UN climate text adds “An International Tribunal of Climate Justice”

  • UNFCCC Bonn Plenary

Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany resurrected the “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and inserted it into the text they are preparing for nations to agree to at the big UN summit in Paris in December.

The draft text will allow developing nations to sit in judgment over the U.S. and its allies, but not subject those nations to the tribunal’s jurisdiction themselves.

From the October 20th UN draft text (full text available at CFACT.org):

“[An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.”

Over 130 developing nations led by South Africa and instigated by China and India are insisting that they will not sign a climate agreement in Paris unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations.  Now they want the power to haul the U.S. and its allies before a UN Star Chamber to enforce compliance.

This is not the first time that a climate court has appeared in a UN COP 21 Logoclimate text.  In 2011 a nearly identical provision crept into the text at the UN’s climate summit in Durban.  The provision was stripped from the text after CFACT’s Climate Depot blew the whistle and Marc Morano’s exclusive was picked up by the media.  This time they substitute the word “tribunal” for “court” and insist that the body will be “non-judicial.”

The slight edit to the terminology offers little comfort.

If the climate tribunal becomes the focus of public scrutiny, watch for the negotiators to pull a switch behind closed doors and try and accomplish the same thing by re-branding it an enforcement “mechanism.”

UN_General_Assembly_hallWhatever they call it, countries who sign onto this agreement will be voting to expand the reach of the UN climate bureaucracy, cede national sovereignty, and create a one-way street along which billions will be redistributed from developed to poor nations.  Developed nations would be expected to slash their emissions while the “poor” countries expand theirs.  China, which holds a trillion dollars in U.S. debt, would be counted among the poor.

China and India are delighted.  They would like nothing better than a world where the West cedes the competitive advantages their free market economies created.  They hope for a future where Asia does the manufacturing and the U.S. and Europe do the importing — until their wealth runs out, anyway.

Take a look at the UN draft agreements for yourself.  We’ll update them as things develop.

President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are mired in foreign policy failures. They desperately want to get this agreement signed so they can claim a victory for their legacies.

How far are they willing to sell out American interests to get this ill-begotten agreement signed?
_________________
Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • odin2

    This is lunacy.

    • jreb57

      “This is lunacy.”
      This is Fascism. The lunacy part was in electing the present administration in 2008 whose leader thinks global warming is the biggest threat we face. The biggest threat we currently face is in electing people who think AGW is real.

      • odin2

        Agreed.

      • Dano2

        electing people who think AGW is real.

        You want elected officials who deny reality?

        Weird.

        Best,

        D

  • Dean Bruckner

    Declare war on the U.N.

    • asherpat

      No war, just disengagement and dis-financing

  • Walther11

    The UN can get bent.

    • odin2

      Amen to that.

  • Brin Jenkins

    If the Climate change lobby were sure of their case they would stop trying to bully and explain in plain English the exact mechanism, and how it functions. Some of us understand how theories are used even when not a proven truth.

    This they seem reluctant to do preferring the snake oil bamboozlers methods. Deceivers the whole lot of them!

    • Dano2

      You just can’t comprehend it when explained to you.

      Best,

      D

      • asherpat

        Hey Dano, how much is a floating oz of snake-oil these days, mate?

      • RealOldOne2

        “The Paris France based Mathematical Calculation Society, SA: ‘There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way =disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras.’

        ‘Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.’

        ‘We are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.’ ” – White Paper, ‘The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade’ – http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

        So sad that you can’t comprehend that reality. But delusional doomsday cultists are well known for their lack of comprehension and denial of reality as they are blinded by their ideology and too scientifically illiterate to even understand that they have been duped.

        • Dano2

          Who cares. The vast majority of scientists across the world, for over a century, disagree.

          Best,

          D

          • RealOldOne2

            “The vast majority of scientists across the world, for over a century, disagree.”
            LOL @ your stupid swallowing of the propaganda that is spoon fed to you!
            Your ‘CO2 hypothesis’ was tossed on the rubbish heap of history a half-century ago:
            “Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was NEVER widely accepted and was ABANDONED … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is NOT considered further.” – 1951 Compendium of Meteorology, ‘Theories of Climate Change due to terrestrial
            causes’, ‘Variations of Carbon Dioxide’, p. 1018

            • Dano2

              LOLO smartie!

              You have zero science on your side, so bombast and bluster and ululate.

              You have zero evidence that earth has a NewPhysics working on earth and nowhere else in the universe.

              Best,

              D

              • RealOldOne2

                “You have zero science on your side, so bombast and bluster and ululate.”
                ROTFLMAO @ your pathetic denial of reality.
                Sorry dupe, that is quoted verbatim from an official 1951 report from the American Meteorology Society. So sad that you are such a pathetic denier of reality. But that’s what stupid scientifically illiterate duped cult zealots do.

