Wednesday, December 2, 2020
Home Middle Column UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol bolts warmist narrative: Calls Gore's...

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol bolts warmist narrative: Calls Gore’s claims ‘complete madness’

-

Via: http://cliscep.com/2016/01/06/interviews-with-richard-tol/

There’s an interesting blog based in Belgium called Trust, yet verify. If you’re not familiar with it, do take a look, there are plenty of good posts there. The blogger, Michel, describes in a series of posts starting here how he started out as a devout believer in what we were being told about the climate crisis, then started to look into it in more detail, asked questions, was not satisfied by the answers and the tone in which they were delivered, and gradually became more sceptical – a very familiar story.

Tol is one of the most highly cited researchers in the field and an IPCC author, writing for WG2 about economic impacts.

The world is in uproar about the climate, but you claim that climate change is not a problem?

Tol: “There is no reason to believe that climate change is so terrible at the moment. Unless you raise funds for Greenpeace or are a politician who presents themself as the savior of mankind: then you gain by exaggerating things. The reality is that the climate hardly affects our wellbeing and our prosperity. There are happy and rich people living in boiling hot Singapore, but also in freezing cold Canada. There are unhappy and poor people in boiling hot Kenya but also stone cold Mongolia. Climate change is not the main environmental problem. Dirty air causes currently roughly four million deaths each year.”

Are you concerned that the future of your children is at risk due to climate change?

Tol: “Not for a moment. It disturbs me hearing people like Al Gore say that he is worried about the future of his grandchildren. Complete madness. The best estimate is that sea level will rise half a meter this century. That is from the ground to our knees. The Netherlands has the money and the knowledge to do something about it. It is the poorest who are affected by climate change. It is the grandchildren of the people in a country like Bangladesh who are at risk from rising sea levels. But why are we suddenly concerned about the grandchildren of people that we care little about? Poverty is a bigger problem than climate change. Do you help the poor by reducing greenhouse gas emissions or by fighting poverty? An important question for which no one has a clear answer yet.”

There is also a follow-up post on a short response in the same newspaper in which an environmental activist attacks Tol, falsely claiming that he thinks only money matters and that his views contradict common sense.


Another much longer interview with Tol was carried out by BBC correspondent Roger Harrabin for his pre-Paris series on Radio 4. The full transcript is available at Carbon Brief.  This interview also illustrates the bias and prejudice of Harrabin:  he illustrates my point about painting, by noting that Tol is on the advisory panel ofGWPF, but incorrectly describing GWPF as “a climate skeptic lobby group” (in fact they are a think tank, not a lobby group, with no official or shared view, as Harrabin could have found out if he had looked at their website).

Then there’s this question from Harrabin: “Just looking at you now and from the point of view of the listeners, you look rather different from the average climate contrarian. They tend to be suited and booted and you have long hair and beard and a t-shirt. It’s a different look.”  Again, from the point of view of activists like Harrabin, anyone who dares to question imminent disaster is a ‘contrarian’.  But “suited and booted”?  Has Harrabin met the pony-tailed Jonathan Jones? Or any members of the Cliscep team?

From this interview we learn that

  • Richard Tol used to be a member of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.
  • His early research was on the statistical link between greenhouse gases and climate change.
  • He set out to prove Nordhaus’s low carbon price argument wrong – but ended up proving Nordhaus right.
  • There is huge uncertainty in the impact and economic cost of carbon dioxide emissions.
  • The UK is a model for how not to implement climate policy.
  • He supports a modest carbon tax, and opposes subsidies for green energy systems.
  • Many of the more dramatic impacts of climate change are really symptoms of mismanagement and poverty.

There’s also quite a bit about his withdrawal from the IPCC Summary team, on the grounds of their excessive alarmism, and his view on the benefits of warming, and much more.

