we can launch these technologies on a mass scale without suffering major side effects, such as using vast amounts of land that might otherwise be used to grow food.

At the panel on Friday, Anderson suggested that relying on these technologies may lead us to believe in "spurious options for the future."

Another researcher present, Joeri Rogelj, a research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, is one of the few scientists to have published a study on precisely what it would take to keep warming below 2.7 degrees in the long term.

The current draft text’s language about "greenhouse gas neutrality," he said, "kind of obscures the fact that global carbon dioxide emissions will have to become zero to stabilize warming at any level."

Rogelj said the world must start reducing emissions by 2020 or earlier to meet the goals. But the current draft’s call for merely peaking emissions "as soon as possible" leaves vast wiggle room.

The researchers praised the inclusion of a 2.7 degree temperature increase in the current text, along with the idea of holding warming well below 3.6 degrees. And they emphasized that the current text could change again by Saturday, perhaps in the direction they’re hoping for — but also perhaps becoming weaker.

"It’s incredibly positive that world political leadership has now recognized the science," said Kallbekken. "It has to then stay scientifically consistent right through."


5 Facts the Left Isn’t Trumpeting About Paris and Climate Change

In his opening statements, President Barack Obama claimed that “there is such a thing as being too late. And when it comes to climate change, that hour is almost upon us.”

In the midst of such self-induced high-pressure politics and the alleged immediacy of the situation, here are a few numbers to keep in mind.

    An Arbitrary Goal: 2 Degrees Celsius

The U.N.’s stated goal of the Paris conference is “to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius” from preindustrial levels. But as the Wall Street Journal reports and others have pointed out well before the Paris talks, many scientists—including those who believe we are facing catastrophic global warming—find the benchmark of 2 degrees Celsius arbitrary.

Professor of climatology at University College London Mark Maslin said, “It emerged from a political agenda, not a scientific analysis. It’s not a sensible, rational target because the models give you a range of possibilities, not a single answer.”

In other words, the entire premise of the conference is faulty.

    $100 Billion (or More)-per-Year Climate Fund

A major sticking point leading up to and during the Paris climate conference has been a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020 to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in developing nations.

Only $10.2 billion has been pledged so far ($3 billion has been promised by Obama), but that’s already $10.2 billion too much.

World Bank Group vice president and special envoy for climate change Rachel Kyte said that “the $100 billion was picked out of the air at Copenhagen.”

Executive secretary for the U.N.’s climate change conventions Christiana Figueres has further admitted that the $100 billion is merely a proxy to win the trust of developing countries and that “we are talking here about trillions of dollars that need to flow into the transformation at a global level.”

    Amount of Warming Since 1998: Almost None

Even as global carbon dioxide emissions have increased, warming has plateaued. Most scientists would agree that the Earth has experience some warming over the past century, but there is little agreement as to how much is attributable to human activity or if warming is even harmful. An analysis by Judith Curry comparing five data sets of actual global temperatures found that all but one showed that global warming is on a break.

However, climate models have predicted far more warming than has actually happened in the past 18 years. If models have been unable to accurately project climate conditions ten years out, how can even longer-term projections be depended upon to make good policy decisions?

    Number of Coal Power Plants Planned Around the World: 2,440

A December report by four climate institutes found that far from decreasing in number, over 2,000 coal power plants are planned around the world in developing and industrialized nations. And for good reason—coal remains an efficient, affordable, and reliable resource to generate electricity.

It’s worth noting, too, that modern American coal power plants aren’t the plants of a century ago (or like the ones in China today) and can filter out 90 percent of mercury emissions and 99.8 percent of soot.

Too many politicians appear out of touch with reality, though. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested that “fossil fuel power generation without [carbon capture and sequestration be] phased out almost entirely by 2100” to mitigate warming.

To this end, the Obama administration’s emissions reduction commitment to cut 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 further stated that this was only a “pathway … to deep, economy-wide emission reductions of 80 percent or more by 2050.”