                And your fake ‘97% consensus’ is pure male bovine excrement, as 29% of AMS meteorologists surveyed in 2009 agreed with the statement: “Global warming is a SCAM” and less than 45% disagreed! And in the same survey, only 24% agreed with the statement: “Most of the warming since 1950 is human-induced.”! http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2947.1

                So much for your stupid propaganda claim that “majority of scientists agree” with you! Hahahahahaha. What a pathetically ignorant DUPE you are!

                • Dano2

                  an official 1951 report

                  LOLO

                  That’s the best it can do.

                  And thanks for refuting your asssertion by using the AMS report! It refutes you! You were lied to by James Taylor, and lacked capacity to realize it! The AMS publicly censured Taylor for lying to you with those numbers!

                  Hoot!

                  Best,

                  D

                  • RealOldOne2

                    “an official 1951 report”
                    Yep, proves your claim that “The vast majority of scientists across the world, for over a century, disagree.” with me was 100% false and based on pure ignorance on your part. Pure ignorance, scientific illiteracy and gullibility is what your cult masters depend on to get dupes to blindly follow your cult religion. So sad.

                    • Dano2

                      LOLO smartie!

                      Your link to the AMS paper refutes you. I guess you never read it.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “Your link to the AMS paper refutes you.”
                      LOL @ your denial of reality!
                      Sorry dupe, but everything I posted from that link is 100% accurate and proves that you are a pathetic liar. Typical of delusional duped doomsday cult deniers of reality. So sad.

                      You have yet to rebut a single thing I have posted. All you do is lie, lie, lie, deny, deny, deny. So sad.

                    • Dano2

                      That paper confirms over 90% consensus, LOLO.

                      Thanks for the link supporting my asssertion.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “That paper confirms over 90% consensus”
                      ROTFLOL @ your denial of reality!
                      You pathetic stupid fool, here it is word for word from the AMS survey:
                      “17. Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” Strongly Agree (1) 8% Agree (2) 16%”
                      Hilarious that you are so STUPID that you think 8 + 17 = 90!!!! Fine job of proving that you are not only scientifically illiterate, but you are also mathematically illiterate! Hahahahahahaha

                      ps. Everyone can see that you are making an idiotic and moronic claim when they read the survey for themselves: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2947.1

                      ps. Do you enjoy exposing your scientific and mathematical illiteracy?

                    • Dano2

                      LOLO!

                      You didn’t read the paper!

                      Your uh smartie!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “You didn’t read the paper”
                      ROTFMAO @ your projection! Hahahahaha

                      You ignorant dupe, I quoted from the paper! And my quote was 100% accurate!

                      Still LOL @ the climate cult fanatic who believes that 8 + 16 = 90!!!! Hahahahahahaha

                    • Dano2

                      The authors of the paper refute “your” interpretation of their results, smartie-smart.

                      LOLO

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “The authors of the paper refute “your” interpretation of their results, smartie-smart.”
                      Sorry dupe, it’s not “my interpretation”, it’s the hard numbers that I quoted directly from the report!
                      Here it is again:
                      “17. Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” Strongly Agree (1) 8% Agree (2) 16%

                      And also, for your enjoyment and denial:
                      “18. Respond to one TV weathercaster’s quote saying: “Global warming is a scam.” Strongly Agree (1) 10% Agree (2) 19%

                      Deny away dupe! Hahahahaha

                    • Dano2

                      The authors refute your made-up numbers.

                      They might be LOLzing at you too.

                      LOLO

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      What a reality-denying liar you are!
                      My quotes were 100% accurate and prove me correct and prove you wrong.

                    • Dano2

                      No, it’s true, smartie-smartsmart! The authors might be LOLzing at you for your LOLO interpretation of their work!

                      It troo!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Liar
                      Denier

                    • Dano2

                      Not capable of grasping reality – everyone can tell:

                      We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced.

                      in the paper we concluded that: “These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change.” We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results. [emphases added]

                      Someone is big fibbin’, right LOLO?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Sorry dupe, but that is NOT in the AMS report that I quoted from. It is from a propaganda source that was embarrassed by the survey results, so lied and tried to smear someone who merely pointed out the same embarrassing results that I have.

                      So sad that you are so stupid, ignorant, and ideologically blinded that you gullibly swallow their lies and propaganda. But that’s what duped, delusional doomsday cult fanatics do. So sad.