#

Related Links:

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Mocks UN Climate Treaty Process As ‘Futile Effort’ Where Countries ‘Pretend To Reduce Emissions’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips 97% consensus claim: ‘The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever’

‘It’s All Wrong’: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol slams media for false claims about alleged 97% consensus

NYT: John Kerry ‘hopes to use his position as secretary of state to achieve a legacy on global warming that has long eluded him’

Global warming causes polygamy?! Dr. Richard Tol mocks: ‘Men marry multiple wives to beat drought’ – ‘Cue claims that climate change will turn us all into bigamists’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Corrects Obama: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Debunks ‘97% Consensus’ Claim – Tol says. ‘[The IPCC’s] reputation of competence was shredded by the climate community’s celebration of the flawed works of Michael Mann’

‘If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s (97%) paper is an excellent case in point.’

The paper only claims that 97 percent of the scientific literature that takes a position on climate change (most does not) supports man-made global warming hypotheses. Yet supporters have used it to claim that 97 percent of scientists support global warming theories; they do not. “In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter,” Tol says.

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Mocks climate hype: ‘2015: the most crucial year for decades in the climate battle as were 1992, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2009′

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Laments: ‘Politically correct climate change orthodoxy has completely destroyed our ability to think rationally about the environment’ – Tol: ‘There is no prima facie reason to assume that any given past climate was better than the prospective one.’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong’

Leading German Daily Paper: Climate ‘Apocalypse Will Not Take Place’…UN IPCC’s Dr. Richard Tol: ‘97% Consensus Does Not Exist’ – Germany’s print high-profile national daily the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) which features climate economist Richard Tol titled: ‘The apocalypse won’t take place’ – ‘Tol is one of the most productive and most respected researchers in his field. He is (co)author of more than 250 papers in renowned journals and according to the Ideas-Repec databank, among the top 100 scientists worldwide.’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up’

 

309 COMMENTS

  1. Fair enough comments from Dr. Tol. However, I remain a bit skeptical of his timing. Now that Algore’s “prophecy” is clearly a failure for all to see, he decides to call him out? Why not say this nine years ago? 8, 7, 6, etc… It was just as absurd then as it is now.

  2. The talk about sea levels rising has been going on for many years. I have lived by the sea in the Pacific NW since 1979 – that is 36 years, about a third of a century. I have spent many hours at the nearby marina over those years. The high tide mark is the same today as it was in 1979. If we are looking for a sea level rise of half a meter in a century, I should see a fairly linear increase of about 16 cm by now – never happened. Tidal changes up here are rather dramatic as it is common to get a 13 foot differential between low and high tide, depending on the lunar cycle.

                    • Science, bro. You can’t refute the paper that did this. You can’t refute any paper that does such. Not one. You can’t do it.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • isand, give it up. You are in abject denial and one of the few remaining residents of the Island of Misfit Climate Clowns…..probably explains the maniacal “LMAOs”…

                    • You have no clue how many scientists refute the hypothesis. Why? Maybe your head is too far up your rear end??…………….LMAO!!

                    • No scientist has provided any evidence which disproves the AGW hypothesis.

                      Speaking of rear ends, while you’re busy pulling lies and conjecture from your rectum, reach in with both hands and extract that delusional head of yours.

                    • Rick, what are you trying to pull out of your mouth?…….LMAO!!

                      BTW, the burden of proof lies with the AGW crowd, not the other way around. They can’t show any linkage between CO2 and temperatures. 20 years now with negligible warming according to RSS. All the while CO2 increases. So sad for you idiots that fell for that garbage….

                    • You clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a theory or hypothesis. The evidence not “proof”…there is no such thing in science as absolute proof…is overwhelming. That’s why we have an AGW hypothesis and GHG theory.

                      Learn some science basics and then get back to me.

                    • “No scientist has provided any evidence which disproves the AGW hypothesis.”

                      Aren’t you using the word “disprove”? The evidence is NOT overwhelming. The evidence, at this point, shows NO linkage between CO2 and temperatures. RSS confirms that. Why don’t YOU learn a little bit before appearing as ignorant as you must be?

