Left-wing heads will explode if Trump exits Paris

CFACT has fed all the data into the most sophisticated computer models available and can project with 97% accuracy that the heads of global warming campaigners, the warming-compliant media and the entire political Left will explode if President Trump exits the UN Paris Agreement.

Brace for hysteria.

The AP has already asked members of team warming to assume that all other countries honor their Paris commitments 100%, made assumptions about U.S. emissions outside of Paris and plugged that into their “worst case” computer simulations.  Predictably they predict rising sea levels, extreme weather, etc.  They ignore the fact their computer models have consistentely run far warmer than real world observations show since their inception and that there has been no meaningful warming since the turn of the millennium.

CBS went all-in on the AP’s climate modeling scare story without critically examining its extreme claims.

Take a look over at “IFL Science” (The “F” stands for a crude word for reproduction) if you’d like to get a more comprehensive peek at the scare-mongering to come.

If they truly “F’n” loved science they’d never post a bogus list like this.  Here’s what they claim happens if President Trump breaks free from the Paris Agreement:

  • The U.S. economy loses $2 trillion
  • Hurricanes become stronger and “stranger”
  • Intense droughts and wildfires
  • Climate refugees flood inland
  • Americans will get sicker with more diabetes and heart disease
  • Warfare will increase
  • Africa will be destabilized
  • American defense capabilities will weaken
  • Rape, murder and assault will increase
  • Americans will starve
  • American foreign policy will “shrink”

How’d they plow through so many bogus claims without mentioning polar bears?

Wouldn’t it be great if the media actually did its job and fact checked the coming extreme climate hype storm?

We’d learn that the Paris Treaty doesn’t save or generate money, it burns it up.   Economist Bjorn Lomborg’s peer-reviewed estimate concludes that Paris is “history’s most expensive treaty. It will slow the world’s economic growth to force a shift to inefficient green energy sources… This will achieve almost nothing…  even if every nation were to fulfill all their carbon-cutting promises by 2030 and stick to them all the way through the century—at a cost of more than $100 trillion in lost GDP—global temperature rise would be reduced by a tiny 0.3°F (0.17°C).”   That’s assuming the models are accurate and they never have been!

Weather, extreme or otherwise, has not been worsening.  Most weather is currently mild or at historic lows confounding the modelers once again.

Sea level has been increasing at 1 to 3 mm per year (about the width of a paper clip) without accelerating since before the industrial revolution.  Antarctic ice is stable and shows no signs of melting away.  (If you truly believe that coastlines are doomed, we’d like to take your waterfront property off your hands at a discount.   Step right up and escape your watery doom!)

Violence, illness, starvation, rape, weakened defense, etc. this is all politically driven speculation piled upon speculation with no basis in reality.

Does anyone truly believe that the problems that plague Sub-Saharan Africa are caused by American electricity and SUVs?  Africa is rent apart by tribalism, corruption and 20th century left-wing ideologies.  What Africa needs is free markets, fair elections and the rule of law.

How long until Senators Franken, Whitehouse, Sanders, Warren & Blumenthal print IFL Science’s warming propaganda onto whiteboards and stay up for another all night global warming Senate pajama party?

Love him or hate him (no one is indifferent), you must concede that anti-Trump hysteria is at fever pitch.  Add global warming hysteria to the mix and brace yourself for an extreme storm of hysteria.

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • Immortal600

    The climate is going to change regardless what humans do. There is zero evidence that CO2 is doing what they claim. Theirs is a religion based on a belief that can’t be substantiated.

  • John Lentini

    A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris Climate Summit. Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release). The temperature calculations were made by the computer model “MAGICC”. approved by and used by the EPA and the UN IPCC.

  • Drtender

    Nothing more beautiful than an exploding leftwing head 🙂

  • socalpa

    I want to thank CFACT and its authors for their efforts to prevent the U.S from becoming another victim of the fraud by the EUSSR and UN called the Paris Agreement .

    I say another victim ,as the populations of the EU,UK and Australia have been severely damaged by the proposed solution to global warming .. Carbon Taxes .. I have read of UK and German energy poverty numbers , 18% and 17% respectively .. rising excess winter deaths since the imposition of massive fuel taxes and levies past decades .Closing industries .. blackouts in Australia ..all pain , no gain ..

    We cannot accept this here in the U.S

    .Mr Trump knows this Paris deal is a scam ,EU and UK leaders need it to protect the politicians from voter wrath over the pain described above by claiming they are forced to comply by Treaty ,and to protect the carbon tax revenue ,now 8% of total UK government revenue..

    Mr. Trump is facing down the real backers of the scam ,the biggest check writers in the Republican Party , the international banks ,trading cos and oil & gas that want coals 35% share of the electricity market .He beat the Dems , he beat the Republicans too ..If he wants to win in 2020 ,he gets us out ..He will keep the 7 industrial and energy states he flipped Nov 8 2016 .

    If he doesn’t want to run again ..he stays in the Agreement .. and Cruz tries to use it in 2020 ..the Republicans blame him for faltering ..

    That is the way I see it .. hope I am wrong ..and he is enjoying the suspense and will keep his promise .. But the price his enemies will seek may be too much for him to bear ..

    • classicalmusiclover

      Of course socalpa applauds the efforts of the fossil fuel industry hacks at CFACT to misinform the public. He’s been so thoroughly misinformed that he urgently wishes to share the joy.

      • socalpa

        Always enjoy your pathetic whining ..musciover .. please continue !

        • classicalmusiclover

          Say what you like. You are in your safe space here, with the other anti-science freaks and conspiracy theorists.

          • Bob Young

            Speaking of safe spaces old sport, how was the coffee in the faculty lounge today.

      • climatescam

        Accusing somebody else of being misinformed with your track record of blind devotion to the climate change cult and ridiculous anti-science propaganda posts…oh the irony!!!

        • classicalmusiclover

          So, you think that treating the science departments at MIT, Yale, Cornell, Harvard, Berkeley, the University of Washington, and George Mason as sources of factual information is “blind devotion” to a “cult” and that peer-reviewed scientific papers and informational pages at NASA, NOAA, and the NSIDC are “‘ridculous anti-science propaganda posts.”

          Got it.

          Oh, the irony coming from someone who gets their science info from Marc “the only science I need is political science” Morano.

          • climatescam

            Throw around all of the ‘name recognition’ buzzwords you want to try and establish credibility by association. The bottom line is that none of the data or observations are supporting the collapsing catastrophic anthropogenic climate change scam and while MIT, Yale, Cornell, Harvard…etc. have credibility from years of prestige and performance their ‘climate change’ departments are nothing but grant money machines. Education political action committees tasked with keeping the grant money flowing – just like NASA/NOAA under the morally bankrupt Obama administration (if you want your funding…give us data and conclusions that support the scam). ‘Climatology’ is the joke of the science world.

            • classicalmusiclover

              You realize, don’t you, that grants to buy results, are subject to intense scrutiny and oversight, do not put much money into he pockets of recipients, and that any scientist caught fabricating or falsifying data is contractually required to refund the money and will likely be blacklisted for life from academia and reputable scientific institutions?

              Climatology is a science like any other, based on facts, data, observation, and the laws of physics. Cimate scientists still have to earn advanced degrees in the sciences and establish themselves by performing significant research. It isn’t a joke.

              Dismissing the legitimacy of an entire scientific field, as CFACT tells you to do, is a very convenient way to feel self-important despite one’s own scientific illiteracy.

              Here’s a question for you: is or is not CO2 a greenhouse gas and as such part of what regulates temperatures on the earth’s surface?

              • climatescam

                “intense scrutiny and oversight” by the people who are doling out the grant money in order to get the conclusions that they want. Not much chance of getting in trouble when you are giving the person paying you the results they want.

                Climatology is far closer to Scientology than it is to an actual science. The climatologists who ‘adjust’ their data and hide their emails and data from legitimate FOIA requests are unethical petty thieves and they should be brought up on criminal charges.

                You seem pretty hung up on CFACT, there’s a whole world of actual science and credible, educated, accomplished scientists – leaders in their respective fields who have debunked or dismissed the climate change scam. You should get out more – if you weren’t just a fanatic fool you might learn something.

                I don’t take part in juvenile little quizzes by climate change cult members. You just spout propaganda because you’re either an ignorant fanatic or a thief profiting from the scam – so no amount of facts will ever convince you.

                • classicalmusiclover

                  “I don’t take part in juvenile little quizzes by climate change cult members. You just spout propaganda because you’re either an ignorant fanatic or a thief profiting from the scam – so no amount of facts will ever convince you.”

                  So CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

                  Or the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with temperatures?

                  Which is it?

                  • climatescam

                    -Explain the rewriting of history in order to remove the MWP.
                    -Tell us how you still support the infamous hockey-stick even though it has been thoroughly denounced and debunked because of it’s anti-science research and conclusion.

                    -Explain for us the multiple revisions of data by NASA/NOAA making the past cooler and the present warmer.
                    -With a straight face, explain to us again the 800 year lag in CO2 levels and how it has consistent and historic proof – but the climatology community is certain that it is different THIS TIME only.

                    …the list just goes on and on…

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      “Explain the rewriting of history in order to remove the MWP.”
                      –this has not occurred. However, the global nature of the MWP s still in dispute, at no point were global average temperatures during the MWP as high as they are today, and the changes in global average temperature entering

                      “-Tell us how you still support the infamous hockey-stick even though it has been thoroughly denounced and debunked because of it’s anti-science research and conclusion.”
                      –The “hockey stick” has actually been reaffirmed by at least three dozen peer-reviewed studies published since the original 1998 paper, based on improved data and methodology. It hasn’t been debunked. Though of course CFACT, right wing politicians, and other science denial websites have denounced it.

                      “-Explain for us the multiple revisions of data by NASA/NOAA making the past cooler and the present warmer.”
                      –the latter half of your sentence is simply untrue. Adjustments have been both in the positive and the negative directions, based on the data points. Homogenization doesn’t just work in one direction. There are FAQ pages at NOAA explaining why data adjustments are necessary and the methodology used in making them.