                      Neither you nor that dishonest propaganda article change the FACT that 29% of the AMS meteorologists surveyed responded that “Global warming is a SCAM“, and that only 24% of the AMS meteorologists surveyed agreed with the statement: “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”

                      “Someon is big fibbin'”

                      Yep, you’ve irrefutably proved that YOU are the one who is fibbin’, denyin’ & lyin’! I have quoted 100% accurate survey responses. You have rebutted NOTHING! Hahahaha

                    • Dano2

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      LOLO can’t handle quotes from authors refuting its inept and erroneous interpretation of their paper!

                      Hoot!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Laughing at your own stupidity! Priceless!

                    • Dano2

                      LOLO embarrassed, now trying to deflect away from inanities!

                      Hoot!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your continued denial of reality and handwaving obfuscation!
                      You have yet to rebut a single thing that I have posted. Yet you stupidly cling to your lies and delusions. So sad.

                    • Dano2

                      LOLO sads it was embarrassed, yelling at everyone to get offa his lawwwwn!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      You come along with a proposal that we need to change our lives drastically in support of this Carbon theory. We are told that we all all doomed if we do not!

                      Its for the changers to convince us by reason that it is a necessary change? You have failed miserably.

                      Replace your dunces hat and stop trying to bully folks with your insulting and boorish rants.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      I think you intended this reply to Dano2.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Sorry I did indeed.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      np

                    • Dano2

                      No, you are the one with the bombastic and bullying style, covering up your insecurities, inanities, and worldview with no basis in objective reality.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “bombastic and bullying style”
                      Well, yes, I guess I did bombard you with empirical DATA and peer reviewed papers, which you couldn’t rebut. And I understand why you feel bullied, as you had no rebuttal whatsoever to the facts and data that I bombarded you with.

                      “covering up your insecurities, inanities and worldview with no basis in objective reality”
                      LOL. Nice projection there dupe.
                      Everyone can read the comments here and see that you are the one who is insecure because you can’t rebut a single thing that I posted.
                      Everyone can read the comments here and see that you are the one who makes the inane replies.
                      Everyone can read the comments here and see that you are the one who has a worldview (CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2) which has no basis in objective reality, as the objective data shows that there has been no global warming at all over the past 18 2/3 years even though humans have released an unprecedented amount of CO2 during that timeframe.
                      Yes indeed, a fantastically delusional amount of projection on your part! You sure ARE good at projection.

                    • Dano2

                      You’ve been refuted, thanks, bombaster and ululating arm-waver!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “You’ve been refuted”
                      Nice projection dupe!

                    • Dano2

                      Thanks smartie, you were refuted.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Yet another lie and denial of reality. So sad.

                    • Dano2

                      It is a lie to state I lied.

                      /third grade English

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Readers: Note that this is the empirical science that Dano2 refuses to accept because it proves that his CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion is false:

                      The warming of the late 20th century was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface because of reduced global mean cloud amount. Also contributing was the natural warming from warm phases of ocean cycles, PDO, AMO, and a predominance of El Ninos. All natural climate phenomenon, not anthropogenic. Here’s the evidence that shows there was 6-10 times more natural climate forcing than the maximum possible anthropogenic forcing:

                      Since you are so mathematically challenged that you think that 8+16=90, we expect you to also to deny that 2.7-4.1 is greater than 0.4!

                      1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.

                      2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

                      3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

                      This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

                      This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

                      The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

                      4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports

                      This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 10 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.

                      “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940′
                      The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
                      • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
                      • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’

                      This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

                      Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
                      • Warm phase of the PDO :
                      http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
                      http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
                      http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
                      http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
                      • Warm phase of the AMO :
                      http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
                      &
                      • Predominance of El Ninos:
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126

                      Deny away! Begin your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation! You delusional, duped doomsday climate cult fanatics are SO predictable! Hahaha

                    • ALCHESON

                      You aren’t even bright enough to realize that “were convinced that humans have CONTRIBUTED to global warming” in no way equals CATASTROPHIC antropogenic global warming (CAGW) that your ilk is claiming. Even the skeptics by >90% agree that man has “contributed” to the mild, and quite beneficial 1.5C of total warming since the end of the LIA. Wow… you warmists are so easily Gruberized.

                    • Dano2

                      CAGW!!

                      Drink!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • JSFESQ

                      Science is not consensus; it is absolute. Unless you think there is a consensus about gravity, the solar system, nuclear fission.
                      Oh yes, fyi the Earth IS round – no consensus there just 100% certainty.

                    • Dano2

                      The consensus of scientists, however, is that man is causing the observed changes.

                      /basic

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Dano2

                      Thanks smartie!

                      Smarties know that passage doesn’t refute my assertion! Do you know why! Because soon thereafter it was pointed out many others didn’t agree! Vast majority! Wheeeeeeeeeee!

                      LOLO

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      ROTFLMAO @ your continued denial of reality!
                      but the theory was NEVER widely accepted and was ABANDONED … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is NOT considered further.”

