Senators to President and UN: No climate cash for you!

Developing nations are only in the UN climate pact for the cash.  What if there is none?

_________________________

Senate seal

November 19, 2015

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

With the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris starting at the end of November, leaders and diplomats from around the world will be coming together in an attempt to reach a climate agreement to address global greenhouse gas emissions. As members of the United States Senate, we want to be on record expressing our concerns about the new Green Climate Fund. We also want to reiterate our position that any agreement with binding timetables and targets must be brought before Congress for approval.

We support international dialogue on global environmental problems. We do, however, have serious concerns about the impact any deal reached in Paris will have on the American economy and our international priorities. Our constituents are worried that the pledges you are committing the United States to will strengthen foreign economies at the expense of American workers. They are also skeptical about sending billions of their hard earned dollars to government officials from developing nations.

Your administration agreed to help raise $100 billion annually in funding for developing nations as part of the Green Climate Fund. The target for the Paris Conference was to raise an initial $10 billion. You have unilaterally pledged $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds to the Green Climate Fund without the consent of Congress. Congress has never authorized funding for the Green Climate Fund. While the Executive Branch and Congress both play an important role in the foreign policy of our nation, Congress ultimately holds the power of the purse. We pledge that Congress will not allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to go to the Green Climate Fund until the forthcoming international climate agreement is submitted to the Senate for its constitutional advice and consent.

We therefore request that you direct United States Special Envoy Todd Stern to be forthcoming with his foreign counterparts representing developing nations in Paris about the views of members of Congress. He must provide these nations with the full picture of where a co-equal U.S. branch of government stands on these issues. He must explain that Congress will not be forthcoming with these funds in the future without a vote in the Senate on any final agreement as required in the U.S. Constitution.

###

Senators John Barasso (R-WY), James Inhofe (R-OK), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Thom Tillis (R-NC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Mike Lee (R-UT), John Thune (R-SD), Jim Risch (R-ID), Richard Burr (R-NC), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), John McCain (R-AZ), Steve Daines (R-MT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Boozman (R-AR), David Vitter (R-LA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Pat Roberts (R-KS), David Perdue (R-GA), James Lankford (R-OK), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Tim Scott (R-SC).

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • Ian5

    Interesting that the signatories “…support international dialogue on global environmental problems” yet include ignorant and intentionally misleading politicians like James Inhofe. His beliefs, snowball antics and wacky speeches about global warming are completely detached from scientific reality. Step one to having an informed dialogue is to use science and evidence rather than fairy tales and misinformation to shape public policy.

  • John

    So a collection of congressmen from fossil fuel producing states in coalition with far right conservatives is against the US taking responsibility for our past contribution to CO2 increases.

    How did James Inhofe, Senator from oil state Oklahoma, ever get put in the position to lead the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works? Not only does he say that he believes he knows more than scientists in the field of climate studies, he has said he believes God is in charge and it is vain of man to think we could mess up God’s creation of the climate.

    Only in a very messed up political world could a person of such a medieval thinking be put in a position of control over how our taxes are spent in a field of science.

    • RealOldOne2

      “the US taking responsibility for our past contribution to CO2 increases”
      Since the net benefits of that extra CO2 have been positive, contributing to the greening of the planet, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/ , and contributing CO2 fertilization to the huge increases in crop yields, where does the US get paid for the benefits of that CO2? The predictions of doom from the climate cult alarmist zealots is pure BS.

      Here are the increases in crop yields over the last half of the 20th century Maize(corn):Up 139%
      Wheat: Up 134%
      Rice: Up 104%
      Barley: Up 83%
      Rye/Oats: Up 69%
      Millet/Sorghum: Up 57%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/219.gif

      Oil palm fruits: Up 290%
      Rapeseed: Up 164%
      Cottonseed: Up 104%
      Soybeans: Up 100%
      Lindseed: Up 77%
      Sunflower seed: Up 60%
      Olives: Up 60%
      Groundnuts: Up 48%
      Sesame seed: Up 20%
      Coconuts: Down 6%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/229.gif

      Drybeans: Up 44%
      Drypeas: Up 126%
      Dry broadbeans: Up 87%
      Chickpeas: Up 30%
      Lentils: Up 46%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/239.gif