                      “-With a straight face, explain to us again the 800 year lag in CO2 levels and how it has consistent and historic proof – but the climatology community is certain that it is different THIS TIME only.” The “800 year lag” was typical for times when the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 did not occur over such a short period, when CO2 was subject to natural forcings. However, the concentration has increased by 40% in just the last 150 years to levels at least 30% higher than at any point in the previous 800,000 years. It has reached the point where CO2 from human emissions now is 131x as much as comes from volcanic activity in any given year. Meanwhile the rate of temperature change over the past 100 years is roughly 10x greater than the rate over the previous 4000. Scientists have examined all known contenders for the cause of this, and the increase in CO2 is the strongest correlative.

                      “…the list just goes on and on…”
                      Yes, the list of science denial claims goes on and on and have all been shown to be nonsense. There is even a catalog of these claims at Skeptical Science, along with their refutations, but I won’t bother to link it because you have already been told not to trust it.

                    • climatescam

                      All four of your answers are complete lies, as expected.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Wow, what a thorough and devastating rebuttal! And all within 4 minutes of posting my comment!
                      Who told you they are lies?

                      So CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
                      It hasn’t increased to 410ppm, a level much higher than it was in the entire previous history of human habitation on the planet?
                      There are no FAQ pages at NOAA explaining why and how data adjustments are made?

                      Is this a lie?
                      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • climatescam

                      I notice you failed to address the abundant information related to “nasa past cooler present warmer” – imagine my surprise! LOL

                      These warmist cult members…always trying to limit the data for a snapshot support of their scam. Trying taking CO2 levels in actual historic perspective: http://bit.ly/2r7N8wt

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      There are many misleading things about that graph–which you took from another science-denial/conspiracy website.

                      First, the plotting of the coordinates distorts the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

                      Second, it swamps the history of human habitation in the sheer expanse of time when the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the nature of lie on the planet was fundamentally and usually incompatibly different from the array of life today.

                      What matters is what is happening NOW and what is causing it.

                    • climatescam

                      “misleading”, allow me to translate because I speak fluent climate cult: “The facts don’t support my beliefs.”

                      You got caught again music-boy, wrong, wrong, wrong…every time.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      False.

                      Why do you think that what is happening now with the climate is unimportant?

                    • Li D

                      Everytime your crap points
                      are invalidated you change
                      the subject. Its bizarre.
                      Why not at least do a post
                      saying ” ok i got that wrong ” before moving on?
                      Its so wierd reading the dialog.
                      Typical denier way to do things, but still so wierd.
                      Its intellectually dishonest.

                    • Michael Castillo

                      You’re dealing with someone who is immersed in an anti-fossil fuel theology. Science is just a tool to distort to push their totalitarian globalist agenda.

                • classicalmusiclover

                  “You seem pretty hung up on CFACT,”
                  —this site is cfact.

                  ” there’s a whole world of actual science and credible, educated, accomplished scientists – leaders in their respective fields who have debunked or dismissed the climate change scam.”
                  —none of whom is an expert in climate science and none of whom has actually “debunked” anthropogenic global warming.”

                  “”You should get out more”
                  –you should actually read some science.

                  • climatescam

                    Translation: “if they’re not in my cult, I reject everything they say and believe – no matter how accomplished, educated and respected”.

                    This is like saying that only a Scientologist should be trusted for information about Scientology – because after all, they ARE the experts!

                    See how these climate change fanatics stay stup|d!

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      So, you dispute the concept of expertise and invoke a fallacious appeal to authority.

                      Your second sentence is a begging-the-question fallacy. You are presuming that climatology, which is rooted in facts, evidence, observation, and the laws of physics, is a cult and attacking it as if it were.

                      Is it your contention that Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer, Katharine Hayhoe, Arthur DeGaetano, Kerry Emanuel, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, etc. are stupid?

                    • climatescam

                      There are only four types of people are still pushing this thoroughly debunked anti-science climate change scam; liars,
                      thieves, fanatics and the ignorant (vast majority). They all had different goals but this scam united them because they all get what they want. The liars seek power and drastic socioeconomic change (the end of capitalism, the funding/growth of the UN), the thieves seek wealth, the fanatics have fallen for another “the end of the world as we know it” scam and live in a fantasy world where they are heroes fighting to save the planet, and the ignorant are mostly just misguided and misinformed average citizens who think they are being environmentally responsible and feel better about themselves by believing in this horrific and destructive criminal scam. Millions more innocent people around the world will suffer and die from a lack of energy, food, water…etc. as the criminals responsible for perpetuating this disgusting climate change scam scramble for their share of the power and the loot.

                      I don’t know really which motivation they have for supporting this horrific and criminal scam, you would have to ask them.

                      Money and power, that’s all this climate change scam was ever about.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      So, it is your contention that the scientists I listed are all criminals and liars.

                      Got it.

                      If money and power are the motivators, why is it that climate scientists on average make far less money working for universities and science agencies than they would if they took their skills into the private sector?

                      And if you follow the money, you find that CFACT’s funding sources are not exactly disinterested on this issue.

                    • Arationofreason

                      Stupid; is the kindest thing that you could accuse them of.

                    • don lavrich

                      they must be idiots, along with the ones that predicted global cooling in the 70’s. need I say more! SCAM, SCAM, SCAM!

                • classicalmusiclover

                  “The climatologists who ‘adjust’ their data”
                  —all raw data has to be adjusted for known biases in order to be useful.

                  “and hide their emails and data from legitimate FOIA requests”
                  –you mean Lamar Smith’s witchhunt? The email correspondence between scientists engaged in collaborative research is immaterial to the published results and data. The only purpose in making it public would be to quote mine it for signs that the scientists disagreed about something along the way or maybe made a snarky comment about the science-illiterates in Congress (and now the White House).

                  –The data wasn’t hidden, but had been published online months before Lamar Smith got upset about the Karl et al. 2015 paper in Science Magazine. Doesn’t it bother you that Smith now dismisses Science Magazine as a “biased publication” at the same time that he reads opinion pieces from James Taylor and Larry Ball into the congressional record?

                  ” are unethical petty thieves and they should be brought up on criminal charges.”
                  –name names. Which scientists do you want brought up on criminal charges?

                  • climatescam

                    The adjustments all somehow magically 100% support the climate change scam – a scientific impossibility if you knew anything about actual science.

                    We taxpayers paid for that research, they have no right to hide anything from us. Employees have no expectation of privacy when using computers & equipment of their employers. Government paid scientists have no right or expectation of privacy when doing our work on our tab.

                    When they find out who exactly was involved in the efforts to adjust the data in order to support the scam those are the first ‘scientists’ or bureaucrats who should be brought up on criminal charges.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Maybe you have it completely backward. That the claims of scientists may actually be data-driven and that the adjustments were necessary.

                      We taxpayers paid for that research, which was published in one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals, with all data, raw and adjusted, and methodologies, made public online. All that counts are the published results, which are then subject to debate and scientific refutation…or not.

                      Any preliminary emails are just rough drafts and the only purpose in making them public would be to manufacture distortions and misunderstanding through quote-mining.

                      You are failing to recognize that adjustments for biases in raw data are NECESSARY in order tor the data to be useful and your claim that it was “in order to support” a “scam” is just your politically driven, ignorant assertion.

          • Bob Young

            Richard Lindzen is at MIT and believe AGW is a scam hoax old sport. As for the blokes at Cornell, they are still trying to convince themselves that NY state winter temps have risen by 4F in 40 years. Just a bunch of scammers as are you old sport.

            • classicalmusiclover

              Richard Lindzen is no longer at MIT. He now freelances for the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. None of his former MIT colleagues who still work there agrees with him.

              He has a long history of getting things flat wrong.

              • Bob Young

                sure he does old sport. Gallelio also had that whole round earth thing wrong as well.

                • classicalmusiclover

                  Galileo was not arguing against flat-earthers, dimwit.
                  As a person credited with developing the scientific method as distinct from religion, Galileo embodied the scientific consensus of his time, and was building on the research of Copernicus and Brahe. Lindzen is no Galileo. He is a crackpot.

                  • Bob Young

                    old sport, there is no such thing as a scientific consensus. Do us a favor old sport and keep teaching your poetry to your mediocre students at your substandard community college.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Without a scientific consensus, science would never be able to move on from debating first principles.

                      A scientific consensus involves the specific issues about which scientists have been so convinced by evidence and data that they are no longer debating them. In climate science this refers to three things: global warming, which is observed and documented, climate change, which results from warming and has likewise been observed ad documented through thousands of studies published every year, and the human impact, which derives from the amplified pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere.

                      It’s really easy to understand why the level of consensus is so high.

                      You know nothing about me and are lying about what I actually did tell you about my background.

                      I know that you are a former track star at Cornell who claims to have taken meteorology classes and to have written to DeGaetano directly. If your story is true, he showed you sufficient respect to respond to you, but then you rejected his response out of hand

                      I think it is more than likely that you dropped a shot on your head and have been suffering the effects ever since. You certainly show no signs of having kept up with science or maintained any of the knowledge you might have once possessed.

                    • Bob Young

                      Old sport, stick to poetry.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      I don’t teach poetry.

                      Stick to your science denial safe space here, where you can be surrounded by your fellow science-illiterate dingbats.

                    • Li D

                      My good fellow.
                      You are quite a card.
                      Dont like consensus?
                      Fine.
                      Look up the consilience on AGW and see if any other
                      ideas come close to the
                      same level.
                      Not even close eh.
                      That consilience is science in action.
                      No wonder people agree with it.
                      Denier conspiratist loons got nothing.

      • Bob Young

        I see you stalk all the boards with your ignorant views on climate change old sport. Why dont you go back to teaching your poetry classes, and leave the science for those of us that can critically think about the science.

        • Li D

          ” critically think ”
          Do you know what that means? What defines it?

      • Bob Young

        Just shut up! You are just another babbling clueless libwit.

    • Li D

      People dont like people who keep urinating in the pool, even
      after they have been told several
      times to stop.
      Time to be an adult now.
      What is it with americans and maturity?

      • socalpa

        “People dont like people who keep urinating in the pool,”..

        Such an “adult” comment … Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

        Only a European would make such a childish comment ..

        What is with Europeans and hypocrisy ? The Kings ,Queens and the boot of the Aristocracy on your necks for thousands of years ?

        • Li D

          Stuff like this is why the word exceptionalism was invented.

          • socalpa

            We’ll remember that the next time European tribal hatreds lead to 50 million deaths ..

            Sort things out with Putin on your own ..

      • Bob Young

        If you want to be scammed by the Paris Accord then by all means. We Americans are more astute when it come to identifying a con. Frankly, the climate change hoax isnt all that difficult to identify it for what it is.