    Amount of Warming Avoided by the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan: 0.02 Degrees Celsius Over the Next 85 Years

The Clean Power Plan is at the heart of Obama’s U.N. climate commitment. But regardless of one’s opinion of global warming, the Clean Power Plan does next to nothing to reduce global temperatures.

Models created by the Environmental Protection Agency show that the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan is less than 0.02 degrees Celsius in warming avoided over the next 85 years. Meanwhile, it will be extremely costly to American families and businesses, and particularly so for the poor Midwestern states, which rely more heavily on coal for electricity, and the manufacturing sector, which is on the threshold of renewed growth brought on by the oil and gas revolution.

Obama has maneuvered to avoid Senate ratification of a treaty. But regardless of one’s position on global warming, the Paris climate agreement is shortsighted and a bad deal for Americans and the world’s most vulnerable.


NASA Scientist: No Global “Climate Danger”

NASA Meteorologist and member of the Johnson Space Center Climate Group (Ret.), Tom Wysmuller (photo) was interviewed in New York by Celestin Ngoa Balla for the weekly Cameroon newspaper Journal Integration.

Q: Mr Wysmuller:  When did you start investigating the global climate change phenomenon and what evidence do you have to convince our readers of the seriousness, of the rigour of your work?

Thomas Wysmuller:  I’ve always had a love for Meteorology, studied it in school, and forecasted weather at the Royal Dutch Weather Bureau in Amsterdam, before working at NASA before, during, and after the Moon Landings.  Mathematics I helped develop while assigned to work at Jet Engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney is being used by most climate scientists all over the world.  In the late 1990s I started lecturing on formation of the Ice Ages; ergo the copyright on The Colder Side of Global Warming.  I continue doing so to this day, and am part of the NASA: The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) group centered at the Johnson Space Center in Houston Texas.

Q: At a recent conference in New York, you stated that after the Paris Summit on climate change, the planet will go back to the stone age. Can you demonstrate that to our readers?

Thomas Wysmuller: The context of that assertion was that we would revert to Stone Age conditions if every proposal, change, and energy destroying wish list item would be enacted as a result of the Paris COP21 conference.  It would mean that inexpensive coal generated electricity would be barred in Africa.  Third World nations would be limited to non-utility scale wind and solar power generation. Africa, South America, and Central America would never develop continent-wide electrical grids, nor would be permitted to develop their own natural resources.  I could go on, but hopefully you are getting the idea!

Q: In the same vein, you are also ringing the alarm bell that behind the Paris summit lies the real agenda of some of the great powers and of some notorious people: reducing Earth’s population. What are your reasons to make such a statement?

Thomas Wysmuller:  Once inexpensive electrical power is denied to those most needing it, diseases will continue taking their toll in the Third World, decent drinking water will remain in short supply and delivery systems for it will remain substandard compared to Europe and North America.

Keep in mind that there are some truly misguided but well-meaning people believing they are doing environmental good involved in COP21.  But others want to keep the Third World poor and relying on “handouts” from the so-called “developed world.”

Even our own (in my view “poor choice” as) president has declared that:  “Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over—unless we find new ways of producing energy”.

Now this is simply false.  The planet will never “…boil over,” unless new laws of physics get invented. But keeping Africa poor will result in more deaths resulting from not “…raising living standards.”

And you should not have to wait for someone else to “…find new ways of producing energy.” What if they don’t?  Does that mean that you and your descendants should wallow in poverty?

Do NOT take our president’s statement as what the American people want for your country.

For me, I would like to see every African of driving age able to 1: Have one or two cars, 2: Have a decent road system upon which to drive them, 3: Have Air Conditioning, 4: Have a big house or elegant apartment, 5: Have a job making, selling, or distributing things like Air Conditioners, Cars, Farm Equipment, or teaching others how to do just that, and all those things that make life pleasant and a lifestyle you can be proud of.

Q: Can you explain your statement that “global warming is not an issue that concerns Africa”?