                      You are such a pathetic denier of reality. So sad. But so typical of scientifically illiterate duped doomsday cultists.

                    • Dano2

                      Thanks smartie!

                      You have no evidence for a NewPhysics that overcomes the physics that works everywhere in the universe!

                      You have no equations! No models! No data!

                      Nothing!

                      LOLO

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your denial of reality!
                      You have yet to rebut a single thing I have posted. All you do is lie, deny and post your baseless, evidence-free CLAIMS! Typical of scientifically illiterate duped doomsday cult fanatics. So sad.

                    • Dano2

                      Right – you have no evidence for your wish for an alternate reality.

                      LOLO

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “Right – you have no evidence for your wish for an alternate reality”
                      ROTFLMAO @ your continued projection and denial of reality!
                      You have yet to rebut single thing that I have posted! What a f-ing moron you are!

                    • Dano2

                      You continue to provide no evidence for a NewPhysics that works only on earth.

                      Oh, wait: you quote from one book written 65 years ago. Wowie! That was a good think!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your delusions!

                    • Dano2

                      You have no NewPhysics, everyone can tell, LOLO

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your mindlessly repeating meaningless propaganda.

                      “You have no NewPhysics”
                      Sorry dupe, Mother Nature has debunked your global warming religion. No “NewPhysics” required. You “Physics” has been proved wrong. It’s exaggerated bunkum. 500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere and it has caused NO global warming! http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/scale:0.05/mean:12

                    • Dano2

                      500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere and it has caused NO global warming!

                      LOLO embarrassing itself!

                      Best,

                      D

                      http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3b0fd7e113f052e88fd2126640eaa892facc8a53b6f9544f731b3c1175af72c6.png

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your handwaving clown dance of DENIAL!
                      Sorry dupe, your cherry picked period of natural climate warming proves nothing except that you are peddling propaganda of your debunked global warming religion.

                      The warming of the late 20th century was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface because of reduced global mean cloud amount. Also contributing was the natural warming from warm phases of ocean cycles, PDO, AMO, and a predominance of El Ninos. All natural climate phenomenon, not anthropogenic. Here’s the evidence that shows there was 6-10 times more natural climate forcing than the maximum possible anthropogenic forcing:

                      Since you are so mathematically challenged that you think that 8+16=90, we expect you to also to deny that 2.7-4.1 is greater than 0.4!

                      1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.

                      2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

                      3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

                      This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

                      This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

                      The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

                      4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports

                      This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 10 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.

                      “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940′
                      The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
                      • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
                      • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’

                      This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

                      Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
                      • Warm phase of the PDO :
                      http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
                      http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
                      http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
                      http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
                      • Warm phase of the AMO :
                      http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
                      &
                      • Predominance of El Ninos:
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126

                      Deny away! Begin your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation! You delusional, duped doomsday climate cult fanatics are SO predictable! Hahaha

                    • Dano2

                      your cherry picked period

                      *snicker*

                      LOLO is refuted, despite it’s raving to git offa his lawwwwwwwwwwwwwn

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Yep, no rebuttal to the science that shows your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion is a steaming, stinking pile of male bovine excrement.
                      Seldom have I seen such a deluded, duped moron. And the other times that I have, they have all been members of your cult.

                    • Dano2

                      There are these things called ‘links’. Learn what they do.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Wow, what a moronic reply!
                      I know what links are. They are the things that you ignore because you have your head up your backside.

                    • Dano2

                      Then you are being purposely dishonest when you hilariously assert You provided absolutely no refutation to the science that I presented which shows that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate variability, especially when you provide no evidence for the assertion except a distantly related (and hilarious) excerpt from one book ~75 years ago.

                      Hoot!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “especially when you provide no evidence for the assertion”
                      I provided irrefutable evidence in my comment here: http://www.cfact.org/2015/10/23/un-climate-text-adds-an-international-tribunal-of-climate-justice/#comment-2324732511

                      Readers: Note that all this reality denying troll does is make yet another moronic, idiotic reply. Village idiots are brighter than this troll. Hahaha

                    • Dano2

                      Irrefutable comedy, yes.

                      Laughable notcitations, no (Dano 2015).

                      There – I cited something and it is irrefutable. So there!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      What is this new Physics you keep referring to? This new science seems to be in the Political Socialist Climatology. Why do you never supply proof, only flawed repetitions.

                      “Everyone can tell” What exactly, that they retain conventional Science instead of moving with the PC times?

                    • Dano2

                      The NewPhysics is the alternate-reality fizzix that must exist for your wishes to be true.