        • Li D

          “We Americans are more astute when it come to identifying a con.”
          Hahahahahahahaha.

          • socalpa

            Trillions in energy taxes today …for better weather …in 2100 AD ?

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

  • cardigan

    I just bought a waterfront property!

  • John Swallow

    “3 February 2015 – The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

    Christiana Figueres wants “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution”
    I have a few questions for Christiana Figueres. Just which period in the past would have qualified for your climatic “utopia” since you believe that things are so bad now?

    Would it have been before 1900 when the life expectancy for men was 46.3 and 48.1 for women in the US; by 1998 according to a Berkeley study, that had improved to 73.8 for men and 79.5 for women.

    According to another study in 1930 the life expectancy for both sexes was 59.7 years. and in 2010 it was 78.7 years.

    • Grumnut1

      “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.”

      Why do you think this will be easy?
      Even with all the disinformation doing the rounds, particularly from Exxonmobil that did quite a bit of the serious research in the ’70’s and ’80’s in conjunction with the scientific establishment (and the paper trail still exists) it is still an incredibly difficult task.
      However, if we don’t wish to kill millions of people over the next 70 years or so, it’s vital we ignore those who wish us ill.

      • John Swallow

        It would be nice if I had some idea what the hell you are talking about when you say: “However, if we don’ t wish to kill millions of people over the next 70 years or so, it’s vital we ignore those who wish us ill.” Why do you think that the economic development model needs transformed?

        Did you not understand how the economy that you and the UN want to change has increased the living standards and life expectance of humans on the earth?
        Would it have been before 1900 when the life expectancy for men was 46.3 and 48.1 for women in the US; by 1998 according to a Berkeley study, that had improved to 73.8 for men and 79.5 for women.
        http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

        According to another study in 1930 the life expectancy for both sexes was 59.7 years. and in 2010 it was 78.7 years.
        http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

        For most people there was often not enough to eat and life expectancy was relatively short since many children died. According to records of the royal family of theKingdom of England, among the best cared for in society, the average life expectancy in 1276 was 35.28 years. Between 1301 and 1325 during the Great Famine it was 29.84, while between 1348 and 1375, during the Black Death and subsequent plagues, it dropped to only 17.33.

        “Despite the rise in real income, by the end of the century life was still hard for the average European, compared to 21st century European standards. In Britain the average male was dead at 51.5 years of age, the average woman at 55.4. In France these figures were 45.4 and 50, in Spain at 41 and 42.5. Figures for the Russians, available in 1895, have the average male dead at 31.4 years and the average woman at 33.3.”
        http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h49soc.htm

        June, 19 2013 “One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades. If the industrialization trend continues, then this century could witness some of the rapid improvements in living standards seen in the West during the 19th Century. […] The prize, which many will hope is in reach, is that global poverty is eliminated entirely within another couple of decades. It is the reason why the Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas said that once you start thinking about economic growth and the improvements in standards of living, it is hard to stop.” http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

        What is your answer for providing the people who are not as blessed as you are, or don’t you care as long as you can bitch about climate change, or whatever?
        Modern energy services are crucial to human well-being and to a country’s economic development; and yet globally 1.2 billion people are without access to electricity and more than 2.7 billion people are without clean cooking facilities. More than 95% of these people are either in sub-Saharan African or developing Asia, and around 80% are in rural areas.
        Fast facts
        17%of global population lack access to electricity, despite modest improvements
        38%of global population lack clean cooking facilities

        “We utilize energy from carbon, not because we are bad people, but because it is the affordable foundation on which the profound improvements in our standard of living have been achieved – our progress in health and welfare.” (the increase in life expectancy should also be mentioned) If one travels to different parts of the world where people are not blessed with our energy resources and; therefore, the electricity and fuels provided by these fossil fuels, one can see just how hard and in most cases short life is.

        • Grumnut1

          Exactly. That’s what Ms Figueres was referring to directly.
          Every time the population of the world has been forced to take a technological leap, the benefits have been enormous.
          What is happening now echoes what happened when the British empire was forced to abandon slavery.
          Many of those in positions of power stated that because slavery was responsible for 25% of the income of the British Empire, giving it up would bankrupt England and its dependencies.
          However, give it up they did, and they discovered fossil fuels instead. It was far cheaper than slaves and had much greater utility.
          Whole populations were lifted out of poverty as a result.
          You cited the benefits above.
          This move will make that episode pale to insignificance.
          We’re already seeing the effect with populations in Africa who can’t traditionally afford electricity.
          People there can not afford thousands of dollars to be connected.
          Now thanks to exceptionally cheap solar,whole communities are able to connect for $7 a month.
          http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/15/africa/off-the-grid-tanzania-rwanda/
          http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21709297-small-scale-solar-power-surging-ahead-africa-unplugged

          This has never happened before.

          That price will get even cheaper.

          Do you realise how that will reshape the world?
          The impact that will have?
          That it is already having.
          It will be extraordinarily transformative – far more so than what fossil fuels were EVER able to achieve.

          • John Swallow

            “In November, at the UN’s climate change conference in Marrakech, it won the 2016 Momentum for Change Award, which focused on projects that are addressing climate change in innovative ways.”
            Why are resources and effort being wasted to address a non-problem? Something that Ms Figueres’ UN has no control over, the climate, is not governed by the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, as any logical individual would know.
            You sure thought this statement through, didn’t you? “Every time the population of the world has been forced to take a technological leap, the benefits have been enormous.” Did humanity move out of the stone age because they ran out of stones? Did ships move from sails to coal powered vessels because they ran out of mast and material for sails? And then to try to mix slavery, which still exist in the Islamic world, into the discussion is ludicrous.

            Are you trying to make me believe that having solar panels and batteries are going to provide the energy for the projected demand listed below?
            World Energy Use Projected to Grow 44 Percent Between 2006 and 2030
            World marketed energy consumption is projected to grow by 44 percent between 2006 and 2030, driven by strong long-term economic growth in the developing nations of the world, according to the reference case projection from the International Energy Outlook 2009 (IEO2009) released today by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
            The current global economic downturn will dampen world energy demand in the near term, as manufacturing and consumer demand for goods and services slows. However, with economic recovery anticipated to begin within the next 12 to 24 months, most nations are expected to see energy consumption growth at rates anticipated prior to the recession. Total world energy use rises from 472 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2006 to 552 quadrillion Btu in 2015 and then to 678 quadrillion Btu in 2030.

            World electricity generation increases on average by 2.7% per annum over the period 1997-2020. The power sector’s share of primary energy use increases from 36% to 38%. Coal maintains its position as the world’s largest single source of electricity generation. While coal’s share declines in the OECD area, it increases in developing countries, where electricity production from coal triples by 2020. Natural gas-fired generation grows to more than three-and-a-half times its current level. OECD countries account for nearly half of the increase. Gas is likely to be the preferred fuel for electricity generation so long as its price remains low.
            http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo2000.pdf

            When will your solar panels stop this charcoal trade & the slaughter of rare mountain gorillas?
            “Congo Gorillea Killings Fueled by Illegal Charcoal Trade”
            Stefan Lovgren in Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo
            for National Geographic News
            August 16, 2007
            In a steady trickle teenage boys push their way down a dusty road to the bustling city of Goma, their bicycles buckling under the weight of 100-pound (45-kilogram) sacks of charcoal, or makala as it’s known here.
            The boys are part of an illegal trade that may pose the biggest threat to one of the most pristine places on the planet, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Virunga National Park.

            The park’s dense forest is rapidly being depleted of its trees to satisfy the almost insatiable demand here for charcoal, which is used for cooking and heating by the millions of people living in this troubled region.
            The lucrative charcoal trade is not only wreaking havoc on the park but also on its most famous inhabitants, the rare mountain gorillas.
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070816-gorillas-congo.html

          • John Swallow

            I hope that Grumnut1 remembers when this recently happened: (July 31, 2012) “On Tuesday, India suffered the largest electrical blackout in history, affecting an area encompassing about 670 million people, or roughly 10 percent of the world’s population.”

            This is even more interesting regarding this incident:
            “India’s power sector has long been considered a potentially crippling hindrance to the country’s economic prospects. Part of the problem is access; more than 300 million people in India still have no electricity.”

            For the most part India is more advanced than most of Africa and yet they do not have the solar panels that Grumnut1 seems to believe is the earth’s salvation while the thing that has propelled humanity into an age of more than just existing and dying, coal is no good.

            • John Swallow

              “What If the Biggest Solar Storm on Record Happened Today? Repeat of 1859 Carrington Event would devastate modern world, experts say.”
              […]
              “In fact, the biggest solar storm on record happened in 1859, during a solar maximum about the same size as the one we’re entering, according to NASA. That storm has been dubbed the Carrington Event, after British astronomer Richard Carrington, who witnessed the megaflare and was the first to realize the link between activity on the sun and geomagnetic disturbances on Earth. During the Carrington Event, northern lights were reported as far south as Cuba and Honolulu, while southern lights were seen as far north as Santiago, Chile. (See pictures of auroras generated by the Valentine’s Day solar flare.) The flares were so powerful that “people in the northeastern U.S. could read newspaper print just from the light of the aurora,” Daniel Baker, of the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, said at a geophysics meeting last December.”

              Instead of squandering time and money on this scam of AGW, science and governments should be devoting those resources on trying to harden the grids to prevent a meltdown that another Carrington event will cause. Also devotion of resources to getting electricity to people who now do not have any; as well as clean water, would serve humanity far better than fighting a devil in the sky that does not even exist, warming caused by CO₂.

            • Grumnut1

              Correct, except India is rushing headlong into renewables:
              https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

              The Adani mine, (mentioned there) which is meant to be about the largest in the world is causing great confusion in Australia.
              Prime Minister Modi has stated he won’t accept any coal from it, preferring to use local sources.
              That all makes sense.
              However comments like that, and the general viability of coal in India has meant no bank in the world will lend for it.
              The whole project is in a kind of limbo.
              Even Adani seem to recognise this:
              “Adani opened the world’s largest solar plant in Tamil Nadu earlier this year.”