                    • Again, buffoon. LOOK UP the definitions of theory and hypothesis then get back to me when you understand these basic tenets of science.

                      “NO linkage between CO2 and temperatures.” ???

                      Wow, you are deep, deep down in that rabbit hole.

                      Sorry, rube. It’s Friday and I’m out to meet up with intelligent life forms…your complete opposite.

                    • Can’t refute what I just said. Figures. You have no clue about “basic science”. You are just another clown who is a legend in his own mind……LMAO!!

                    • I understand, You’re embarrassed that the actual science doesn’t fit your belief system and you’ve been outed for your complete lack of understanding of the temperature/CO2 relationship

                      While you’re licking your wounds, look up the definition of theory and hypothesis, rube….

                    • Keep harping about “Hypotheses” and “Theories”. You can’t even figure out how to post a graph………LMAO!!!

                    • I was flagged…probably by some science devoid rube like you. But look!…I found your profile pic!

                    • Really, rube?…..hahaahahahaha…..couldn’t even get that to attach? Admit it, Nutsack. You are none too sharp, yet you have the hubris to call someone else “rube”….OH! the irony!!!………….LMAO!!!!

                    • Poor Nutsack. I almost feel sorry for your dumbass…….not really. Now go play with the other children………LMAO!!!

                    • hehehehe….keep trying there, Nutsack. You might eventually come up with something half-way witty. I doubt it though…..LMAO!!!

                    • Too bad you don’t know how to attach it. Your ignorant pal, Dano, couldn’t help you? You must have a problem following directions……..LMAO!!

                    • It’s right there. Another thing you’re in denial about. …or maybe your etch-a-sketch is broken?

                    • Right where? In your own delusional mind? Tell us when you’ve figured out how to post it, Nutsack.

                    • Sorry, it isn’t there. Just because you think you posted something doesn’t mean it went through. You said you were “flagged”, so you admitted nothing went through. Which is it? get your story straight there, Nutsack.

                    • I believe I was flagged earlier because I couldn’t post pics or graphs. I can now and the pic still appears on my screen. You must just have a shit computer….matches your brain.

                    • Poor stupid, Rick. Your intellect just isn’t too great. You must know it too. Focusing on me? I’m in your brain rent-free now. I find it amusing. You have no clue how computers work just like you have no clue how the climate behaves.

                    • isand, you’re nothing more than a science devoid mewling little quim.

                      You prove it with each successive post.

                    • LOL….. I have bio and chem degrees and.30 years consulting across numerous scientific disciplines, mainly involving climate science these past 10 years.

                      Armchair “scientists” like you who rely on skeptic blogs for “knowledge” are a scourge to science.

                      I have forgotten more about climate science than you’ll ever know.

                    • A legend in your own mind too? Sure you do. Right. If what you said was true you wouldn’t let someone as insignificant as me get under your skin. You are one insecure dude. A mental midget for sure…..what say you now, Nutsack?

                    • “get under my skin”….lol, You’ve been owned by Dano (another scientist) and I. You don’t even know the definition of theory and hypothesis. You’re like a little gnat that keeps getting swatted away.

                    • You just think I got “owned”. That’s when you got the false courage to jump in. You got destroyed by your own insecurities. I could not care less what you and the other “scientist’ think of me. But you? I’m so far into your insecure head you can’t stand it. Try some more, Nutsack. This is fun.

                    • I just stumbled upon your exchange with dano. I’ve known him through various forums like this for a few years. I always find it entertaining when people don’t understand his succinct delivery. Like myself, though, he’s an actual scientist and thoroughly understands climate science.

                      You’re a climate clown, isand. You deny the CO2 / temp relationship and therefore 150 yrs of radiative physics. You don’t know what constitutes a theory or hypothesis and what it takes to disprove them. You’re just not well versed at all in climate science…it’s glaringly obvious.

                      We’re the complete opposite of you.

                    • Then why are you wasting your time with a peon like me? I can tell you why. You are an insecure little man who has to impress people with your limited amount of knowledge. I am inside your head or you’d ignore a “gnat” like me. But you can’t and I find it amusing. Keep trying, Nutsack.

