Why You Should Trust the New Sophisticated Statistical Analysis and Other Evidence-based Studies on Climate, Not Politicians or the UNAlan Carlin | October 27, 2016
President Obama and some other politicians want the world to spend tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars to reduce the relatively minor (compared to other sources) human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide on the premise that that will reduce “global warming,” “climate change,” and (more recently) unusual and extreme weather. These enormous costs would be paid either by taxpayers or ratepayers in the case of US electricity generation and greatly decreased electric grid reliability (such as recently experienced in South Australia, where they lost all electric power for the second time due to excessive reliance on wind power).
They even call carbon dioxide (CO2) a pollutant rather than the necessity for life on Earth that it actually is. They claim that increasing human-caused CO2 emissions will result in higher atmospheric CO2 levels, and that that will result in increasing global temperatures. They claim that reducing CO2 emissions would reduce unusual and extreme weather, although there is no objective basis for this and even the UN has expressed doubts.
Could it be that what the politicians really want is more of your money to spend on their boondoggles like the California high speed rail project to nowhere, the largest recipient of the California CO2 cap and tax program? Could it be that the UN wants dedicated tax revenue for its enormous upkeep?
The alleged effects of reducing CO2 emissions on global temperatures are based on UN reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is charged with determining the causes of human-induced climate change from greenhouse gas emissions, not the larger and more relevant topic of what causes climate change from all sources. They have attempted to show how increased CO2 emissions could result in global warming, rather than actually showing that it does. Many independent scientists and meteorologists have long questioned this UN finding as wrong and produced voluminous documentation for their findings. The UN findings are based on speculative climate models, which prove nothing other than what their builders want them to say; because of the chaotic nature of climate such models would at best have no validity beyond a few weeks anyway if they should ever be validated, which they have not been.
New Analyses Based on Objective, Observed Data
So now comes a new, much more sophisticated statistical analysis based on using simultaneous equations to analyze 13 data sets containing real data. It concludes for each data set that CO2 has no measurable effects on global temperatures based on real observations, not climate models. The highly credentialed and experienced authors of the analysis have not been paid for their work by the coal industry or anyone else, and the analysis has undergone extensive review by over ten highly qualified experts. The authors do find that global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels. But higher atmospheric CO2 levels are beneficial, not harmful, and are a necessity for continued life on Earth during future ice ages.
The IPCC analyses have always been scientifically dubious at best; as a result of this new study as well as other research showing some of the critical errors made in their analyses (see the analyses and references found here), it can now be concluded that the critical IPCC hypotheses discussed in this earlier post must be abandoned as invalid according to the scientific method.
Since the politicians and the UN that are promoting CO2 reduction base their efforts on the IPCC findings, these efforts should also be abandoned if huge expenditures are to be avoided which will have no measurable effects on global temperatures, contrary to views long expressed by the UN and some politicians. The new study as well as other long-ignored evidence-based science shows that building hideous wind and solar farms will have no measurable effect on global temperatures. The world has many unmet needs that cry out for attention rather than wasting further resources on reducing emissions of a vital constituent of Earth’s atmosphere that needs to be increased, not decreased.
The Only Viable Solution IS to Vote Politicians Promoting This Utter Waste Out of Office
So far there has been no rush by the politicians or the UN to admit their unscientific climate errors/fraud. Apparently the only way to bring this about is to vote such politicians out of office and threaten to end US payments to the UN for climate change “control” purposes, which provide much of the IPCC funding. Americans have that opportunity on November 8 at all levels of government by voting for candidates who believe that valid science should be used to determine expenditures of the public’s money, not idle speculation that has been found to be in error.
Some have argued that reducing CO2 emissions would be taking out an insurance policy in case the alarmists should be right. We can now say that they are not, so no insurance is needed or worthwhile.