              • John Swallow

                Grumnut1; It seems you are great fan of solar energy. It looks like Barack Hussein Obama wanted to help India out with it also:
                “Obama Plans To Loan $500 Million For Solar Project – In India Investing in an Indian solar project is not what most Americans would think to be a good and appropriate use of American financing during difficult economic times. For a president that constantly talks about creating new jobs for Americans, he certainly doesn’t ‘walk the talk’ unless it’s in another country.”
                It appears that Africa will go with tried and successful sources for renewable energy, hydroelectric that the Barack Hussein Obama administration didn’t qualify as being renewable, for some insane reason.
                “We can bring electricity to all of Africa in just 10 years 13 Jan 2017
                While Western nations complain of a failure to introduce super-fast broadband quickly enough, African cities, towns and villages still struggle with access to basic electricity to light their homes and power their businesses.
                Across 36 African countries it’s estimated that just two in five people have a reliable supply of energy throughout the day. In some countries less than 10% of people have access to electricity at all.
                […]Two years ago people in our capital city of Conakry couldn’t light their homes for more than six hours a day and businesses went without the power they needed to trade. Now, thanks to the construction of the state-of-the-art Kaleta hydroelectric dam, families and businesses can rely on power for up to 24 hours a day.
                It means that with the construction of a second and larger hydroelectric dam in Souapiti, Guinea will not only have the capacity to provide electricity to homes and businesses throughout our country, but could soon be exporting power to neighbours in the region.”

                I’m sure you know that worldwide solar produces less than 1% if the world’s energy needs while fossil fuels account for 80%.

                • Grumnut1

                  Well this is all marvelous. It doesn’t really matter how it’s done, just as long as we get the result.
                  Currently the world’s energy capacity is one third renewables, with 22% actually being produced.

                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/25/global-renewable-power-capacity-overtakes-coal-as-500000-solar-p/

                  • John Swallow

                    “Currently the world’s energy capacity is one third renewables, with 22% actually being produced.” It is not unusual for climate change fanatics to stretch the truth. As has been said “A 1/2 truth is a whole lie”
                    Grumnut1; I’m sure that there was no attempt at deceit intended when you failed to mention these facts from your Telegraph article.
                    “However, the actual amount of power produced by renewable electricity generators was still significantly lower than that from coal, accounting for 23pc of global power production, compared with almost 40pc from coal plants.”
                    Grumnut1; You do not care to address this BIG problem with renewable electricity generators
                    “This is because power plants do not generate at their full capacity all the time, with sources like wind and solar able to generate at their maximum capacity only when the wind blows or the sun shines.”
                    While new renewables expansion is primarily focused on wind and solar, by far the biggest existing renewable source remained hydropower.

                    Some 61pc of installed renewable capacity and 71pc of renewable power output came from hydroelectric sources, according to the IEA. Wind power accounted for 15pc of renewable output, bioenergy 8pc and solar just 4pc.

                    Did you not want to point out this about solar? “In the UK, the expansion of renewable power capacity has been driven by a boom in solar capacity in recent years. However, this expansion is forecast to be curbed significantly from this year, following the closure of subsidy schemes.”

                    Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 20161
                    • Natural gas = 33.8%
                    • Coal = 30.4%
                    • Nuclear = 19.7%
                    • Renewables (total) = 14.9%
                    • Hydropower = 6.5%
                    • Wind = 5.6%
                    • Biomass = 1.5%
                    • Solar = 0.9%
                    • Geothermal = 0.4%
                    • Petroleum = 0.6%
                    • Other gases = 0.3%
                    • Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%
                    • Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%

                    • Grumnut1

                      The big advances are starting to come in thermal salt, and in particular, thermal silica.

                  • John Swallow

                    Without subsides the near worthless wind mills would be as dead as they are on a calm day.
                    “At the request of Congress, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, evaluated the amount of subsidies that the federal government provides energy producers for fiscal year 2013, updating a study that it did for fiscal year 2010.[i] Over a 3-year period, from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013, total federal electricity-related subsidies increased from $11.7 billion to $16.1 billion, an increase of 38 percent over the 3-year period. The largest increases in federal energy subsidies were in electricity-related renewable energy, which increased 54 percent over the 3-year period, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion. Total fossil fuel subsidies declined by 15 percent, from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion. Total federal energy subsidies declined 23 percent, from $38 billion to $29 billion due to the expiration of tax incentives for biofuels, the depletion of stimulus funds, and a decrease in energy assistance funds.”
                    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/eia-subsidy-report-solar-subsidies-increase-389-percent/

                    Wind farm ‘needs 700 times more land’ than fracking site to produce same energy
                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/11034270/Wind-farm-needs-700-times-more-land-than-fracking-site.html

                    Table ES4. Fiscal year 2010 electricity production subsidies and support (million 2010 dollars) Share of Total Subsidies and Support Coal, 10%; Renewables, 55.3% http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
                    “Direct expenditures accounted for 39 percent of total electricity-related subsidies in FY 2010 (Table ES4). These expenditures were mostly the result of the ARRA Section 1603 grant program, 84-percent of which went to wind generation.” http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requss/subsidy/
                    This is why renewables are built at all: “The billionaire was even more explicit about his goal of reducing his company’s tax payments. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” he said. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” Warren Buffett http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579541782064848174

                    • Grumnut1

                      All forms of energy production is subsidised. Coal power in Australia needs to be heavily subsidised, despite having some of the cheapest coal in the world.
                      We’re also the world’s largest coal exporter.

                    • John Swallow

                      You need to learn to read and comprehend what you read.
                      Table ES4. Fiscal year 2010 electricity production subsidies and support (million 2010 dollars) Share of Total Subsidies and Support Coal, 10%; Renewables, 55.3% http://www.eia.gov/analysis

                    • Grumnut1

                      Well, we used to buy coal for $1 a tonne for domestic use.
                      It seems it needs to be subsidised, even at that rate.

                  • John Swallow

                    Here, Grumnut1, are some items that are foreign to you; FACTS.

                    German coal industry underpins renewable push BBC News 10 April 2014
                    The mines are needed to power a new generation of coal power plants.
                    Two new lignite plants were opened in 2012, with a further two in the pipeline. Another two hard coal plants also opened last year, with a further five opening this year or next, with two more awaiting licences.
                    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26820405

                    “Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good September 04, 2013
                    German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country’s most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.”
                    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

                    Engineer to challenge Government’s renewable energy programme
                    If Ireland were to pursue its current stated renewable goals of generating 40% of its energy from renewable resources, the Irish grid would become unstable, Mr Swords said.
                    http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/1221/business/engineer-to-challenge-governmentaposs-renewable-energy-programme-217634.html

                    This, I assume, Grumnut1, is what you want the whole planet to look like; North Korea.
                    “New Space Station Photos Show North Korea at Night, Cloaked in Darkness
                    In South Korea, each person consumes 10,162 kilowatt hours of power a year. North Koreans each use just 739. Other than several small spots of light, including the brightly illuminated capital of Pyongyang, the country just about blends in with the surrounding black ocean.”
                    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140226-north-korea-satellite-photos-darkness-energy/

                    • Grumnut1

                      So this is a failure of politics then.
                      Australia has the same problem.
                      Despite heavy industry, the farmers and much of the public calling for the re-introduction of the carbon tax, the government refuses to move on it.
                      Economists, the worlds largest mining company and the aluminium refineries ( whose principal cost of production is electricity) have publicly called for the government to reinstate it.
                      http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/tom-koutsantonis-news-releases/7172-farmers-federation-joins-chorus-in-support-of-emissions-intensity-scheme
                      This is despite the government admitting it will save us $15 billion over 10 years.
                      http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/government-killed-emissions-scheme-despite-knowing-it-could-shave-15-billion-off-electricity-bills-20161208-gt6v48.html

                    • John Swallow

                      Who wants this kind of a system where the intermittent nature of wind can cause total black outs?
                      The report said the unexpected operation of the control settings resulted in the sudden loss of generation from the wind farms.
                      “Had the generation deficit not occurred, AEMO’s modelling indicates SA would have remained connected to Victoria and the black system would have been avoided,” the report said.

                      “Climate Institute deputy chief executive Erwin Jackson said without a plan the government risked turning Australia into a third-world economy and was making a mistake “of Stalinist proportions”.”

                      Grumnut1; while Pravda can see just exactly what a tax on carbon will do, you and the supposed to be economist who are not right about anything are not able to look into this far enough to understand the consequences of such a stupid tax to “fight” something that is not a problem, CO₂. Australia foolishly had a carbon tax but this is what is happening to it:
                      Repealing the Carbon Tax
                      The Australian Government will abolish the carbon tax from 1 July 2014. This will lower costs for Australian businesses and ease cost of living pressures for households.

                      Pravda on cap and trade
                      “That brings us to Cap and Trade. Never in the history of humanity has a more idiotic plan been put forward and sold with bigger lies. Energy is the key stone to any and every economy, be it man power, animal power, wood or coal or nuclear. How else does one power industry that makes human life better (unless of course its making the bombs that end that human life, but that’s a different topic). Never in history, with the exception of the Japanese self imposed isolation in the 1600s, did a government actively force its people away from economic activity and industry.”

                      I keep waiting for some rational comment from you Grumnut1; but, I have known for many years now that I will never receive any valid or rational information from someone who is naive enough to actually believe that that a trace gas that is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere, CO₂, controls something as complex as the earth’s climate. It may be at 400 ppm but I’m sure that you do not understand that one ppm is like one inch in16 miles or one minute in 2 years’ worth of minutes.

                      I know that you have no interest in facts but here is one for you.
                      This is an interesting site to look into and it coincides with the above fact about carbon dioxide being one and one half times heavier than “air”. This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO₂ that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Why do you think these industries want a carbon tax?
                      Victoria, which also supplies NSW and South Australia lost 25% of it’s power output with the closure of Hazlewood.
                      NSW and Qld almost blacked out over a hot weekend.
                      We were not allowed to run air conditioning.
                      QLD is 90% coal fired and NSW is 78%.
                      With the loss of so much from Victora, blackouts are now a certainty in all 3 states this coming summer.
                      Without the carbon tax, no one will invest in new plant.
                      The banks will not lend for coal power.
                      The PM even scouted overseas, and all doors were shut.
                      Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter.
                      Were I grew up, our street was basically coal.
                      It’s literally dirt cheap.
                      Even so, it’s uneconomic now to use.