                      BTW, NOBODY thoroughly understands climate science. That statement right there shows how ignorant you truly are. Bio and Chem degrees? from where, the back of a match box?

                    • lol…scale back your sense of self-importance, isand …it’s just free entertainment for me.

                      When I see climate clowns like you make statements that they are so certain are valid, when they clearly aren’t, I can’t help but step in and call them out because, as I said before, the disinformation you rubes try to spread is a scourge to science.

                      My degrees are from a Big Ten Univ. and I wrote my Sr. thesis on CFCs and the Antarctic ozone hole. I’ve been at the center of this “climate controversy” since the 70s….except that it wasn’t a controversy until politics reared it’s ugly head to muddy the waters about 10 years ago. Compared to you and your ilk, yes I thoroughly understand climate science.

                    • No, you don’t have a “thorough understanding of climate science”. That is a lie. Any REAL scientist would know better than make an ignorant statement like that. The science isn’t settled and none of the REAL scientists are claiming such. You are simply a fraud.

                      If you were so knowledgeable how come I don’t see you over on WUWT debating them? How about Dr. Roy Spencer, or any of thousand PHD skeptics? Why not? Insecure? Probably. You are an insecure little man. That goes for Dano, the clown, as well. When he makes the simplistic statement that climate change prior to humans was caused just by “orbital variation”, it exposes him as an ignorant fraud as well.

                    • You seem a bit enraged, isand…I can visualize the blood vessels popping out on your forehead as you hammer away at the keyboard….calm down….lol

                      Thorough as in “in depth”. The word is not a superlative adjective, rube.

                      WUWT…lol…I spent time over there a few years ago and took them to task on many occasions. A memorable one was calling out Bob Tisdale regarding his false claims on atmospheric CO2 saturation I met and spoke with Spencer at a fundraising event about 5 years ago. I liked him, but disagree with his PDO assertions. He tries too hard to minimize the AGH component and that’s why his ideas haven’t gained more traction in mainstream climate science.

                      No need to defend Dano, but I assure you, he understands Paleoclimatology far better than you. He just doesn’t have the patience anymore to explain details and deal with the outright stupidity of some people.

                      I’ve reached the same point with you, so see you around, climate clown….

                    • Not here. But that isn’t surprising. You and all the other AGW kooks live in an alternate universe…..LMAO!!!

                    • It’s still there twice. I think your computer just sucks. At least now the humor will make sense to you. Climate science sure doesn’t.

                    • You have exposed your problem, seriously. You think that because I don’t see something you post, the problem must be with my computer. Is that the depth of your intellect? No wonder you can’t convince anyone in a debate. You are just too shallow there, Rick. Good day, it has been fun playing in the kiddie box with you. I have more adult things to tend to (and that doesn’t mean going out and getting drunk like you did last night).

                    • It shows up on 4 devices of mine. No surprise it “didn’t work” for you, though. You have established a track record of “not getting the picture”. I guess it’s from the kiddie box to the cat box for you. Have fun. I don’t drink.

                    • Historically co2 lags temperature.. That is the only link. There is a strong correlation between co2 and the amount raw data has been adjusted. R2 of .97

                    • I’m thoroughly versed in the sciences. You are either willfully ignorant or in abject denial. Either is a pathetic excuse.

                    • And in what day did he blow me away… Showing that satellite and surface data are diverging at an amazing rate? Or was it his Facebook references? Being so well versed in the sciences. I am sure the explanation is a link away.

    • If you’ll pay attention you’ll see the greatest “sea level change” in urban areas along the coast. Well explained by land subsidence due to aquifer depletion in the bigger cities – lesser amounts in more rural settings. In fact, in more rural settings the increase exactly matches that over the ages. Unfortunately, no grant money has been available for land subsidence studies cause it’s all gone to CAGW/CC/CD/new term of the day.