      Potatoes: Up 42%
      Sweet potatoes: Up 83%
      Cassava: Up 181%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/249.gif

      Sugarcane: Up 37%
      Sugarbeets: Up 52%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/259.gif

      Cabbages: Up 57%
      Greenbeans: Up 38%
      Greenpeas: Up 75%
      Onions: Up 73%
      Tomatoes: Up 106%
      Melons: Up 47%
      Watermelons: Up 132%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/269.gif

      Peaches: Down 10%
      Citrus fruit: Up 30%
      Apples: Down 3%
      Pineapples: Up 83%
      Pears: Up 7%
      Bananas + Plantains: Up 24%
      Grapes: Up 76%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/279.gif

      Coffee: Up 114%
      Cocoa beans: Up 233%
      Tea: Up 236%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/289.gif
      when climate change was allegedly been disastrous:

      There is no empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has been net negative on the globe, so it’s time for those laggards to pay up for the beneficial contributions to the planet that the US has made.

      • Ian5

        “Since the net benefits of that extra CO2 have been positive”:

        Your post is misleading. The article doesn’t support thisr ridiculous claim. Plant productivity increases because of higher CO2 concentrations is only a small part of the picture. While some impacts will be positive, increasing GHGs will confer limited or no benefits, but result in enormous costs to current and future generations.

        • RealOldOne2

          “Your post is misleading”
          No, my post is 100% accurate, which is why you couldn’t point out a single thing that was inaccurate. You can’t cite any empirical evidence that shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the cause of any negative costs to current or future generations.

          “but result in enormous costs to current and future generations”
          An evidence-free allegation which is pure speculation based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, which can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even a 2% confidence level.
          “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent at even the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013)

          • Ian5

            No it is not “100% accurate”. The article you cite makes no such statement. If you want to educate yourself on the implications of rising GHGs on the planet, the ‘Stern Review: Economics of Climate Change’ is a good place to start.

            • RealOldOne2

              “No it is not “100% accurate”.
              Your inability to quote anything that is erroneous proves that my statement IS 100% accurate.

              “The article you cite makes no such statement.”
              DUH, the article and data the I cited wasn’t about my statement. You are obfuscating.

              “implications of rising GHGs on the planet”
              I dont’ need to read any BS propaganda that is based on zero empirical evidence. I have empirical evidence from the real world experiment that shows that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.
              From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to 1997 humans added ~1 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. It has never been empirically shown that this was the primary cause of the slight warming since then. Actually, there is peer reviewed science that shows it was merely a natural warming in recovery from the Little Ice Age: “We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present … the Earth is still in process of the recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. … These changes are natural changes.” – Akasofu(2010)

              Well since 1997, humans have added over 500 billion tons more CO2 to the atmosphere, and it has caused NO increase in global average temperature. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12

              When you can add a 50% perturbation in the factor that you claim is the primary cause of climate warming and it causes no increase in GAT, this is clear empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

              That’s the real world science. So sad that you deny that real world empirical science, and rather place your faith in the failed predictions from flawed, faulty, falsified climate models. That just shows that you aren’t doing science, but are doing religion, cult religion, doomsday cult religion. Eminent scientists recognize this:
              “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism] : Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT. Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

              And “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48

              • Ian5

                Nope, you made the outlandish statement that “the net benefits of
                that extra CO2 have been positive” and referenced an article that doesn’t say that. Then you go on, cherry picking with pseudo-science and repeating Heartland talking points. Virtually every US and international scientific academy acknowledges the mechanism and serious implications of AGW on the planetary climate system. How can this be?

              • Ian5
                • RealOldOne2

                  Sorry, I follow empirical DATA, not rubbish propaganda from organizations that corrupt the measured empirical data and peddle propaganda such as the ‘97% consensus’ rubbish which has been debunked by peer reviewed papers: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html .

                  Please educate yourself: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.html

                  • Dano2

                    POPTART!

                    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    Disinformation site! Drink!

                    I do love your entertainment style.