                    • John Swallow

                      Grumnut1; I’m beginning to get very weary of this conversation with someone who appears to be so damn stupid that they can use no logic, at all, to arrive at any valid opinions. If you look at the link that I provide you with since you do not have the capacity to look anything up on your own, you will find that there 80 coalfired plants in Australia now. How, using your insane logic when you say, “Without the carbon tax, no one will invest in new plant.” were these plants built WITHOUT a carbon tax? There are 9 more that have been proposed to be build and, with or without a carbon tax, they were proposed for construction.
                      “Table 1: Existing coal-fired power plants in Australia (updated July 2016)”

                      I see that you do not even know what the definition of a “TAX” is:
                      tax: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
                      ‘higher taxes will dampen consumer spending’

                    • Grumnut1

                      Australia is about 78% coal fired power. Not surprisingly, as of 2016, there are a lot of coal fired power stations.
                      Banks will not lend for the construction of any more.
                      This was shown just recently.
                      It explains the situation very well, particularly from industry’s point of view.
                      http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/05/08/4663424.htm

                    • John Swallow

                      You are insane; You say:
                      “Why do you think these industries want a carbon tax?
                      Victoria, which also supplies NSW and South Australia lost 25% of it’s power output with the closure of Hazlewood.
                      NSW and Qld almost blacked out over a hot weekend.
                      We were not allowed to run air conditioning.”
                      To which I reply; why should I care if an idiot like you can run your air conditioner? I hope that soon your lights all go out and that fools like you can sweat to death in the dark.
                      Here is something to consider when you fret about global warming.
                      “Summer no sweat for Aussies but winter freeze fatal
                      Date:
                      January 12, 2015
                      Australians are more likely to die during unseasonably cold winters than hotter than average summers, QUT research has found. Across the country severe winters that are colder and drier than normal are a far bigger risk to health than sweltering summers that are hotter than average.”

                    • Grumnut1

                      Please learn to do a link.
                      QUT. That rings a heavy bell.

                      And what !!?

                    • John Swallow

                      Does; “Please learn to do a link.” mean that, as I know, you are too stupid to be able to look up the source of the findings of Queensland University of Technology?
                      “Australians are more likely to die during unseasonably cold winters than hotter than average summers, QUT research has found.”
                      From the Queensland University of Technology
                      Across the country severe winters that are colder and drier than normal are a far bigger risk to health than sweltering summers that are hotter than average.
                      Professor Barnett said the finding that hotter or more humid summers had no effect on mortality was “surprising”.
                      “We know that heatwaves kill people in the short-term, but our study did not find any link between hotter summers and higher deaths,” he said.
                      “The increase in deaths during colder winter could be because Australians are well-prepared for whatever summer throws at them, but are less able to cope with cold weather. There isn’t the same focus on preparing for cold weather as there is for hot weather, for example through public health campaigns or even wearing the right sort of clothes.
                      “The strongest increase in deaths during a colder winter was in Brisbane, the city with the warmest climate, with an extra 59 deaths a month on average for a one degree decrease in mean winter temperature.”
                      “Brisbane has the mildest winter of the five cities but has the greatest vulnerability. We believe this is because most homes are designed to lose heat in summer, which also allows cold outdoor air to get inside during winter.”
                      Professor Barnett said the findings of the study, published in the journal Environmental Research, could trigger more prevention programs to help reduce the future burden on the health system.
                      “Excess winter deaths have a significant impact on health systems across Australia,” he said.
                      “There are extra demands on doctors, hospitals and emergency departments in winter months, especially for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases which are triggered by exposure to cold weather.
                      “Our findings show the winter increases in mortality are predictable so ramping up public health measures, such as influenza vaccinations and insulating homes, particularly for vulnerable groups, should be considered to try to reduce the impact of severe winters.”

                      I have been to Australia on two separate occasions and luckily never met anyone while there who I could say was as mentally deficient or dishonest as you appear to be. We used equipment manufactured in Toowoomba, Australia by Russell Mineral Equipment, RME, that was of superior quality to even that made by the Finns. It is a certainty that you do not do anything that benefits society as a whole.

                      Here is some more information on how cold kills more people than heat does but I’m sure that you lack the ability to click on the links.
                      “Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased.
                      A Trend Analysis of the 1930–2010 Extreme Heat Events in the Continental United States*,+
                      Evan M. Oswald and Richard B. Rood
                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-071.1

                      Heat Mortality Versus Cold Mortality: A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States
                      P. G. Dixon, D. M. Brommer, B. C. Hedquist, A. J. Kalkstein, G. B. Goodrich, J. C. Walter, C. C. Dickerson IV, S. J. Penny, and R. S. Cerveny
                      Office of Climatology, Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
                      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-86-7-937

                      “Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather”
                      May 20, 2015
                      The Lancet
                      Summary: “Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.”
                      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm

                      “Study: Korean Hospitalization Admissions 10x Higher During Cold Waves Vs. Heat Waves Article: Researchers analyze empirical evidence across 8 Korean cities. It is inescapable, cold extremes are much more dangerous for humans than heat waves. Cold waves boost admissions some 50% versus 5% for heat waves. From this peer-reviewed study, one can conclude that global warming will reduce the cold extremes, thus making it safer for human life.”

                      “Delhi’s homeless struggle in near-freezing temperatures as cold spell sweeps India Fri 10 Jan 2014,
                      At least 100 people have been killed in a cold spell sweeping across India, and near freezing temperatures in the capital are making life almost impossible for people living on the streets.”
                      <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-10/an-india27s-homeless-struggle-against-bitter-cold-of-delhi/5193310

                    • Grumnut1

                      Hey, you’ve learnt to do a link some of the time.
                      The Australian Newspaper (Murdoch Owned) has exploded mainly because Clive James (who is certainly a smart dude and a great wit, has outed himself as a climate skeptic).
                      Ah tis sad.
                      In fact, most of http://www.theaustralian.com.au is devoted to the subject today.
                      I vaguely remember the Queensland University of Technology as I used to ride my motorbike there for 5 years, but I can’t quite remember what I was studying.
                      I do remember a girl being sweet on me because she used to run the record shop and I bought Joy Divison’s “Closer” album.

                      Something to do with atomic absorption spectroscopy is also coming back to me.
                      The CSIRO rings a bell.
                      Anyway. Got to go.
                      Found a lovely shiraz.

                    • John Swallow

                      Everything about you exists in a very vague world. You say: “…. I used to ride my motorbike there for 5 years, but I can’t quite remember what I was studying.” and it definitely shows & it is a warning to all to always wear a helmet because I’m sure you didn’t have one on when you had your serious motorcycle accident.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Hey, I did once come off at 90 K/Hr. It’s not as much fun as it sounds.

        • Bob Young

          Just ignore GrumNUT1. His handle says it all. He/she is a NUT.

      • J T

        ……..that’s a lot of words to use. For making a fool of one’s self.

        • Grumnut1

          Look at the benefits awaiting the countries that are moving the quickest to renewables.
          Look at what’s happening in Africa, where for the first time the poor can afford electricity.
          http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/15/africa/off-the-grid-tanzania-rwanda/

          The same is starting to happen in India:
          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

          • John Swallow

            Let’s look at Denmark and one would have to be insane to call this a benefit for the country.
            Denmark is a wind energy poster-child. When the wind blows, electricity prices go into freefall and surplus Danish power is exported to Scandinavia – at discounted prices. Then when the wind drops, the canny Swedes send hydro power back to the Danes – at peak prices. So, Danish wind power does indeed deliver cheap energy (at times) – but to Sweden. Scotland is treading a similar road and its last reliable coal-fired generator was closed last week.

            “As of June 2009, Denmark has the most expensive electricity tariff in Europe with tax included….” Denmark gets 21% of their electricity from wind and see how much it is “helping” them. Is this what an already broke nation needs to pay for electricity to appease the believers of an unproven hypotheses about anthropogenic global warming?

            This is the truth about the cost of wind power:
            Global electricity price comparison
            Denmark: 42.89== US cents/1kWh
            USA: 11.20== US cents/1kWh and this is for year 2011
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

            “The Danish rules, and often financing schemes as well, have been exported together with the wind turbines and are thus causing damage the world over. The wind turbines have grown steadily larger due to the unhealthy subsidy schemes – money-making machines rather than power plants. Is this an honest and legal way to conduct business? Does it amount to social responsibility? Social consciousness? Trustworthiness?
            http://stopthesethings.com/2013/04/10/vestas-is-deceiving-the-public-when-it-portrays-itself-as-an-ethical-and-moral-company/

            • Grumnut1

              Well, we’re 90% coal fired and electricity is 35 cents/kWh.
              We’re the worlds largest coal exporter.

              Offshore wind costs maintain falling trend in Germany, Denmark, Holland
              Use of offshore wind in these 3 countries.

              Cost reductions are good news for renewable energy growth in north European countries, where winter peak demand coupled with northern latitudes make solar power a more medium-term prospect.

              These regions have access to robust offshore wind resources in the shallows of the North Sea encircled by Britain, Norway and northern continental Europe.

              And in a notable advantage over other variable renewables, offshore wind fulfils a much greater proportion of its theoretical nameplate capacity—called load factor—compared with solar and onshore wind power, because the wind at sea blows stronger and more often.

    • Carl Looney

      They have based everything on the claims of CO2 causing global warming. That is a fictional invention by the climatologists in the UK and the US to obtain $billiions in research funds based on fudged data and deliberately unreal models of the Earth’s surface processes. None of it can be believed. It was hotter in the 1920s and 1930s than recorded times and next hottest in the 1980s and 1990s. But even our temperature records of a few decades have been finagled by climatologists to show a fake increase in temperatures. If what they say is true, there is nothing that can be done about it. But actually, the data show that increasing temperatures cause more CO2 because warming oceans release more CO2 which is dissolved in the oceans in enormous quantities. Thus warming is first and then more CO2. Climatologists have wrongly concluded that more CO2 is what caused more warming. You got it WRONG guys! Cheers, CGL, Ph.D.

      • Grumnut1

        “Thus warming is first and the more CO2”
        So why do you feel it will be any different this time?

        • J T

          ‘”warming is first and the more CO2″?’ Huh?
          What? Huh?………………..what?

          • Grumnut1

            That was your sentence.
            If that’s the case, and certainly everyone who studies climate science would agree with you, why would you feel anything would have changed?
            Why would it be different this time?

            • J T

              ….quoted a previous senseless comment. Of yours. You know, the one, by you, in this thread? That one.

              • Grumnut1

                Yes. The one from your comment.
                Why do you feel it would or should be different this time?