                      /typing slowly for comprehension

                      Best,

                      D

            • Brin Jenkins

              This guy only throws in one liners an links to green sites as his understanding. After all else fail he resorts to others, ” lack of understanding”. Although unable to explain what or why he believes.

              A useful idiot hiding behind his pseudo name. Look at his reply to you, he has a file of such comments to cut and paste.

              • Dano2

                Dishonest assertions to cover insecurity.

                Best,

                D

                • JSFESQ

                  Don’t forget to waive bye-bye to the trees when you eliminate CO2. Can you say photosynthesis ?

                  • Dano2

                    Limnate CO2!

                    That’s good comedy!

                    Best,

                    D

              • jreb57

                “This guy only throws in one liners an links to green sites as his understanding.”
                I am guessing you are referring to Dano2 who is the person on this blog most often symptomatic of a missing brain. If the 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 influenced global temps to the extent claimed by the AGW two things would be true. 1 Jim Hansen’s computer algorithms would accurately predict the increase in global temps (from 1850) based on the increase in CO2. 2. We would now have a source of heat to run our manifold heat engines which now depend on fossil fuel for a heat source.

                • Brin Jenkins

                  Your correct, I just edited the post.

                • Dano2

                  1 Jim Hansen’s computer algorithms would accurately predict the increase in global temps (from 1850) based on the increase in CO2

                  They do, So who knows what your point might be.

                  Best,

                  D

          • Brin Jenkins

            So you are a paid troll!

            • Dano2

              Try to do better.

              Best,

              D

        • weatheredman

          You’re wasting your breath(electrons) trying to argue with the clown Dano2. He’s a paid troll. He’s not delusional, not stupid, not ignorant…just malignant. He came to a lecture I gave years ago and harassed me. Ignore him….or, better yet, contribute a few $$$ to CFACT and put him out of business.

          • Dano2

            Says the sad commenter who can’t post anything that can stand scrutiny, and who lacks the courage to address comments directly.

            Best,

            D

          • RealOldOne2

            Yeah, I know he’s a clown. I only play with him to expose his idiocy & moronicity so others can see the delusional denial of reality of these CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 trolls. He is a poster child for the global warming climate cult.

      • Masculist Man

        You just can’t comprehend it when explained to you.
        That’s because I’m sweating UN thug’s gun to my head. That has my attention at the moment.

        • Dano2

          Your 17 guns don’t keep you safe? Better consume another one.

          Best,

          D

      • Brin Jenkins

        Then you are unable to explain your case. Perhaps because its weak and you don’t comprehend it your self.

        Only a fool expects others to believe what he can’t explain himself.

        • Dano2

          Your gamie-game doesn’t work on me.

          Best,

          D

      • jreb57

        “You just can’t comprehend it when explained to you.”
        You can’t explain it (and have not even tried) nor can you explain anything else.

        • Dano2

          and have not even tried

          Dishonest assertion.

          Best,

          D

          • RealOldOne2

            Troll

            • Dano2

              You are unable to use a number of terms properly, and I’ll add “troll” to that long list.

              Best,

              D

              • RealOldOne2

                moron

                • Dano2

                  Another typical low-wattage con dupe reply. So sad.

                  Best,

                  D

                  • RealOldOne2

                    Yep, you STILL have no science to rebut what I posted! Hahahaha What a f-ing CLOWN you are!

                    • Dano2

                      Already done. You simply lack capacity to grasp it.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      More lies and denial of reality. So sad.

                    • Dano2

                      Can’t grasp it, check.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Readers: Note Dano’s continued projection, as he can’t rebut the empirical science that shows that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate variability:

                      The warming of the late 20th century was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface because of reduced global mean cloud amount. Also contributing was the natural warming from warm phases of ocean cycles, PDO, AMO, and a predominance of El Ninos. All natural climate phenomenon, not anthropogenic. Here’s the evidence that shows there was 6-10 times more natural climate forcing than the maximum possible anthropogenic forcing:

                      Since you are so mathematically challenged that you think that 8+16=90, we expect you to also to deny that 2.7-4.1 is greater than 0.4!

                      1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.

                      2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

                      3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

                      This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

                      This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

                      The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

                      4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports

                      This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 10 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.

                      “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940′
                      The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
                      • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
                      • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’

                      This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

                      Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
                      • Warm phase of the PDO :
                      http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
                      http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
                      http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
                      http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
                      • Warm phase of the AMO :
                      http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
                      &
                      • Predominance of El Ninos:
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126

                      Deny away! Begin your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation! You delusional, duped doomsday climate cult fanatics are SO predictable! Hahaha

      • weatheredman

        Look up “logarithmic curve”, Dano. We’ve passed the “knee of the curve.” Future warming from here on is trivial – 1.3K sensitivity.
        You are a busy boy – Denver Post and here too.