                    Best,

                    D

                  • Ian5

                    Climate Change Reconsidered…bought to you by the Heartland institute. Intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. Another rubbish site.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your spreading smear ad hom attacks which are IRRELEVANT to the Climate Change Reconsidered Report. Goebbels would be proud of you! Your cult masters taught you well in your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult catechism classes. Hahaha

                      You FAILED to document ANY evidence that the report was designed to mislead and misinform.
                      You are merely making baseless, evidence-free CLAIMS. You are a pathetic JOKE!

                    • Ian5

                      Somehow I knew you’d be unable to contain yourself. Godwin’s Rule of inappropriate comparisons. Another reason not to take you and your extreme views seriously.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “I knew you’d be unable to contain yourself.”
                      LOL @ your projection. Just like I said, you have FAILED to document ANY evidence of your dishonest, false allegations.

                      ROTFLMAO @ your projection! You were unable to rebut any of the empirical science that I presented which shows that climate change is still natural, not anthropogenic, yet YOU couldn’t contain YOURSELF from making another inane, vacuous comment, totally devoid of any science! Hilarious.

                      “not to take you and your extreme views seriously.”
                      That’s hilarious you delusional, ignorant fool. I’m not the one with the extreme view. I hold the accepted null climate hypothesis of natural climate change, just like has been happening throughout the entire history of the planet.
                      YOU are the one saying the world is going to be doomed, disasters and catastrophe will be certain because of a few more ppm of harmless, life essential natural molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere, even though several times that concentration are harmless, and life flourished on the earth previously when there were thousands of additional ppms of that same life-giving gas in the atmosphere.

                      Yes indeed, you are a pathetic f-ing JOKE! Back to your climate cult revival meetings. Hahahaha

                    • Ian5

                      Predictably, you delivered on Godwin’s rule, then resorted to
                      name-calling, ranting and denial of basic scientific principles you’d find in a highschool text book. More reasons not to take you and your extreme views seriously.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your projection.
                      You were the first one to mention “Nazi”. I merely referred to propaganda masters.

                      Funny that you FAIL to quote anything that I said that is a “denial of basic scientific principles you’d find in a highschool text book.”
                      More dishonest baseless evidence-free allegations from you.

                      I expose that you are dishonest in what you say, you ignore it, and move on to more of your propaganda cult talking points. So sad. And so transparent. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourself Ian.

                      Put up or shut up Ian. WHAT are the “basic scientific principles” that I am denying?

                    • Ian5

                      Nope, I was not.

                      “natural climate change, just like has been happening throughout the entire history of the planet”.

                      40% increase in CO2…25% in the past 50 years. 400 ppm hasn’t been seen in hundreds of thousands of years. The scientific evidence that human-caused GHGs are warming the climate system is unequivocal.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “400 ppm hasn’t been seen in hundreds of thousands of years”
                      So sad that you gullibly swallow your climate cult’s propaganda. There have been thousands of empirically measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere greater than 400ppm during just the past couple hundred years. They are documented by Beck(2007), ‘180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods’, taken from 180 peer reviewed papers written from 1812 to 1961.

                      “The scientific evidence that human-caused GHGs are warming the climate system is unequivocal.”
                      LOL. Irrelevant, since that statement would be true if only 0.000000001 C of warming was due to human-caused GHGs.
                      What IS relevant is that your climate cult’s claim that MOST of the warming is due to human-caused GHGs.
                      There is NO peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. All you have to do to prove me wrong is cite one. You can’t.

                      But there IS peer reviewed empirical science that shows ~10 times more natural climate forcing during the period of greatest warming in the late 20th century. Here is a summary of some of that science:

                      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)’

                      This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014) – “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’

                      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 12 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 :
                      https://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

                    • Ian5

                      The Beck report was published in energy and environment, a weak journal with no influence. Conclusion was that atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate wildly yet these wild fluctuations haven’t been seen since more accurate IR measurement techniques were adopted in the 60s. Pseudoscience. Even most climate deniers don’t accept it.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Yep, you couldn’t address ANY of the peer reviewed empirical evidence for thousands of measured atmospheric CO2 levels greater than 400ppm, so you trot out an irrelevant ad hom argument. Typical climate cult dodge. So sad.