  • climatescam

    ..50 FORMER IPCC EXPERTS
    1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

    2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

    3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

    4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

    5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

    6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

    7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

    8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

    9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

    10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

    11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

    12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

    13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

    14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

    15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

    16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

    17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

    18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

    19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

    20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

    21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

    22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

    23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

    24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

    25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

    26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

    27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

    28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

    29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

    30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

    31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

    32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

    33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

    34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

    35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

    36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

    37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

    38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

    39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

    40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

    41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

    42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

    43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

    44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

    45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

    46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

    47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

    48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

    49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

    50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”

    • classicalmusiclover

      Oh, dear. I think you have been triggered.

      • climatescam

        Notice how the fanatic cult member has no rebuttal so he resorts to pop-culture insults. Typical.

        • classicalmusiclover

          I have a rebuttal, but I don’t have the time, and, besides, this is your safe space. You nut jobs have already been convinced that anyone who supports AGW (including roughly 97% of people who directly study the climate) are liars and criminals.

          It’s why you come to CFACT in the first place.

          • climatescam

            Another pop-culture insult AND one of the most debunked pieces of climate cult garbage to ever get into print (the infamous 97% consensus).

            You’re slipping music-boy. Shoo…back to your cult sites where nobody questions your propaganda.

            • classicalmusiclover

              Yes I am well aware of CFACT/Climate Depot’s lame attempts to “debunk” a level of consensus that has been documented by at least five different peer-reviewed studies, none of which has been debunked in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

              The funniest one was a peer-reviewed study in a Canadian business journal, which polled geologists and scientists who work for the Canadian fossil fuel industry. James Taylor of Heartland tried to pass it off as a poll of climate experts representative of worldwide opinion.

              Don’t forget, you are posting at CFACT, a fossil-fuel funded and overtly political anti-climate science site by definition.

              • climatescam

                CFACT being fossil-fuel funded is about as accurate as saying I’m fossil-fuel funded because I gassed up my car this morning. Since you exhibit a dramatic ignorance of current events perhaps you should read a bit more on how the fossil-fuel companies are supporting and embracing the climate change scam and the Paris debacle because they realized they can profit from it more than the status quo.

                • classicalmusiclover

                  The fossil-fuel companies are supporting mainstream climate science because they are realists, data-driven, and the negative effects of climate change can no longer be hidden. They have a responsibility to their shareholders. One would think that these companies coming clean after all these years would signal to you that this is not a scam.

                  But cult members are motivated by a sense of devotion and tribal identification. And the denial cult is so blinded by their fears of “globalism” and “lying scientists” and “liberal elites” that they’ll bite the hands that feed them. No amount of science will ever convince you that AGW is real. that’s why you dismiss the leading scientific institutes and university science departments as sources of lies and criminality.

                  As you know, though, they (Exxon especially) have come under serious fire because when their own scientists demonstrated the connection between increased artificial CO2 and climate change, they kept that research under wraps and instead turned to funding think tanks like Heartland and Cato, and indirectly, CFACT.

                  Your naivete about CFACT’s funding and history is hilarious.

                  • climatescam

                    Another lie. Exxon had scientists who looking into the potential of CO2 warming – but actual science and real-world data didn’t support the theory so it never went anywhere….until the liars and thieves figured out a way to profit from the greatest scam in world history.

                    • classicalmusiclover

                      Your claim about what happened at Exxon is just your speculation, contradicted by the facts of what happened.

                      They are large corporations, the most profitable in the history of the world. They are neither evil nor heroes. But they have interests, chiefly in maximizing and maintaining profits.

                      The real world does not run in infantile black and white binarisms.

              • climatescam

                Tell us climate-boy, have you ever looking into who funds and supports realclimate? Clearly you are associated with it since you keep bringing it up. It is nothing but propaganda and spin, much like every argument you try to make.

                • classicalmusiclover

                  It is a blog written for by Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, and several other actual working climate scientists, none of whom makes as much money as Mark Morano does. It’s not very glitzy, and not frequently updated, so clearly its funding isn’t much of an issue one way or another.

                  Just because you can’t understand the science posted there.doesn’t make it propaganda. It must infuriate you that it links thoroughly to peer-reviewed science journals.

                  or as you call them, propaganda.

            • classicalmusiclover

              Are NOAA, NASA, the Yale Center for Climate Communications, and Realclimate.org cult sites?

              • climatescam

                Yes

                • Michael Castillo

                  Thanks to shysters like Al Gore and Barack Obama.

                • Li D

                  Oh dear, NASA is a cult ya reckon?
                  You be truely off your trolley.
                  Go and sit down, have a beer, and consider your position for a bit.
                  You gunna hassle a hero like Buzz Aldrin bout being
                  in a cult?
                  Time to grow up and be an
                  adult.

      • socalpa

        You are about to be “triggered” .. Drudge ,CNN and AP reporting Decision on Paris …U.S …. OUT !

        Two down (Clean Power Plan & Paris) ..One to go …UNFCC .

        • classicalmusiclover

          Just more evidence that Trump is a science-illiterate incompetent.

          It’s sad that you take pleasure in American failure to lead and the loss of American competitiveness in the new economy.

          • socalpa

            Sure … the EU and UK can continue to “lead” !

            Energy triple U.S costs .. rising unemployment and energy poverty rates .. no effect on climate ..in fact ,harsher colder winters and rising excess winter deaths ..past 2 decades .

            We are not going to follow their “lead” ..into a ditch !

            • Li D

              You can make up any crazy political stories you want.
              It dosnt change the AGW
              consilience at all.
              So you just pissing in the wind.

              • socalpa

                More babble ?

                Try looking up ..the Scientific Method .. nowhere does it mention “consilience” in validation of a hypothesis ,or theory ..

                Validity ,or invalidity ,is not subject to a vote ..science is not ..democratic. ..

                I made nothing up ,and it you and your fellow climate jihadis that are “pissing in the wind” .

                Find another hobby ..you are terrible at trolling .

                • Immortal600

                  That dude is a kook. He doesn’t have a clue and his posts show it. I don’t respond to his idiocy any more.

                • Li D

                  You are outstandingly ignorant about science.

                  • socalpa

                    Century ahead weather/climate forecasts do not qualify as science .. they are …speculations ..

                    “Consilience” ? Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

                    Reminiscent of the “Consilience” that the continents were “fixed” and the matching continental coasts a “coincidence” for 50 years after Continental Drift was proposed ,right to ~ 1970 ,that error was in the textbooks .

          • socalpa

            Took some time to read reactions to U.S pullout from Paris on MMOA today .. quite a frenzied reaction to the new reality ..

            Acceptance will come ..eventually .. maybe not for you .. or the EUSSR ..

            The skeptics won, where it counts ..the U.S ballot box !

            Remember , remember ..the 8th of November !

            • classicalmusiclover

              Climate science wasn’t on he ballot, dingbat.

              Trump worried about nations laughing at us.

              They are laughing now.

              • socalpa

                The response to climate science WAS on the ballot ,dingbat ..

                And the response of the voters was to call B.S. on the century ahead doom predictions ..

                “Nations laughing at us” ? Not the 165 that were demanding checks from the Green Climate Fund !

                Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! They are in tears , and EU is in tatters !

                Edit add ; Let the Climate Audits …BEGIN !

  • Michael Castillo

    Why is the long studied relationship between sunspot activity and climate cycles being ignored? We are in the middle of a low sunspot activity cycle and accordingly we are in a cool climate cycle.

    • classicalmusiclover

      It isn’t being ignored.
      We are in the middle of a low sunspot activity.
      We are NOT in a cool climate cycle.

      • Michael Castillo

        Straight from Wikipedia: Cycle 24 began in 2010 and is on track to be the lowest sunspot activity period since accurate records have been kept in 1750.

        • classicalmusiclover

          Correct. As I sad, we are in the middle of a period of low sunspot activity.

          However, the earth has warmed 10x faster over the past 100 years than it did over the previous 4000. And the last 15 years have included at least 10 of the warmest years ever recorded.

          In short, we are not in a cool cycle.

          • Michael Castillo

            Relative to the 1990’s or the 1930’s we are in a cooler period. Relative to the 1940’s we are in a warmer period. I do not accept at face value the reports of the supposed warmest years ever. I feel that satellite data such as the polar ice coverage to be more accurate than surface temperatures. Two NOAA reports in particular bothered me. In the first data reported in the 1930’s was excluded to increase the warming curve since then. In the second sea level rise reported by NOAA was debunked by researchers in the Chesapeake area who had been recording such data for decades. No doubt we are warmer than some periods in the not so distant past, but are we warmer than past warm periods? The areas that the Vikings farmed in Greenland during the Medevial Warm Period are still unfarmable permafrost. I am totally unconvinced that investing our future in expensive, unreliable, environmentally unfriendly so called green energy technologies is in our best interests compared to natural gas. The technologies of wind turbines and solar collection plants do not belong in our future. My position is we should research all of the above, but the future should involve hydrogen and the distant future should involve fusion.

          • socalpa

            “10x faster over the past 100 years than it did over the previous 4000. “.

            You have been asked before to show a single peer reviewed reconstruction or paper that explicitly makes tis claim .

            There are none ,because it is completely false .

            • Immortal600

              He pulls crap out of thin air and expects people to believe his garbage. I wonder why he is bothering to troll here given that he thinks we are all deluded by “big-oil”. LMAO

              • socalpa

                He got that claim from some NASA “fact” sheet .. some non scientist writer got it on ..

                He used to follow my posts on mediamatters ,before I was banned .. this is the first time I posted or read a CFACT article and I am surprised to see him here …

                The musiclover does not hesitate to make things up ,especially when cornered ..

                I see you have his MO nailed already ..

              • Grumnut1

                “In short, we are not in a cool cycle”
                Possibly more correctly stated.
                We are in the middle of a cool cycle, except the earth is getting warmer in the middle of it.

            • classicalmusiclover

              If it is completely false, why is it implicit in every historical reconstruction from reputable scientific sources?

              Is it false in the same way that Arctic sea ice is increasing?

              • socalpa

                Just show a paper or reconstruction that shows this and explicitly states current warming is 10x rate of past 4,000 years.