Thomas Wysmuller:  To begin:  The planet’s atmosphere has not warmed for almost two decades, and that includes Africa.

If we look at the total emissions of CO2 produced by man since 1750, we find that one third of these emissions occurred in only the last 18 years and 9 months. However, the most reliable measurements of the Earth’s surface temperature obtained by satellites show no indication of global warming over this period. There is no evidence to support the claims that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing a sudden, dangerous change in the Earth’s climate.

I pose the following question from time to time: Pick any day of the year, any season. Add two degrees. Notice any difference? Enjoy life. Save $Billions that your government wants to spend or divert on this foolishness.

A small fraction of those same “$Billions” could develop a power grid across all of Africa, provide cheap, reliable and clean coal-fired electricity for all.  CO2 additions would benefit the planet, allowing more rapid plant and crop growth, while CO, Carbon particles, and real pollutants would be controlled with modern engineering techniques.

A competent Physicist or Meteorologist would let you know that equatorial regions of Earth would radiate most of that added heat into space – the colder regions would warm, but not enough to cause major ice depletion.  Recent evidence points to Antarctica gaining so much more ice/snow so as to drop world sea levels by 0.23mm each year. Truly, “global warming is not an issue that concerns Africa” Economic impoverishment most certainly is!

Q: Should we fear the return of colonialism particularly in Africa?

Thomas Wysmuller:  Under real colonialism, you knew from whom you wanted to be liberated.  However, “economic subjugation” is likely even more insidious than that of your past colonial experience.

Keeping Africa from utilizing your own natural resources, keeping you without reliable power, denying you a decent transportation infrastructure to move goods throughout the continent, or even withholding reliable electrical power to make those goods, is true repression.


Q: The Paris Summit organizers think that the growth of jihadism and wars in Africa is linked to global warming. What do you think?

Thomas Wysmuller:  The recent unrest in the world and attacks in Paris “feed” this kind of thinking.  In truth, poverty and lack of food and water are the “fuel” for jihadism.  This results in destabilization attempts directed towards governments who are unable to “cure” these societal ills.  If reliable electricity would power desalinization plants and provide water for agriculture and industry, the attractiveness for regime destruction relied upon by jihadists would dissipate.

Q: Is there a relationship between the warming of the oceans and the emissions of CO2?

Thomas Wysmuller:  Absolutely!  As the oceans warm, they release the heavier dissolved CO2 molecules contained within them.  In fact they are responsible for almost all of the CO2 emissions added to the atmosphere every year.  Humans account for less than 4%, and half of that is re-absorbed by either plants or the oceans each year!!!

Q: What advice would you give to the African heads of state that have already accepted the invitation to go to the Paris Summit? Should they refuse to sign the protocol to impose a worldwide climate policy?

Thomas Wysmuller:  Go to the Paris Summit.  Do NOT give up your nation’s right to explore for, extract, utilize and develop your natural resources.

Review any technical assistance offered, but have your own scientists that have high integrity, analyze any offers and accept only those that:  1: Give your nation capability that it doesn/t presently have, 2: Contribute to your own energy independence, 3: Grant meaningful employment for your people, 4:  Improve your nation’s infrastructure, and 5: Allow you to increase your nation’s competitiveness in all aspects of world trade.  There are many more in addition to these 5, but starting with these, your heads of state will earn their right to remain in their positions.

And yes, they should absolutely refuse to sign the protocol as it has been described to me.  Signing will guarantee permanent mediocrity for those African nations that are tricked into supporting the protocol.

Q: And what message do you have for the African population who, not long ago, heard Barack Obama tell them that it is dangerous for the planet that every house should have electricity?

Thomas Wysmuller:  Tell Barack Obama to cut power to the US White House 20 times per day, sell his jet plane Air Force One, and get rid of the cars that he rides in on the way to golf courses on a weekly basis.  When all of those happen, then consider that you might not want every house having electricity, and decide that his house will be the only one in that category.