                      “since more accurate IR measurement techniques were adopted in the 60s. Pseudoscience”
                      You are such a pathetic denier of reality. The chemical method of CO2 analysis used in the data from the peer reviewed papers that Beck reported on were accurate to 3%.
                      “Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy of 3%.” – Beck(2007)
                      Sorry, but using the best scientific methods of the day did NOT make it “pseudoscience”. That is merely another example of you fabricating a dishonest, bogus reason to DENY any empirical data that proves your climate cult dogmas wrong. Pathetic.

                      AND nice DODGE of all that peer reviewed empirical science that shows that the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was NATURAL, not anthropogenic. Typical of reality-denying duped doomsday cult fanatics.

                    • Ian5

                      Nope, you don’t understand the distinction between data, interpretation, knowledge and understanding. You search only for data that fits your narrow ideology. Time for you to hit the books!

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your denial of reality! You’re a HOOT! Hahahahaha

                    • Dano2

                      There have been thousands of empirically measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere greater than 400ppm during just the past couple hundred years.

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

                      Clown show.

                      *honk honk*

                      best,

                      D

                    • Ian5

                      In my experience, persons who participate in name-calling, go on long rants and equate people they disagree with to Nazis, typically can’t accept the scientific evidence for AGW because it conflicts with their values and narrow ideology.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Look in the mirror, you Nazi referencer.
                      You ARE great at projection there boy.
                      You suck at science though.

                    • Ian5

                      More bluster and name-calling. No credibility. Back to school for you!

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL. You are STILL dodging!
                      What are the “basic scientific principles” that I am denying?

                    • Ian5

                      Get a basic highschool science textbook. Then look at the preface to the nipcc rubbish report. Figure it out and then come back and tell us what you learnt.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL. Thanks for confirming that there are NO basic scientific principles that I am denying.

                      But we’ve all seen that you deny peer reviewed empirical science that shows the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was NATURAL climate forcing, NOT anthropogenic forcing. That empirical science is found in my comment here: https://www.cfact.org/2015/11/20/senators-to-president-and-un-no-climate-cash-for-you/#comment-2383094787 which you are dodging and avoiding like the plague!

                    • Ian5

                      More rubbish links. I’ll bet Inhofe and his snowball antics is your hero.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “More rubbish links”
                      ROTFLMAO! That’s a link to THIS COMMENT SECTION you ignorant fool!
                      Keep up the clown dancing denial of reality. It’s a HOOT.
                      You’re on FULL TILT now! Hahahhahaha

                    • Dano2

                      peer reviewed empirical science that shows the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was NATURAL climate forcing, NOT anthropogenic forcing

                      You didn’t link to any peer-reviewed papers in that comment.

                      Big fibbin again.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Dano2

                      You lack capacity to yell, bluff and deny your way out of that one.

                      Best,

                      D

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c71d8a4ddbd92237a5a09832af7f0afce2dedb25edc0911486768b7c54a8c2b.jpg

                  • Ian5

                    Rubbish propaganda? how about that nipcc report? Take it to any university or scientific academy and they would laugh at it.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “Rubbish propaganda”
                      That’s your answer to any science that doesn’t agree with your false CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 dogmas. Sad.
                      And I notice that you once again have FAILED to point out a single thing in that report that is not true. All you do is make baseless, evidence-free allegations. Sad.

                      “nipcc report? … they would laugh at it”
                      Irrelevant. What is relevant is that they couldn’t rebut any of the science that is in it.