                • Grumnut1

                  This gets you pretty close:
                  https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
                  Bear in mind, the earth has warmed 1 whole degree from 1970 till today, so that takes it well above that 10x figure

                  • socalpa

                    Still no peer reviewed claim that shows recent warming 10x rate of previous warming .. just a blurb ,and a graph of past 2,000 years that tacks instrument temps ( measured ) onto a graph line of proxy ( inferred and averaged) . completely different systems and a false comparison .( typical Mannian nonsense) . Marcott explained why on Realclimate interview .

                    Another unsupported claim in that NASA blurb is that it took 5,000 years to rise 5C .

                    During Termination , Temps rose 2-3C in less century of the Bolling warm event . ~ 14,700BP -14,100 BP ,other studies show even larger warming .

                    See; A & B temp

                    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/19/E1134/F3.large.jpg

                    So ,file that blurb under P ..for …Propaganda

                    .

                    • Grumnut1
                    • socalpa

                      You should read what Marcott had to say in his interview on Realclimate ;

                      Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

                      Answer;

                      A: “Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used.
                      [Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust,] cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

                      Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

                      A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century..

                      So much for 10 -20x previous warming rates, Marcott goes on to say current temps warmer than 75% of the Holocene. .

                    • Grumnut1

                      Why do you feel any of that contradicts anything Classicalmusiclover has to say? More particularly, why do you think it contradicts the graphs that Marcott supplied in his own paper showing a massive spike in temperature at the end of the 20th century?

                    • socalpa

                      [Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust,] cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”.

                      The “spike” is a statistical construct resulting from the splicing of direct measured (instrument, higher) onto a inferred ( proxy, averaged ,lower) ..

                      Marcott explains this in both his interview and his supplemental .

                    • Grumnut1

                      Yes.
                      So I’ll ask the question again.

                    • socalpa

                      Asked …and answered .

                      There is no peer reviewed reconstruction that explicitly states recent warming is 10x ,or 20x previous Holocene warming rates .. not one .

                      That is misinformation at best ,fraud at worst .

                    • Grumnut1

                      Really. You don’t understand what he’s saying?
                      You had trouble with that whole greening of the earth thing too.

                  • socalpa

                    BTW .. The warming event posted occurred when CO2PPM was < 200 ..

                    Rose to 220 -240PPM 1,000 years later ,end of Allerod . and beginning the cold Drayas event .

          • socalpa

            “As I sad, we are in the middle of a period of low sunspot activity”

            No , we are not . “in the middle” ..We are at the beginning of low solar activity .
            Sunspot activity sharply declined from the highest levels in over a century (cycles 1960 -1990s) to levels of early 20th century late 90s to present .

            The solar physicists predict additional declines through to 2060 and a Solar Minimum like Maunder beginning ~2030 .

      • Bob Young

        since solar radiation is the driver for climate, by definition, we are in a cool climate cycle old sport.

        • classicalmusiclover

          False. You are disputing the existence of the greenhouse effect.

          • Bob Young

            You are wrong again as usual old sport. If the sun went off tomorrow, the earth would become a ball of ice in a year. The amount of solar radiation coming into the atmosphere drives the climate and weather.

            • Grumnut1

              I don’t think we need to wait a year.
              However is your plan to stock up on CO2 in case someone accidentally turns off the sun, so we can stay warm for a bit longer?
              It makes sense as far as it goes, and a zombie apocalypse is always on the cards too.
              Best to be safe than sorry.

              • Bob Young

                I have no plan to stock up on anything old sport. My point is without the constant flow of solar radiation the earth would cool. As solar radiation decreases the earth cools, e.g., ice age, as it increases so does the earths temperature. The greenhouse effect only serves to moderate the heating and cooling cycle. Thats all,

                • Grumnut1

                  “The greenhouse effect only serves to moderate the heating and cooling cycle”
                  Yes. That’s what we’re all saying here.
                  That’s what we’re all worried about.

                  • Bob Young

                    Then you can stop worrying old sport. There is little we can do to impact it, however, higher CO2 levels are great for life on earth, so stop it already.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Well it’s certainly good for greening the North and South Poles:
                      http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/10/carbon_dioxide_and_global_warming_more_is_not_better.html

                      It’s certainly good for destroying habitats and causing massive increase in the numbers varieties of weeds (that’s some more greening for you) and insects that we can’t control the numbers of.
                      All tickity boo really.

                    • Bob Young

                      you are very uninformed old sport.Now go check with the DNC to update your talking points.

                    • Grumnut1

                      Oh, where am I uninformed?
                      There’s also the problem with irukandji moving into popular swimming areas:
                      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-30/irukandji-jellyfish-on-move-down-queensland-coast/8153122
                      Fraser Island is a popular tourist spot.
                      There’s the undeniable fact that a quarter of all the world’s fish will be wiped out if we don’t turn this around by 2050.
                      Also deciduous forests are on the move. We can see it already, but like wiping out so many fish, nothing to worry about.

                    • Bob Young

                      I would hate to live in your morbid irrational head old sport.

                    • Grumnut1

                      So you’re saying 198 international scientific academies, all of the world’s major universities and the world’s militaries are making it up?

                    • Bob Young

                      you are hopeless old sport.BTW when Trump dumps the fraudulent Paris Climate Accord, will your head explode?

                    • Grumnut1

                      No, but your economy will suffer terribly.
                      You will be able to watch China in particular pull away, as they believe their scientific community, and they see the great business that can be generated.
                      Really?
                      You don’t even believe your own military?
                      The Chinese believe theirs.

                    • Bob Young

                      Old sport you are quite daft and have been thoroughly conned. The chinese will be more than happy to take your money for their solar panels, but when it comes to their electricity production, it is all coal generation baby!

                      Today China is responsible for a third of all human CO2 emissions, by 2030 it will account for almost half. Their commitment to the fraud climate accord is to keep doing what they were doing, e.g., one new coal generation plant per week.

                      Whether you believe that humans are causing the climate to catastrophically change or not, everyone should reject the fraud paris deal. Based on the UN’s own science, it will have NO IMPACT on projected temperature rise. What it does accomplish however is massive transfers of wealth from mostly US taxpayers to the 3rd world thug dictators at the UN.

                      I do believe you are sincere in your emotions associated with climate change and desire to SAVE THE PLANET. But you are a gullible fool to believe what you believe regarding CLIMATE CHANGE old sport.

                    • Immortal600

                      You are wasting your time trying to convince the true believers that what they believe in is wrong. They will claim 97% of scientists (completely bogus) and all the world’s science academies think it’s real. Time and climate itself are showing them WRONG.

                    • Bob Young

                      So you are very religious I see.

                    • Bob Young

                      Actual data is a very hard thing for these GAIA worhshippers to absorb. When the facts dont comport to their beliefs, they manufacturer the data. Witness NOAA/NASA GISS’s aggressive “adjusting” of the temperature record since 2009.

                    • Immortal600

                      Bingo

                    • Grumnut1

                      “… is to keep doing what they were doing, e.g., one new coal generation plant per week.”
                      Well they’ve just closed 103 of them.
                      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html?_r=0
                      And they’re the REALLY big ones.
                      Most of the other new ones are only running at about 20 or 30% capacity.
                      “Based on the UN’s own science, it will have NO IMPACT on projected temperature rise. ”
                      You’re right. We’ll have to do better than the Paris Accord to keep below even 2C. That’s all that is capable of doing, so very little impact.
                      That will cause extraordinary problems, that no-one has yet worked out how to deal with.
                      Without it, we are certain to hit 4 or 5C by 2100.
                      The only solution then is to leave the planet.
                      Which do you feel might be achievable?

                    • Bob Young

                      and built 206 newer coal plants old sport. BTW where do you get your info from? The IPCC projects that temps will rise by 4.5F by 2100 without the Accord and will rise by 4.5F with the accord. So how can you support such abject fraud old sport?

                    • Grumnut1

                      Yes. Perfectly true. Some of them are planned never to be used and many will be running at 20 – 30% capacity.
                      Some already are.
                      However China is going to spend $350 billion on renewables by 2020, which considering they have dropped the price of solar by 80% between 2008 and 2013 and they’ve dropped another 40% since, is a lot of bang for buck.
                      Of course coal is going in the other direction.
                      Continuing with the Paris Accord should see us at 2.5C increase by 2100.
                      Even that will upset your Pims and ice.
                      Without it we will be at least 4C. There is a 10% chance it will be 6C, which means you will have to leave the planet.
                      Those tickets will be hard to come by.

          • socalpa

            Sol is the source of heat, not CO2 ..this has been explained to you before ..

            CO2 has never caused warming ,nor prevented cooling in the past 3 million years of climate history .

            The GHE is mainly from water vapor , 75% with clouds globally ,> 90% over open oceans (71 % of planets surface) .

            The trace gasses merely slow the rate of IR loss in a small band of wavelengths, also absorbed by wv.

            • classicalmusiclover

              On a Ppm basis CO2 is a more potent GHG than water vapor, accounting for roughly 26% of the GHE

              Nobody claimed that CO2 is a “source of heat.”

              It does however function with other greenhouse gases as a blanket helping the troposphere and earth’s surface retain heat, because it is more opaque to thermal radiation than it is to solar radiation.

              But thank you for disputing basic atmospheric physics. Again.

              • socalpa

                Please post the source of your claim that CO2 is more “opaque” to thermal radiation ..

                A blanket does not prevent cooling if the heat/energy source declines .

                Basic physics .

              • socalpa

                What is the share of surface heat retention by CO2 over open oceans ?

                You and other constantly CO2 is warming the earth . this implies CO2 is a heat source .. it is not .

                • classicalmusiclover

                  Your reading comprehension deficiencies are as ridiculous as always, dimwit.

                  • socalpa

                    What is the share of surface heat retention by CO2 over open oceans ?

      • socalpa

        False .. the solar activity just reached the levels of early 20th century mid to late 90s after the 3 highest cycles in a century 1960 -1990s. ..

        Lower solar activity combined with negative ocean phases AMO/ PIO are already expressing . a cooling climate cycle ..

    • socalpa

      Not ignored by scientists .. mainstream press has bought the idea that CO2 determines surface temps ..

      Solar Physicists have published much on the subject .. Dr.Zharkova and her team predict a Grand Solar Minimum from 2030 – 2060 and a significant cooling as a result…

      https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/news-events/news/2015/07/northumbria-academic-says-little-ice-age-could-hit-earth-in-2020/

      Of course ,met with outrage and denial in the climate catastrophe crowd .