        • Dano2

          That’s good comedy! I LOLzed!

          Best,

          D

      • JSFESQ

        O.K. Einstein.
        We’re all waiting. Please explain the science in indisputable terms.

        • Dano2

          Thanks smartie. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which absorbs longwave infrared radiation then reradiates it. Increasing the concentration of GHGs holds more LWIR, and increases the temperature of a planet.

          HTH

          Best,

          D

    • Mobius Loop

      The theory of human activity resulting in climate change was first put forward by Guy Callendar in 1938.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22283372

      So now, after 75 years and countless hours of research by thousands of scientists your bottom lip is out and quivering because the grownups have accepted that a serious situation exists and must be dealt with, even while the children insist on their right to sit and sulk!

      • jreb57

        You have the right name Mobius. One surface.

        • Mobius Loop

          A but with a little twist!

      • RealOldOne2

        “The theory of human activity resulting in climate change was first put forward by Guy Callendar in 1938.”

        But the hypothesis was soon after (by 1951) abandoned by the world’s climate scientists, and was never widely accepted. It was only resurrected since then because of political motivation and because alarmist scientists found they could feed at the hog trough of the public treasury if they peddled that junk science.

        “Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was NEVER widely accepted and was ABANDONED … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is NOT considered further.” – 1951 Compendium of Meteorology, ‘Theories of Climate Change due to terrestrial causes’, ‘Variations of Carbon Dioxide’, p. 1016

        We have even more empirical evidence to reject the CO2 hypothesis now, than they did in 1951.

        In the last ~19 years humans have added over 500 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere (50% of the amount added in the previous few hundred years), and it has caused no global warming. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/offset:-380/scale:0.05/mean:12
        This is conclusive evidence that the climate scientists of 1951 were correct when they said that increasing CO2 and temperature was merely a “coincidence”. It also confirms they were correct in not considering the CO2 theory further.

        Dishonest money grubbing people now use the same cherry-picked past “coincidental” correlation to peddle their junk pseudoscience, ignoring the fact that the total lack of correlation over the last 18+ years totally refutes the CO2 hypothesis.

        And scientifically illiterate climate cult fanatics mindlessly repeat alarmist propaganda claiming there is a “serious situation”, when in fact there is no empirical evidence showing that to be true. Only the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models predict doom. But the rubbish models have totally failed. But that doesn’t deter The dupes of the false global warming doomsday cult religion to play Chicken Little and claim that the sky is falling. So sad.

        • Dano2

          …and this one can’t grasp that the world has moved well beyond that parochial view expressed almost three-quarters of a century ago. No wonder poor hapless ROO2 can’t cite anything in the last half century.

          Best,

          D

          • RealOldOne2

            “No wonder ROO2 can’t cite anything in the last half century”

            Readers:
            1) This delusional troll is in such denial of reality that he thinks that the peer reviewed papers that I cited, Hatzianastassiou(2005), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), Usoskin(2003), Tapping(2007), Scafetta(2009), Krivova(2010), Krivova(2011) were not written in the last half century.
            2) This delusional troll is in such denial of reality that he thinks that temperature data from 1984-2000 are not within the past half century.
            3) This delusional troll is in such denial of reality that he thinks that NASA’s global mean cloud amount data from 1983-2010 is not within the past half century.

            All of these were cited in my previous comment ( http://www.cfact.org/2015/10/23/un-climate-text-adds-an-international-tribunal-of-climate-justice/#comment-2324732511 ) to him, yet this duped CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult fanatic is so ideologically blinded that he refuses to acknowledge this reality. So sad.

            • Dano2

              You haven’t cited any of these papers (Dano 2015a). The sole papers you improperly cited (Dano 2015b) are a fun clown show, as comically your chart of TSI that refutes your funny paper that says TSI is increasing (Dano 2015c).

              That is: just because you improperly cite a paper doesn’t mean it is true.

              Entertaining, though. You are def a laff.

              best,

              D

              • RealOldOne2

                WOW, what delusion! Typical for duped scientifically illiterate trolls. So sad.

                • Dano2

                  This (Dano 2015) isn’t a citation. No one can tell if the paper you use actually backs your claim.

                  That is: you are hiding whether you are making up stuff. On purpose or cuz lack capacity. Either way.

                  Right smartie?

                  Best,

                  D

                  • RealOldOne2

                    More projection and denial of reality. So sad.
                    Still think that 8+16=90? Hahahahahahaha’
                    What an idiot!