                    • Ian5

                      No, not any science, but certainly anything published by heartland. Do some basic research. Take a critical thinking course.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “No, not any science”
                      Shaking my head in disbelief at your pathetic denial of reality. So sad.
                      Are you so stupid to think that everyone can see that you are a delusional denier of reality?
                      Everyone can see the hundreds of peer reviewed references in the NIPCC report, http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.html .
                      Here’s chapter 1 on Global Climate Models: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-1-Models.pdf Dozens and dozens of peer reviewed SCIENCE papers referenced there.
                      Here’s chapter 2 on Forcings and Feedbacks: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-2-Forcings-and-Feedbacks.pdf Dozens and dozens of peer reviewed SCIENCE papers referenced there.
                      Here’s chapter 3 on Solar Forcing of Climate: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-3-Solar-Forcing.pdf Dozens and dozens of peer reviewed SCIENCE papers referenced there.
                      Here’s chapter 4 on Observations: Temperature: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-4-Temperature.pdf Dozens and dozens of peer reviewed SCIENCE papers referenced there.
                      Here’s chapter 5 on Observations: The Cryosphere: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-5-Cryosphere.pdf Dozens and dozens of peer reviewed SCIENCE papers there.
                      Here’s chapter 6 on Observations: The Hydrosphere: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-6-Hydrosphere-Oceans.pdf Dozens and dozens of peer reviewed SCIENCE papers referenced there.
                      Here’s chapter 7 on Observations: Extreme Weather: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-7-Extreme-Weather.pdf Dozens and dozens of SCIENCE papers referenced there.

                      And you claim: “No, not any science”
                      Thanks for yet more evidence that you are a delusional, reality-denying, ideologically blinded climate cult zealot. So sad.

                    • Ian5

                      Multiple links to the misleading and absurd heartland-funded rubbish report. No substance there, but consistent with your narrow and extreme ideology.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “absurd heartlind-funded rubbish report. No substance there”
                      LOL. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
                      First it was “No, not any SCIENCE”.
                      Now it is “No substance there”.

                      Like most doomsday cultists who are caught in a dishonest claim, you stubbornly refuse to admit your errors, and spin new lies to cover your previous errors. So sad.

                      And who funded the report is irrelevant.
                      What IS relevant is the content of the report.
                      AND I would point out, that the peer reviewed science that you are calling “rubbish” was that of hundreds and hundreds of scientists NOT affiliated or connected to Heartland at all.

                      You dismiss all that substantive peer reviewed science written by hundreds and hundreds of scientists based SOLELY on the fact that it goes against your cherished CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 religion. You have yet to cite or quote a single thing from the report that is not accurate, to support your baseless, evidence-free claim that it is “rubbish”. So sad. But so typical of duped, scientifically illiterate doomsday cult zealots.

                    • Ian5

                      Nope, it’s rubbish intentionally designed to misinform and mislead. Educate yourself. And here’s a great comment:

                      “Who funded the report is irrelevant”.

                      You are either naive or just ignorant. Here’s heartland’s mission straight from its website: “…discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” It’s about ideology not scientific discovery. The conclusions of the report are in direct opposition to virtually every major US and international scientific and research academy.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      LOL @ your continued ranting nonsense! What a freaking JOKE you are!
                      You STILL are denying all the empirical science that I presented. I’ve never interacted with such a delusional moron!

                    • RealOldOne2

                      Readers: Here is the peer reviewed empirical science that this ideologically blinded climate cult fanatic denies:

                      There IS peer reviewed empirical science that shows ~10 times more natural climate forcing during the period of greatest warming in the late 20th century. Here is a summary of some of that science. So sad that this climate cult fanatic denies it.

                      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)’

                      This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014) – “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’

                      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 12 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 :
                      https://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

                    • Dano2

                      There is not a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows all those adademies conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

                      You’ve been given the link before that refuted this, so we know you are fibbing.

                      Why the big fib when you’ve been caught big fat fibbin before?

                      Best.

                      D

                • realitybitesbig

                  NASA, NOAA, You mean the guys who will not show the original data or the methods used to get to the adjusted data numbers. Until they show what they do they cannot be taken seriously. Just because those organizations have done serious science in the past does not give them licence to not follow the scientific method and put their research up to see if it can be replicated by others.

                  • Ian5

                    What scientific and climate reseach organizations do you rely upon? Share some names.

      • John

        That is the optimistic side of more CO2 in the carbon cycle. However, if you deduct for the costs of using fossil fuels: poor air quality, ocean acidification, land and air pollution, climate changes toward stronger and more frequent storms, droughts and flooding, as well as sea level rise poised to displace millions, and the potential for causing a mass species extinction, growing 20% more food is a pretty shallow benefit. And more food only delays for just a little longer the fact that the human population is approaching the carrying capacity of the Earth. Water, space and the effects on the environment and other species are equally as important as the food supply, so a little more food is not all that helpful.

