Climatologist Dr. John Christy: We Have a ‘Moral Imperative’ to Burn Fossil Fuels – ‘The global climate is not very sensitive to CO2’

The pope’s encyclical “displays a lack of understanding of how the real world works,” Christy told According to microwave data from satellites going back to 1978, which are precise to within .08 of a degree, “very little warming is taking place,” he pointed out.

Carbon-based energy, which is “the most affordable and reliable source of energy in demand today, liberates people from poverty,” Christy explained to “Without energy, life is brutal and short.”

“The conclusion we have reached is that the world, the global climate, is not very sensitive to carbon dioxide. And that can occur if the climate responds in its many facets to release heat – when you add the heat from carbon dioxide. So carbon dioxide does allow more heat to be retained in the climate system, but the climate system also has many ways to allow an increased release of heat into space.

”So we think that’s what’s going on, that there are feedbacks that are allowing that heat to escape and not accumulate the way models have indicated it should.”

And drastically reducing the use of fossil fuels, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed under its Clean Power Plan, will have a “miniscule” effect on global temperatures, Christy added.

“The science is fairly simple in terms of numbers. The amount of carbon dioxide emissions avoided by this plan is miniscule compared to the world emissions. Therefore, its impact on the global temperature will be miniscule.

“It will be so tiny we can’t even measure it. It’s going to be less than .02 of a degree for the next several decades,” Christy said…

Weather data at Washington’s Reagan National Airport fiddled

Are political considerations superseding scientific ones at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

When confronted with an obviously broken weather station that was reading way too hot, they replaced the faulty sensor — but refused to adjust the bad readings it had already taken. And when dealing with “the pause” in global surface temperatures that is in its 19th year, the agency threw away satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures, substituting questionable data that showed no pause.

Unfortunately, following this with the kerfuffle over the Reagan temperature records is only going to “convince” even more people that our government is blowing hot air on global warming.


Warmist Joe Romm: ‘Why President Trump Would Likely Honor A Paris Climate Deal & EPA’s’ Climate Regs

First, the Paris accord is almost certain to be a very good deal for us (as I discussed here), and Trump sees himself as a great deal-maker above all else. Second, Trump understands the value of “brand” — and nothing would ruin his brand (or this country’s) more permanently than to be the guy (or country) who killed the world’s best (and maybe only) chance of getting onto a path that could avoid catastrophic warming and centuries of misery for billions of people.
If, as Trump said Sunday, he won’t torch the Iranian nuclear deal, then he isn’t going to burn any Paris accord — and that means he’d have to honor the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, since that is essential to the U.S. side of the deal.

If there were a Paris deal and the United States simply torched it, however, then President Trump and the United States will be blamed for whatever catastrophic climate change subsequently occurs. We would be the ones who ripped the tourniquet off that had stanched the bleeding.
A brand-obsessed deal-maker is not going to invite permanent brand destruction and historical notoriety of the kind enjoyed by leaders like Neville Chamberlain and Herbert Hoover — all to destroy a global deal that requires minimal effort to fulfill.…