    • If you fill a glass with ice and add water, the glass does not overflow as the ice melts. It sounds simplistic, but I don’t believe for a minute that polar ice caps are melting, much less that they will cause coastal flooding should they melt.

      • ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        3ztm……..
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        be.
        ➤➤..
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        3bbi……..
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPrint/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

      • ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        3fbf……..
        ➤➤
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDaily/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

      • ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

        A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
        dd
        ➤➤..
        ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

      • Steve says: “If you fill a glass with ice and add water, the glass does not overflow as the ice melts.”

        But if you fill a glass with water, and then put ice on a shelf above the water level of the glass and channel the ice melt into the glass, it will certainly overflow.

          • Steve says: “The glaciers weren’t added to the ocean, they were formed from it.”

            Glaciers in the mountains of Alaska, Greenland, the Alps and elsewhere would beg to differ. Precipitation, rainfall and snowfall–

            • Most of the observed rise in sea level is from thermal expansion of the water in the sea not additions to the water already there.

              For this reason, if the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica continue to increase their mass, sea level will continue to rise at more or less that same long-term rate as it has done for at least that last few centuries.

              This does not apply in places where the land is moving vertically downwards, such as the northeastern seaboard of the USA, which is still subsiding as the Earth’s mantle continues to adjust to the removal of the weight of the continental glacier at the end of the last glaciation.

              The forebulge is slowly subsiding as mantle rock gradually returns to its equilibrium state. This causes relative rise in sea level that is actually a fall in the level of the land.

              • Frederick says: “Most of the observed rise in sea level is from thermal expansion of the water”

                As ocean surface water heats from global atmospheric and surface warming, it expands; as additional water from land surfaces enters the ocean as a result of melt, the mass of ocean water increases. Both add to sea level rise, although I would be curious as to where your information comes from that “most” of the observed sea level rise is from thermal expansion of already-present water in the ocean.

                Frederick says: “if the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica continue to increase their mass …”

                Both Greenland and Antarctica, and glaciers around the world, are losing ice. Antarctica’s sea ice is fluctuating for various reasons but it’s land ice continues to decrease at an accelerating rate, the Arctic Ocean’s sea ice is not only losing extent (number of square miles covered on average) but losing thickness, and Greenland land ice packs are melting at an increasing rate.

                Frederick says: “northeastern seaboard of the USA … still subsiding”

                This simply adds to apparent sea-level rise; it is just one factor of several, the others of which are related to (possibly or probably human exacerbated) warming of global average temperatures.

                There is a tremendous amount of information on the Internet, both from the scientific community as a whole, and from lone “scientific” contrarians as well as politically- or industrially-related websites and organizations. The information from political and fossil-fuel oriented sources, while it may contain some useful or correct information, often ignores other aspects of global warming and anthropogenic causes, or downplays them, or attempts to skew information (that which it does not simply create from imagination, not evidence) for non-scientific, industry or political motivations. In addition, the non-scientific approach attracts conspiracy-theory fans and dedicated contrarians, most of whom have little understanding of the science, evidence and theory involved.

                However, arguing with a dedicated climate contrarian is like arguing about the (unproven and unknown) tenets of the religion of a dedicated devotee of any particular religion, where their beliefs are more important to them than any evidence otherwise, whereas science must always bow to the evidence despite individual variation of belief.

                • “Their mass is not increasing. Both Greenland and Antarctica, and glaciers around the world, are losing mass.”

                  Parts of both Greenland and the Antarctic are losing ice and other parts are gaining ice. Recent studies based on satellite data estimate that on balance both Greenland and the Antarctic are gaining ice.

                  Net ice gain for Antarctica is well-supported. For Greenland there is uncertainty about the meaning of recent increase in ice mass, probably because the net mass change is close to zero. The net balance for Greenland may flip from gain to loss over periods as short as a few decades, mostly from natural causes linked to oceanic oscillations.

                  As for land subsidence that Dano2 calls “anecdotal tripe”, subsidence in delta sections of large rivers and areas with urban conurbations has been well documented.