Q: Nonetheless, the phenomenon of global warming is not a myth. And you are saying that it has some good advantages such as creating jobs?

Thomas Wysmuller:  We are in a 2 degree C plus and minus temperature band for the past 10,000 years!  300 years ago we were cooling. 100 years ago we started warming again.  We are still in that 2 degree C range, and not anywhere near the top of that range.

Add atmospheric CO2 and plants grow more and need less water to do so.  Satellite imagery of the Sahel region of Africa shows greening during the 20 years after the satellites were first put in orbit.  If there is any myth, it is that of taking just the past 100 years of temperature change and insisting that it will go on forever.  Over 100 climate models have failed to accurately project the Earth’s atmospheric temperature – and all but 3 failed on the high side because of CO2 increase assumptions and feedbacks built into the modeler’s assumptions.

Jobs will follow as a result of NOT following the proposed resource development restrictions that some would impose upon your country and delight in your continued subservience.  I’m not one of them!!!

Q: The way things are going right now, some scientists fear an increase of floods, cyclones and other natural catastrophes. Can you comment?

Thomas Wysmuller:  Those scientists to whom you refer just are not keeping up with reality.  I cannot apologize for their ignorance, but hopefully they can.  There is a concept called “Accumulated Cyclonic Energy” (ACE) and it is tracked worldwide.  It takes the energy components of storms wind speed, storm duration measured in 6-hour intervals, and area covered.  This ACE statistic trend is tracked, and for the past 15 years the trend is down, and decidedly so, even as CO2 has risen.

Hurricanes, Cyclones, Typhoons, etc., are within their historic ranges though not fewer in number, but this is likely due to better satellite tracking of these systems.  In areas where there is high accuracy in storm tracking, such as the United States, numbers of Tornadoes in all categories are either diminished or flat, none increasing!

Please keep in mind that the “catastrophes” referred to are all “Weather” related, not “Climate” related, as “Climate” is the result of very long term changes in the averages of many meteorological factors, and CO2 is not the major one involved.

Q: What can explain that two weeks before the Paris summit, the conclusions of your work and your observations are not well-known around the world? Are there some people that don’t want your voice to be heard?

Thomas Wysmuller:  Many highly regarded and recognized scientists with world class reputations share my outlook and have similar opinions.  I give lectures, talks and presentations all over the world, and those conclusions that I have arrived at with others are actually quite well known.

I am sure there are some that “…don’t want your (my) voice to be heard,” but those are the actions of fear; fear that they will be exposed as less than competent, and have to defend policies that damage the very people and nations that they pretend to be helping.

Q: Can you tell us why you are not afraid to oppose the powerful nations and powerful people (including even the Pope) who are involved in promoting this climate change agenda? They say that that there is a danger! Are you trying to tell us that the right of all nations to develop, the need to create jobs, and the need for science to be truthful, is more important than fear?

Thomas Wysmuller:  Absolutely!!! And there is no “climate danger” to worry about but there is a very real danger that lack of development, poverty, and lack of economic opportunity present to your country and the world!

I have easily developed a lack of fear with respect to my positions, as they are grounded in hard science, accurate data, and a structured approach in problem solving that I learned during my days at NASA.  Over the years I have applied my Meteorological, Mathematical, and Earth Sciences background to my presentations, and acquired an understanding of climate, and Ice-Age formation.

I believe my “advice” to the developing world will actually allow them to DEVELOP!!!  Rise to the level that brings the best lifestyle, medical health, and prosperity that you can hope for and then benefit all of humanity!!!  When your nation’s intelligence and intellect is focused on becoming equal partners in the world, the rest of the world’s nations will welcome your inclusion in mainstream economic progress, and I not only look forward to that day, but will work hard to convince others to help you achieve it.

I thank you for your work in communicating my viewpoints to your country’s leaders and your general readership.  Political decisions based upon sound science and correct information are the recipe for national achievement, and I wish you the very best in attaining that success!!!



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: