When the pope wrote in an encyclical last year that the Earth is “among the most abandoned and maltreated of the poor,” Myron Ebell immediately saw that as an opportunity to attack. The Vatican “seems to have forgotten” that “putting the world on an energy-starvation diet will consign billions of people to perpetual energy poverty,” Ebell wrote in a blog post for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Global warming might be bad, he added, but “global warming policies…will almost certainly be catastrophic.”
Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate-change skeptic, was chosen at the end of September to head the Environmental Protection Agency’s transition team if Donald Trump is elected president. That does not necessarily mean he would have a role in a Trump EPA, but at the very least, he would be able to populate the EPA with officials who share his views and those of Trump, who hasn’t made the environment an issue in his campaign but does offer goals and proposals on his campaign website. His plans are listed under a tab that says “Energy.” There is no “Environment” tab. And his proposals have far more to do with boosting energy production than with conservation. It says nothing about greenhouse gas emissions.
Ebell’s harsh rebuke of the pope—especially this pope, revered as a champion of the poor—and his other writings offer a glimpse of what a Trump EPA might look like—both in substance and in style. It would be vastly different from what the agency has looked like under President Barack Obama and sharply at odds with the scientific consensus.
The appointment of Ebell to head the transition team came as Trump was fumbling to deny a 2012 tweet in which he wrote, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” In the first presidential debate on September 26, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton accused him of saying climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. “I did not. I did not. I do not say that,” he replied, later calling the tweet a “joke.”
Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief, and he revels in it, crowing in his biography that he’s been called one of the leading “misleaders” on climate change and “villain of the month” …
The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that Arctic sea ice has been refreezing at its fastest rate since daily records began in 1987.
I know it is only two weeks since I last reported on Arctic ice, but the latest news from that front is even more remarkable. My theme then was those sad climate activists who regularly venture into the polar regions because they have been fooled into thinking that the ice is vanishing but find it so thick that they have to be rushed back to safety. But this week’s focus is on those responsible for fooling them.
For nine years, two professors – Wieslaw Maslowski from California and Peter Wadhams from Cambridge – have been in the forefront of warning that, thanks to runaway global warming, the Arctic will soon be “ice-free”. Their every dire prediction has been eagerly reported by the warmist media, led by the BBC, In 2007 they said this would happen “by 2013”.
In July 2008 The Independent even devoted its entire front page to announcing that the ice could have gone by that September, only to find that it had by then begun a marked recovery. By 2012, when this dreadful event still hadn’t happened, Wadhams was making headlines by predicting that it would all be gone “by 2016” (only for its thickness to increase in 2013 and 2014 by 33 per cent). By June 2016, with Wadhams due to publish a book called Farewell To Ice, he was being quoted, under such headlines as “Arctic could be ice-free for first time in 100,000 years claims leading scientist”, again predicting that by this September it could have shrunk to “an area less than one million square kilometres” and by next year could be all gone.
So, with September now over, what happened? By Sept 10 the ice had reached its lowest extent, 4.1 million sq km, four times more than Wadhams predicted. But this was its earliest date of refreezing for 19 years. And what has happened since, is even more startling, The Danish Meteorological Institute reports that, since that date, it has been refreezing at its fastest rate since daily records began in 1987.
In a note for the Global Warming Policy Forum, Dr David Whitehouse, formerly science editor for the BBC website, shows how, ever since those scary predictions began in 2007, the trend of summer melting has …
Scientists: The Arctic Was Sea-Ice-Free,19°C Warmer 4 Million Years Ago — And Yet Polar Bears Somehow Survived
“Whether polar bears are 350,000 years old or 6 million years old, unless we take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they face a future where the climate will continue to warm. And this warming will be unlike anything polar bears have survived before.” — Polar Bears International
During the Pliocene, or from about 3 to 5 million years ago, subarctic regions of the Northern Hemisphere (Norway, Iceland, Canada) were up to 10°C warmer than they are now, and the Arctic region itself was as much as 19°C warmer than now, with sea-ice-free summers and no permafrost. All this warmth occurred while CO2 concentrations were well below today’s levels. Polar bears somehow managed to survive in these balmy Arctic and subarctic climates.
“Pollen from three subarctic sites in the Norwegian Sea, northern Iceland and Labrador Sea indicate that mid-Pliocene January temperatures in Norway, Iceland and southeastern Canada were 4 to 10°C warmer than today (Willard 1994). … Evidence of both mixed deciduous/coniferous and coniferous forests placesmean July temperatures 10°C warmer than today [in Arctic Canada] (Vincent 1990). In addition, northwestern Alaska air and sea temperatures during peak Pliocene interglacials were considerably warmer than present, by 7 to 8°C, with no permafrost, and absent or severely limited sea ice (Carter et al. 1986; Kaufman and Brigham-Grette 1993).”
From the press release, Robinson states that Arctic summer sea surface temperatures were about 10-18°C (50 – 64°F) on average 4 million years ago, compared to 0°C (and lower) during summers today.
“The U.S. Geological Survey found that summer sea-surface temperatures in the Arctic were between 10 to 18°C (50 to 64°F) during the mid-Pliocene, while current temperatures are around or below 0°C (32°F).”
“The consensus among these proxies suggests that Arctic temperatures were ∼19 °C warmer during the Pliocene than at present, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ∼390 ppmv.”
“Pliocene Arctic Ocean summer SSTs were appreciably warmer than modern and seasonally sea-ice free conditions existed in some regions. … At Lake El’gygytgyn (Lake ‘‘E’’) in Siberia summer temperatures were 8°C warmer than modern and at Ellesmere Island, Canada, summer and MAT [mean annual temperatures] were 11.8°C and 18.3°C higher than today.”