                  • Fred says: “Recent studies … estimate that on balance both Greenland and the Antarctic are gaining ice.”

                    That is very interesting. I would like to learn more about that, if you don’t mind sharing a website URL or two.

                    Fred says: “land subsidence”

                    I don’t dispute that land does subside (sink) for various reasons including tectonic plate movement. But I do dispute that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise.

                    • “But I do dispute that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise.”

                      I don’t know of anybody who says that land sinking is the primary or only cause of sea-level rise. My point was that local land subsidence is sometimes taken as evidence of sea level rise as a basis for policy.

                      As for ice-mass gain in Antarctica, an impressive paper went public last year. Zwally, the lead author is at the Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

                      Zwally, H.J., Li, J., Robbins, J.W., Saba, J.L., Yi, D. and Brenner, A.C., 2015. Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses. Journal of Glaciology, 61(230), pp.1019-1036.

                      The reports for Greenland are conflicting because some rely on local phenomena rather on mass balance for the whole land mass. Further, ice mass balance is affected by both oceanic and atmospheric factors that are quasi-cyclical. As a result, trends are contaminated by short-term fluctuations.

                    • The recent published study by Zwally et al. about the Antarctic land ice sheet covers the time period between 1992 and 2008. Ice loss has (at least apparently) accelerated since then, although its too early to make definitive conclusions or judgements. The satellite techniques to judge thickness of ice vary in both technology implemented and in reliability (there is room for error in all of them).

                      A complicating factor is that global warming causes the air to hold more moisture (evaporation from surrounding ocean) that has been falling as snow across Antarctica during that time, increasing land ice thickness slightly, while ice loss along the coasts and peninsulas of Antarctica has increased, and is (apparently) accelerating at a faster rate than the snowfall across the land mass of Antarctica is increasing. In other words, Antarctical is both losing and gaining ice, but although global warming has caused a greater precipitation of atmospheric moisture, it is also causing a greater loss of ancient or old ice.

                      The Southern Hemisphere does not have as many warm, tropical currents as does the Northern Hemisphere, which is why Greenland and the arctic regions are experiencing more marked and obvious ice melt. From visibile-light satellite imaging, ice 2 inches thick looks about the same as ice hundreds of feet thick, which makes that data of limited use. Greenland’s interior glaciers, and indeed its entire surface ice pack, is melting at a greater rate every year.

                      Climate science is complicated and involves a lot of technology and scientific study, both of which can be subject to error. But as a whole, the studies and the technology and the data and the evidence all indicate global warming at an accelerating rate, with probable human exascerbation of the process.

                      In the distant past when global warming was caused by relatively large amounts of carbon dioxide in the air from natural causes, much of the life on Earth at that time became extinct. In the further past, when the planet was virtually an ice ball, carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by volcanoes saved the primitive life on Earth by warming the planet to a degree comfortable to the life at that time. But too much warming from carbon dioxide will not be kind to the human species (and many other species of animal), so in my view we should do all we can to avoid making global warming worse. That includes curtailing the use of fossil fuels and trying to mitigate the already existent effects of global warming on the Northern Hemisphere permafrost (carbon and methane sinks) and the oceans. We have a lot of study and work to do if we want to ensure the survival of the human species, even if it is at the expense of some current technology and industrial concerns (the oil and coal industries).

                      Some people believe that global warming doesn’t matter because “in God’s plan” these are “the end times” anyway, and all of this is meant to be. I think those people are seriously deluded by their doubtful religious beliefs, but we must all contend with their wayward ideas even as science attempts to understand the dynamic forces at work on our planet and its many interworking systems.

                    • Thanks for your response. I agree with you there is religious delusion by theists and also believe that the Gaia myth is also a form of religious delusion.

                      As for wanting “”…to ensure the survival of the human species, even if it is at the expense of some current technology and industrial concerns (the oil and coal industries).”, this is what Richard Tol is on about.