                    • Dano2

                      Deflection from ignorance, check.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Readers: Note that this is the empirical science that Dano2 can’t rebut, so he performs his handwaving clown dance of obfuscation:
                      Readers: Note Dano’s continued projection, as he can’t rebut the
                      empirical science that shows that the late 20th century warming was
                      caused by natural climate variability:

                      The warming of the late
                      20th century was caused by natural climate variability, primarily more
                      solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface because of reduced global
                      mean cloud amount. Also contributing was the natural warming from warm
                      phases of ocean cycles, PDO, AMO, and a predominance of El Ninos. All
                      natural climate phenomenon, not anthropogenic.
                      Here’s the evidence that shows there was 6-10 times more natural climate
                      forcing than the maximum possible anthropogenic forcing:

                      Since
                      you are so mathematically challenged that you think that 8+16=90, we
                      expect you to also to deny that 2.7-4.1 is greater than 0.4!

                      1)
                      There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence:

                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05
                      , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of
                      human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have
                      added prior to the 21st century.

                      2) Most of the warming in the
                      last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence:
                      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

                      3)
                      Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from
                      1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR
                      [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1
                      and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to
                      2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar
                      radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily
                      attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of
                      Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

                      This increase in
                      surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term
                      variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our
                      climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a
                      rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed
                      changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical
                      cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to
                      be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites
                      Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over
                      the 1983-2001 timeframe.

                      This increase in solar radiation
                      reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) –
                      “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy
                      balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an
                      increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and
                      an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in
                      Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past
                      33 yrs (1979-2011)’

                      The reduction in global mean cloud amount
                      that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s
                      surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data:
                      http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

                      4) Your
                      own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water
                      vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe.
                      (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports

                      This
                      empirical data shows that there was 6 to 10 times more natural solar
                      forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame
                      when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing.
                      Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability
                      was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically,
                      it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary
                      driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of
                      the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s
                      surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of
                      solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than
                      the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late
                      20th century warming.

                      “The period of high solar activity during
                      the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A
                      Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually
                      Active Sun Since 1940′
                      The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
                      • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’

                      Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure
                      shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest
                      values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite
                      composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
                      • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
                      • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’

                      This
                      is graphically shown here:
                      http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

                      Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
                      • Warm phase of the PDO :
                      http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
                      http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
                      http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
                      http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
                      • Warm phase of the AMO :
                      http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
                      &
                      • Predominance of El Ninos:
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
                      http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126

                      Deny
                      away! Begin your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation! You delusional,
                      duped doomsday climate cult fanatics are SO predictable! Hahaha

  • Dr Tim Ball-@pplonia

    I would like to tell you of my latest book and documentary.

    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    My latest documentary and video of my presentation.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    My website is
    Thank you.
    Tim

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
    http://www.drtimball.com

    • Earn nest

      Get US out of the UN!!! Fifty years now I’ve watched this court of SHAME.

    • Dano2

      Have GWPF purchase ad space like everyone else does.

      Best,

      D

    • Dano2

      Clearly there is still a market among the Faux “News” faithful for claiming that:

      o Thousands of scientists;

      o across a century and a half;

      o in a wide range of specialties;

      o in dozens of countries;

      o on six continents;

      o speaking scores of languages;

      o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

      o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW…

      o but have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

      Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?

      Best,

      D

    • Mobius Loop

      I would like to tell you about this clip which shows exactly how idiotically Timothy Ball is prepared to behave.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTJQPyTVtNA&index=106&list=PL6C777687264351D8

      If you scroll forward to 8.00 mins in you can see him pretending to be hiding and in fear of his life. It would be pretty funny if it wasn’t so sad.

  • AllenBarclayAllen

    You see the only way this Climate Court works is to have the Baddest Ass ARMY on earth ! but none of these Member nations cept an ARMY like that Because their STUPID LIBERALS . YA Go ahead and try that you Damn UN ASSHOLES ! Try that with Russia and China and they will be stuffing your ass in a hole in the GROUND !
    IT’S ALL ((((TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION)))) AND THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO BACK IT UP !!! POUND SAND UNITED NATIONS !!!!

    • AllenBarclayAllen

      We in the US will be defunding you SOON United Nations !!! You have one year for your Bullshit Make it a good show. Because no one with any common sense is listening ! YOUR JUST A BUNCH OF POWERLESS MOONBATS CHASING BUGS IN THE MOONLIGHT !

  • Arthur L. Trevallee

    This has to be a joke!

  • wally12

    I can understand why poor nations would like to see passage of any law that redistributes funds from richer nations. However, this proposal is lunacy as “Odin” states in his comment. It proposal seems to be written to exclude China and India which are defined by this proposal and to penalize the US and other Nations that are much poorer than either China or India. This proposal is simply an attempt to get the “Nose of the Camel Under the Tent” in the ultimate goal of getting all nations under UN control. If Obama and his administration have any brains they will veto this in a heart beat. Does anyone trust that Obama will veto this? I believe Obama is a socialist and will do anything to further the cause of socialism.