“[A] seasonally ice-free marginal and central Arctic Ocean was common … regionally during the early Holocene [6,000 to 10,000
Mr. Kyoji Kimoto has asked me to post the following essay, which tells us leading climate sensitivity scientist Dr. Robert Cess admits the IPCC assumptions are erroneous. (Note: Because WordPress didn’t handle some of the scientific notation, I had to cut and paste parts of the text as images).
Dr. Robert D. Cess admits mathematical errors in the AGW theory of the IPCC
by Kyoji Kimoto
Soden & Held  shows climate sensitivity is 3°K for 2xCO2 from the 14 GCM studies for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) as follows:
Climate sensitivity = no-feedback sensitivity (Planck response) x feedbacks
= 1.2°K x 2.5 = 3°K
Here, feedbacks are water vapor, ice albedo, lapse rate and cloud feedback.
In the AGW theory of the IPCC, the central assumption is that the Planck response is 1.2°K. Cess [2, 3] obtained the Planck feedback parameter lambda0 of -3.3(W/m2)/K utilizing eqn (1), giving the Planck response of 1.2K with the radiative forcing RF of 4W/m2 for 2xCO2 as follows:
Coincidently, the Planck response of 1.2°K by eqn (3) is in very good agreement with the Planck response of 1.2 – 1.3°K obtained with one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies in the literature [4, 5, 6]. Therefore, the Cess method has been followed by many researchers, including the IPCC 1st Assessment Report (1990) and the 14 GCM studies for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007).
It is the sole theoretical basis of the central assumption of the IPCC that the Planck response is 1.2°K at present time [7, 8, 9], because the 1 DRCM study is fudged due to its strong dependence on lapse rate used according to Hansen’s idea expressed in an interview with Spencer Weart held on 23 October, 2000 at NASA.
On 23 August, 2016, Dr. Robert D. Cess gave me the following answer to my mail, admitting his mathematical errors in the derivation from eqn (1) to eqn (3). Dr. Cess was the leading climate scientist of Intercomparison Project of GCMs for the IPCC Assessment Reports. He wrote:
I will try this one more time, and then I will give up. A lot has happened since M&S (1964) and M&W (1967). In modern usage, the no-feedback sensitivity refers to holding all climate parameters fixed except surface temperature. It addresses the question: What would the sensitivity be if there
India is doubling it’s coal use by 2020 and tripling it’s emissions by 2030. That’s what “going green” means.
India has ratified the weakest kind of non-reduction, just a promise it will try to “cut emissions intensity“. That big goal is to increase its carbon emissions by slightly less than the rate its population is growing at. An achievement most countries do just by being there. It’s the default condition as economies develop. Instead of reducing emissions, India is set to increase its total emissions threefold by 2030. Ratify that, eh?
Though even that pitifully weak anti-goal is not enforceable. Nearly everything in the Paris deal is optional, voluntary, and written as a should, not a shall. After ten months of delays and frivolous ambit claims like trying to get entry to the nuclear club (and access to more uranium), India has finally signed up for Paris anyway. Which is signing nothing much — really India has agreed to submit a new goal for itself every five years, and do a stocktake. It’s that banal.…
Influential scientist, futurist, and inventor Dr. James Lovelock, often called the godfather of the environmental movement, continues to walk back his previous doom-and-gloom predictions of a global warming climate change catastrophe.
He also claims that self-replicating robots, who are hardly affected much by the weather, will be running the show within 80 years.
Professor Lovelock, 97, is probably best-known for his “Gaia” model of the earth as a single organism.
Ten years ago, he predicted in a book that billions of the world population were doomed to die as a result of climate change and that humanity was past the point of no return. He also predicted that the relatively few survivors among the human race would be clustered in the more tolerable Arctic Circle area.
In 2014, however, he described the environmental movement as becoming more like a religion that is not based on facts. He added that, “It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain.”
In a newly published interview with the Guardian, he again deemed the green movement a “totally unscientific” religion.
“Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly…CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
In another significant departure from the climate change cohort, Lovelock favors both fracking and nuclear power, but views both as non-renewable stopgap measures. A massive solar panel installation in the Sahara Desert could satisfy Europe’s energy needs, but would be too vulnerable to terrorist attacks, Lovelock noted.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3559463/global-warming-guru-disavows-climate-change-thinks-robots-taking-over-anyway/#DGjxhBtvlFzWgRLG.99…
Climate alarmism, he says, is not “remotely scientific”; one volcano could make more difference to global warming than humans ever could; the computer models are “unreliable”; greens have behaved “deplorably”; and anyone who tries to “predict more than five to ten years is a bit of an idiot.”
Though this is not the first time Lovelock has rowed back on his earlier climate catastrophism – in 2012 he was already admitting “I made a mistake” – it’s his most emphatic rejection yet of the green litany.
Lovelock, 97, ascribes the dramatic change in his once fervently alarmist beliefs to the fact that he has “grown up.”
Only ten years ago – when the inventor, scientist and environmentalist was a mere spring chicken of 87 – Lovelock argued in his book The Revenge of Gaia that mankind was doomed.
Because of global warming, he predicted, “billions will die” and the few survivors would have to retreat to the Arctic which would be one of the few habitable places left on earth.
But now he admits to being “laid back about climate change.”
“CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
Besides, he says, nature is more powerful than the computer models:
As the creator of “gaia theory,” James Lovelock warned for decades that global warming would virtually wipe out humanity, but in a recent interview, the 97-year-old scientist had some harsh words for global warming alarmists.
“Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly,” Lovelock told The Guardian in a recent interview.
“CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would,” he said. “The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact, I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change.”
“You’ve only got to look at Singapore,” he added. “It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”