        • RealOldOne2

          “deduct for the costs of using fossil fuels”
          So sad that you peddle such rubbish BS propaganda that is NOT based on empirical science.

          “poor air quality”
          Zero empirical evidence for that. CO2 is a harmless, colorless, odorless, natural gas essential for life on Earth. It causes no more poor air quality than adding pure H2O to the atmosphere, which in fact happens too when fossil fuels are burned. And H2O is the strongest ghg, but you know you would be laughed off the face of the planet if you wanted a water tax, cap and trade on water, regulate water as “pollution”, but that’s exactly what you are doing with CO2. Pathetic.

          “ocean acidification”
          Zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has caused any ocean acidification. The ocean is well withing normal natural range of pH. In fact, the actual data shows no increase in ‘acidification’. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/mwacompilationofglobalocean_phjan82014.jpg

          “land and air pollution”
          A ludicrous false claim as CO2 is not pollution even at many many times the current levels in the atmosphere. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=shlr

          “climate changes toward stronger and more frequent storms, droughts and flooding”
          Pure alarmist BS evidence-free claims. The empirical evidence shows that these claims of more extreme weather are NOT happening: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ChristyJR_130530_McKinley-PDF-of-PPT.pdf
          And the US is currently experiencing the longest period without a major landfalling hurricane in recorded history, now exceeding the previous record during the 1860s (the Civil War era). Your climate cult’s alarmist predictions made in 2005 have been totally debunked by Mother Nature.

          “as well as sea level rise poised to displace millions”
          Another evidence-free hyped scare allegation. Sea level rise is well withing the range of natural variability and there is no empirical evidence showing any reason for concern.
          “The rate of sea level rise was found to be larger in the early part of the century (2.03 +/- 0.35 mm/yr 1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 +/- 0.34 mm/yr 1954-2003).” – Holgate(2007), ‘On the decadal rates of sea level change during the 20th century’
          “We use 1277 tide gauges since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyze the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. … The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 mm +/- 0.3 mm·yr^-1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 mm +/- 0.5 mm·yr^-1 since 1970.” – Jevregeva(2014), ‘Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea level trends since 1807’

          “and the potential for causing a mass species extinction”
          Pure hyped nonsense with no empirical evidence to support it. Historically extinctions are related to cold climate events, not warm climate events.

          “20% more food”
          You evidently failed at math too! The primary grains which comprise our food sources were:
          Maize(corn):Up 139%
          Wheat: Up 134%
          Rice: Up 104%

          “the human population is approaching the carrying capacity of the Earth”
          Ah, a disciple of the failed predictions of Paul Ehrlich! So your Malthusian ideology comes out. That is why you peddle the rubbish CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion. So sad.

          • Dano2

            We know you are purposely dishonest when you use that chart on OA and prattle on about Zero empirical evidence.

            I LOLzed at the comedy of it all!

            best,

            D

      • Dano2

        You were duped. You can’t show the % increase in yield due to CO2 fert.

        Best,

        D

  • RealOldOne2

    The climate alarmists’ objective of reducing CO2 emissions in the Paris COP21 is pure folly. This is exposed by the fact that the impact on climate is essentially ZERO:
    “Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05C in 2100” – http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

    That is what the recent peer reviewed paper says: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/epdf

    And that is even using the exaggerated warming predicted by the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models that over exaggerate the effects of CO2. This shows that the true objective is a politically driven wealth transfer, having essentially nothing to do with climate, since normal year-to-year variability in global average temperature can be nearly 10 times that amount.

    Natural climate variability still controls the climate, not anthropogenic CO2.

    • Dano2

      Smart people understand that COP21 is not for reducing temperature, it is for avoiding additional warming over baseline – so it is reassuring that the policies will be effective.

      Thanks for pointing out COP21 will be effective in its efforts!

      Best,

      D

  • Larry Bates

    BREAKING NEWS: Congress did not authorize the payment of money to the fraudulent UN Green Climate fund, in spite of BHO’s threats. In the face of this, the US
    State Department has still transferred $500 Million to this fund. BHO is not a
    President. He is a Dictator.