  • Masculist Man

    I hate the UN. If you hate the UN too write your Representative: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and Senators: http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ and tell them to get us out of the UN.

  • weatheredman

    Those who bother to read comments from the troll Dano2 may notice how much of his content – such as it is – is derived from Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” papers and the conclusions therefrom.

    For example, a day or so ago he was claiming the climate had been extremely stable for centuries – ignoring the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, as well as others. Only since the Industrial Revolution has the climate warmed “without precedent.”

    I mention this because Mark Steyn has a new book out, “A Disgrace to the Profession”, about Mann. The surprising thing in it, to me, was the large number of serious, well-qualified scientists who share some concern about manmade global warming (AGW) and TOTALLY despise what Mann did in the hockey stick paper. This adds to Tim Ball’s new book about the deliberate corruption of science.

    If you want a laugh, read Steyn’s book, and realize how disgusting Dano2 is.

    • Dano2

      More craven behavior. Not enough courage to address anyone directly.

      a day or so ago he was claiming the climate had been extremely stable for centuries –

      Smart people know I showed you it was true. You just appear to be unable to grasp it (which is likely why you run away and start calling names from afar).

      And Mann totem! Drink!

      Best,

      D

      http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d1695667086760df3c263faa7c971cdf43fd520b33d055cff3e98ba96ae7c421.gif

      • Brin Jenkins

        Calling names from afar? “Get an education”, Unable to comprehend”, “Unable to grasp”, Thats all you have ever done when you are unable to explain why you believed the CO2 theory. These minuscule graphs might mean something to those following a narrow interpretation who probably recognise them as part of their co2 brief. However with out any explanation they are meaningless tripe. The Hockey stick graph referred too was exposed many years ago, but you have never conceded this is a problem in your bigoted outlook.

        Wake up, the public do not all follow opinion as proven facts. Some of us require a proper explanation from those who claim life must be changed drastically, hell fire man we deserve it, not abuse from clowns on a keyboard.

        That direct enough for you?

        • Dano2

          Can’t grasp simple facts. We know.

          Best,

          D

        • Dano2

          Hockey stick totem!

          Drink!

          Best,

          D

  • Roy Mallmann

    The inmates have truly taken over the asylum. They are perpetrating the biggest fraud ever in the history of mankind!

  • Robert Barnes

    I want to see kerry & obama shot for treason and news broad cast world wide.

  • Concerned

    If there is even a hint of a Tribunal or a Court, Congress should take action and stop it cold. Now that we have seen what our President has done with Iran, it is not beyond the possibility that he would do this with the UN and then run as the head of the UN, representing Kenya, when he leaves office.

  • me1952

    How about an International Tribunal of Earthquake and Volcano Justice? Certainly we are as responsible for causing these events as we are for influencing the climate.

  • Leonard Cohen

    Whats the problem? Why get so upset, folks? “The Committee][mechanism][process][, including the Committee, shall be [expert
    based, facilitative in nature] [and shall act in a manner that is transparent, non-punitive, non-adversarial]
    and non-judicial. It shall pay particular attention to the respective national capabilities
    and circumstances of Parties.” Read it here:http://tinyurl.com/op6d7zs

  • marlio

    THAT’S BECAUSE MAN DOESNT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING WHICH OUR PRESIDENT DOESNT KNOW BEING THAT I DONT THINK HE EVER ATTENDED HARVARD OR COLUMBIA. ITS ALL A RUSE TO CHARGE US A TAX, FOR A NATURAL PHENOMENA, CAUSED BY HOW CLOSE THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH IS IN PROXIMITY TO THE SUN. It was two degrees warmer in The Middle Ages and the Sky didn’t fall and the waves didn’t pour over the continents. Global cooling and warming have been happening since the earth was formed. MAN HAS NO EFFECTON THE WEATHER. However I think the Government thinks we are stupid, and they can use this as a LIE, to get us to agree to pay a global carbon tax to enrich themselves , al gore and his investors and others!! DON’T BELIEVE IT!!! ITS IS A 44 BILLION DOLLAR A DAY SCAM ON YOU!!! OUR LEADERS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL AND WORLDWIDE DONT APPEAR TO BE VERY INTELLIGENT OR HONEST. They want to use this global carbon tax to fund their satanic, evil, modern day,. feudal system, New World Order. Americans will not stand for it especially especially with the fraud we have in The White House and his enablers, ie nancy pelosi, harry reid, axlerod, rahm emanuel, dick biden, john mc cain, mcconnell and others!!! WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS SCAM!!!!