    • Grumnut1

      We are in a cooling climate.
      Surely that should tell you all you need?

  • Bob Young

    It is time for some libwit heads to explode.

  • PhD

    Exploding heads would seem a reasonable way to get rid of our eco-freak Left in the USA.

  • socalpa

    There is a poster on here that is claiming CFACT writers are FF funded “hacks” .

    This is the first CFACT article I recall reading ,and is the first I have commented on .

    If this site s FF funded ,and the writers are “hacks” , they seem at odds with their funders .. which are recommending staying in Paris Agreement !

    Any way , FF cos .have not effectively answered the environmentalist attacks of the “keep it in the ground” movement ..at least ,from what I have read .. poor PR .

    The fact is , FFs keep ~ a billion from freezing to death each winter in the mid and north latitudes of the northern hemisphere , Save billions of trees from being burned for heat and FF powered food transport keeps another 2 billion from starving each year ..yet, they have been demonized .

    How many lives do the Greens save each year ? What were the results of their policies in UK and EU past decades ? UK reached 18% of population in energy poverty ,Germany 17% and Spain 20%… The UK has a rising excess winter death rate since 2000 ,after 50 years of decline ..

    If CFACT has articles covering this viewpoint of the issues ,I apologize .

  • Li D

    Gee CFACT Ed, ya got the political clowns in with ya title.
    Science not working for ya?
    Has it ever worked for ya?

    How about next time ya write out the
    bestest bit of denier science you got.

    No conspiracy. No politics. No stupid
    nationalistic flag waving.

    Science. I will look forward to it Ed.

  • McFerguson

    I’m for anything that causes left winger’s heads to explode, you know, like saying The Lord’s Prayer, or ‘Make America Great Again.’ Exit the Paris Climate Treaty hoax. Now! And enjoy the exploding heads. We may not see the likes of it again!

  • They’re already exploding. I went to weather.com just to see my weather
    forecast for today. Here’s a screen shot of their home page.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/251710b5abb276cc987d759e47ae3ed184ddded4534e863825e81ee46d1f12af.png

    • Immortal600

      All they have are scare tactics to keep the sheep in line.

      • Li D

        Dont back up your military forces eh?
        I back up mine.
        The ADF believe in earth is getting warmer quickly.
        As do USA armed forces.
        You mob of dropkicks think
        its made up numbers for
        some wierd arse political goal.
        Thats how out of touch denier loons are.
        Actually, stuff you wanker americans who wont back the ADF or BoM or CSIRO.
        You discredit your own institutions and Australias too.
        Deluded conspiracy nutter

        • Carl Looney

          The claims of CO2 causing global warming is a fictional invention by the climatologists in the UK and the US to get funding of $billiions in research monies. Scream louder and get more money. They used fake data generated by computer programs rather than actual temp. numbers.
          It was hotter in the 1920s and 1930s and in the 1980s and 1990s according to measured temperatures.But we know it was hotter during the Crusades when fruits were grown in England and Germany that don’t grow there today.
          Our temperature records of a few decades have been finagled by climatologists to show a fake increase in temperatures. If what they say is true, there is nothing that can be done about it. But the data show that increasing temperatures cause more CO2 because warming oceans release more CO2 like a warming Pepsi Cola. Climatologists have wrongly concluded that more CO2 is what caused more warming. You got it BACKWARD AND WRONG, guys! Cheers, CGL, Ph.D.

          • Li D

            Methinks you havnt examined the data very well, and misunderstand the data you have looked at due to a predetermined bias.

          • Immortal600

            That dude is a kook. Not worth the time.

        • John Swallow

          Longest hot spell (world): Marble Bar, W. Australia, 100° F (or above) for 162 consecutive days, Oct. 30, 1923 to Apr. 7, 1924. Notice anything regarding the dates of these records? Anyone heard of the dust bowl & wasn’t that in the 30s
          http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html

          Marble Bar heat wave, 1923-24
          The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The temperature, measured under standard exposure conditions, reached or exceeded the century mark every day from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, a total of 160 days.
          The highest temperature recorded during the record spell was 47.5°C on 18 January 1924. There have been higher temperatures at Marble Bar, with the highest recorded being 49.2°C, on 11 January 1905 and again on 3 January 1922.

  • RICHARD G. BENNETT

    GREAT! THIS HAS BEEN A HOAX FOR YEARS, AND WE PAY THE BILLS FOR NOTHING!

  • ONTIME

    The left needs to stick those climate models up their backside and light the fuse…this attempt of elitism for fun and profit is the kind of scam we need to expose and if possible, damage and jail the perps like the want to do to anyone who is stupid enough to fall for their crap sandwich sell, I hope they choke on their yellow kool-aid…..

  • Arationofreason

    There is no scientific, economic or environmental reason to stay in the Paris ‘agreement’. Staying in for “Lawyer” reasons is simply wading in the swamp. Let the Protection of the Arctic and the Atlantic environmental questions be addressed as environmental scientific questions. They have nothing to do with UN politics.

    • Carl Looney

      They have based everything on the claims of CO2 causing global warming.
      That is a fictional invention by the climatologists in the UK and the US
      to obtain $billiions in research funds based on fudged data and
      deliberately unreal models of the Earth’s surface processes. None of it
      can be believed. It was hotter in the 1920s and 1930s than recorded
      times and next hottest in the 1980s and 1990s. But even our temperature
      records of a few decades have been finagled by climatologists to show a
      fake increase in temperatures. If what they say is true, there is
      nothing that can be done about it. But actually, the data show that
      increasing temperatures cause more CO2 because warming oceans release
      more CO2 which is dissolved in the oceans in enormous quantities. Thus
      warming is first and then more CO2. Climatologists have wrongly
      concluded that more CO2 is what caused more warming. You got it WRONG
      guys! Cheers, CGL, Ph.D.

  • J T

    I cannot wait. For the Al Gorian (not Gorean) heads to x-plode, and for the Priest Kings to devour their brains, in preying-mantis-like fashion. “Ta-Sardar Gor!”

  • socalpa

    Looks like the “heads are exploding” .. Drudge is reporting Trump decided to pill out of Paris ! CNN confirming . AP ,Reuters confirming .

    Panic time for Pelosi !

    CFACT ..Thanks and thank McConnell , and the 20 others that went up against the biggest check writers to the Republican Party ! Courage under fire for supporting the President !

    Two down ..Paris and the Clean Power Plan .. One to go ….UNFCC !!!

    • Li D

      Golly you are excited.
      Its like you are pulling your doodle over it.
      Settle down and read some bloody science.

      • socalpa

        Spew a little more impotent and ignorant bile “doodle” , music to my eyes !

        Perhaps you could look up the difference between science ,and speculation .. might help you cope .

  • don lavrich

    I hope mr. trump pulls out of this climate change scam, that will devastate millions of people around the world. we are tired of being scammed by these globalist losers who want us all to be nothing but peasants, as they rule the roost and tell us how to live. we have received freedom to live how we want by the Almighty, and no demonic entity will take that away from us. we will not bow down to the globalists demands. its time to send them back to their father satan. thank God for mr. Trump!

    • socalpa

      Drudge reports the decision has been made … OUT !!!!!!!!

      CNN confirming ..AP and Reuters as well !

  • Li D

    So funny these denier loon conspiratists here.
    No science.
    Wont back their own military.
    Wont back their own government institutions.
    Wont back any other countries institutions. Or military.
    Thinks everyone is lying to em.
    Anyhow, you have chosen which side to be on.
    Cult of paranoid stupidity.
    Its like the anti vax nutters.

    • socalpa

      Babble in , loonie .. your impotent spewing of ignorant bile …makes us all smile and smile !

      • Li D

        Dont give me that crap.
        Admit it.
        Admit what you are.
        Admit it to yourself, if nothing else.
        If you think BoM is a bunch of
        unscientific liars, you got big
        issues.

        • socalpa

          I gave you that “crap” ,loonie .don’t like the taste ?

          Don’t babble on the internet .

  • Charley Brown

    To rebut man made climate change fanatics ask them to name one climate or weather measurement that exceeds those of the world’s history (4.5 billion years). They cannot. There are not any. Therefore everything today and those projected by models fall within the limits of history and, therefore are normal.
    NB 55 million years ago there were 6,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Most fanatics do not even know what it is today, 400 ppm. What is all the excitement?

  • Carl Looney

    The Earth’s tilt is decreasing now as part of the 41,000 year cycle of its tilt of its axis of rotation. There will be more solar radiation in the future on the oceans in the equatorial zone and adjacent regions of the temperate zones. But at the same time there will be less solar radiation on the polar zones and the adjacent parts of the temperate zones. Net result: warmer oceans in the equatorial and adjacent regions, more and deeper ice in the polar zones and adjacent regions. There will be more evaporation in the equatorial zone that will cause more flooding in the temperate zones that will cause heavy precipitation like that which caused the great canyons to be formed (e.g., grand canyon, a canyon like it in Mexico, and formations in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. But the ice will build up in the Arctic, Greenland, Antarctic, Alaska and other more Northern and Southern locations such as in Southern Argentina and Chile. The change will be slow but will become more noticeable over the centuries. More of the Earth will become more natural when cities become unworkable. People will eventually have to live in the woods or underground as they did in the past in India and Turkey. But in our lifetimes and those of our kids, it will not matter enough to worry about. In another 21,000 years things will be back to where they are now. Enjoy because it is so far beyond humans means to affect that we just have to go along with it – it has nothing to do with CO2. Cheers. CGL, Ph.D.

    • Grumnut1

      Ok.
      I think we’re more worried about the next 70 years.

  • J T

    They’re x-ploding already.

  • stevemeikle

    but if Trump changes his mind about leaving paris then he shows himself just another politico, ie a lying promising breaking lowlife who will say aything to get votes. Trump’s realism on cliomate change and his opposition to TPP are the only reasons i have anytime for him at all

  • socalpa

    I have 3 checks I filled out today after Trumps announcement .

    Check number 1 .. Trump 2020 campaign .

    Check number 2…Trump 2024 campaign

    Check number 3 ..Trump 2028 campaign…note ; ” It’s the only way to be sure” *

    *Ripley

  • John Beasley

    Climate control has nothing to do with controlling the climate. It’s all about controlling the people. Anything else, climate control, population control, gun control, racism, any pressing issue of the day, is just the excuse. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the issue, only their agenda. Leftwing elitists just want to rule the world.