Only one hundredth degree?

By |2015-11-10T10:37:25+00:00November 10th, 2015|Climate|13 Comments

The UN is working feverishly to lock the world into a climate pact in Paris in a few weeks.

CFACT will be there to inject the hard facts about global warming into the proceedings.

America did not join the previous Kyoto Protocol, but President Obama badly wants to sign this one.

The Obama Administration is not waiting for Paris.

EPA is already throttling down the American economy, constricting the energy supply and raising electricity prices. Although EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” (CPP) will have no meaningful impact on world temperature.

Economist Bjorn Lomborg released a study today in which he uses the UN’s own climate models to determine that the CPP would only forestall .013° C of warming by 2100 under the UN’s most extreme assumptions.  So far the models’ extreme assumptions have never come close to actual measured temperatures.  Lomborg determines the impact of the CPP to be .004° C as world temperature has actually played out.  As we learn more about the role of nature vs. man in setting the world’s thermostat the impact of EPA’s plan may well turn out to be zero.

If you add in the President’s full emissions reduction pledge for the UN climate pact, Lomborg determines the total impact to world temperature to be only .008°-.011° C by 2100.

There is no doubt that the Obama Administration’s climate plans are “all pain, no gain” as CFACT has reported all along.  Even under the UN’s own climate models!

Marita Noon has an extensive analysis of EPA’s Clean Power Plan in light of the UN climate pact at CFACT.org.

Assuming the increasingly dubious position that the UN’s climate models have some validity, should we truly hamstring America’s prosperity and competitive position to make a meaningless one hundredth degree reduction in world temperature?

13 Comments

  1. Brin Jenkins November 11, 2015 at 3:32 AM

    Come on Dano, we miss your comic debunking. How does it go, a one hundredth of a degree is nothing to a computer model. Sheesh.

  2. Dorian November 11, 2015 at 8:52 AM

    This is all pointless.
    You can show all the charts and hard data, like no temperature rise in the last nearly 19 years, that the global sea-level has decreased now the last several years, that glaciers all around the world have stop regressing and have started growing, that the ozone whole has shrunk to a record small size yet CFC content in the air is still growing, you can show that their is record global sea-ice extent, but it will all be to no avail, for the politicians don’t care.
    The lying politicians and corrupt scientists of the world are conspiring together to satisfy mutual needs, the politicians to increase taxes to cover their corrupt and incompetent managing of their economies, and the corrupt scientists to be given money for their incompetent work.

    Paris is not about global warming. Paris is about how two corrupt mafia families, one in politics and the other in science, coming together for a gangster convention where they can create and polish off a united story of how to blackmail, extort and defraud the rest of the world when governments unleash the next round of taxational larceny to pay for their criminal ways.

    The UN Climate Agreement in Paris is nothing other than a Mobster’s Convention. Using logic, honesty, facts, real solid science, ethic and moral arguments, and common sense to fight these despicable, criminal mobsters will have absolutely no effect. Gangsters and mobsters don’t give a damn about truth, justice and honest science, they only care about what they have to do to make more money.

    Going to Paris to fight for the truth is like going to the Islamic Caliphate (aka ISIS) to fight for the right of Christians! Absolutely pointless!

  3. Dano2 November 12, 2015 at 6:32 PM

    Seeing as how the agreements are to limit further warming beyond 2C, who knows why this argumentation was even tried…unless you are trying to trick people into believing something that isn’t true…hmmm….naaaaaah. No one would try that tactic.

    Best,

    D

Comments are closed.