                      Climate alarmism promotes extremist policies that undermine the survival of people now living, who are just as much part of the human species as the affluent promoters of low-carbon lifestyles who get front page coverage in the media for supporting asceticism, always for other people and never for themselves.

                      Thanks for a very civilized discussion, nowadays rare when it comes to climate.

                    • Thanks to you also for an interesting discussion of a complex subject.

                      I also agree that the Gaia mythology is a religious delusion like so many others, and that the left, especially the far left, in its blind rush toward “the future,” often ignores or steps all over important aspects of the present. I’m one of those people in the large center swath of society ideologically, who sees strengths and weaknesses in both the far right and far left, in both liberals and conservatives.

                      Anyway, fare well. Thanks.

  3. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is emerging from an ice age. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies would pad the record by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.

    Our present climate is pleasant and productive. I like it, and hope it warms further. But that warming is not caused by fossil fuels use. Spending $44 trillion (as estimated by the IEA) to limit fossil fuels is madness. That is a waste of nearly 30% of the cumulative savings of mankind, and $7,000 for every human being.

    Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See Patrick Moore’s recently released lecture http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.

    There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest are the result of decomposing plant material.

    CO2 is in equilibrium. While a weak greenhouse gas in theory, its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide. Warmer weather from other causes increases natural
    CO2 emissions from rotting vegetation, and results in a higher equilibrium level of ambient CO2, as measured by Keeling.

    Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). For more detail see the
    paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Danish researcher Tom Segalstad, and http://quadrant.org.au/opinion

    Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.

  4. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    3ztm…….
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsClean/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  5. v

    ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Herebe.
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMoney/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  6. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    3bbi…….
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPrint/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

  7. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    3fbf………
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsDaily/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

  8. ❝my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet❞….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    dd
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsOnline/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  9. Richard Tol? Here is what Richard Tol said just last year– “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

  10. “It disturbs me hearing people like Al Gore say that he is worried about the future of his grandchildren. Complete madness”. Being a Bible-Believing Christian, Al Gore is exactly right!! There is a book in the Bible called Job. In it, Job has fears for the future (he is human after all). At the end, He is restored twice as much because of his Faith in the Lord. The reason he lost everything in the first place is because of his fear of losing everything.

    Al Gore is right when he says he worries for the future of his Grandchildren. He is not a Christian and so his fears will come upon him. Also because of his lack of Faith (and so many billions of others), the Lord will punish the whosoever for being the children of Disobedience. So the easiest way NOT to Bankrupt the World is to do nothing that the Fearmongers say and just Obey the Lord in all things. If anyone is interested in doing what the Lord says, search Revival Fellowship.

    Read more: http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2016/01/07/un-ipcc-lead-author-dr-richard-tol-bolts-warmist-narrative-calls-gores-claims-complete-madness/#ixzz3xPgq3L00

    • Religion is problematic, because it depends primarily on faith, not evidence, and faith can ignore or dismiss fact. There are many gods, and most of them are frowned upon or considered quaint and archaic even by Christians, who merely exempt their own God from such critical or humorous scrutiny, whereas many other people, myself included, are inclined to consider the Christian God, and the Christian religion, like all other current religions and all historical but virtually extinct religions, as fanciful creations of man’s imagination, before his rational mind began to provide better answers regarding the vast, mysterious and sometimes scary environment in which early man found himself.

      As such, religion is not the answer to climate change, nor is it an explanation.

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

UPHEAVAL – A Short Novel

Susan J. Crockford -- biologist, author and bone whisperer – has today released her latest fiction effort: UPHEAVAL. and it...

Roger Pielke Jr.’s 2020 Hurricane Season Recap

2020 Atlantic hurricane season ends today Here are updated CONUS normalized losses through 2020 2020 ranks 15th of 121 years Based on @JessicaWeinkle et...

Aussie State Tasmania Declares itself 100% Renewable Energy

100% renewable, except when Tasmania's politicians run down their hydro dams to critical low levels selling green electrons to the mainland, burn out the...