Real Talk On Why The “Paris Accords” Doesn’t Do Anything And Climate Change in General

In this article I wish to go through why the Paris accords do virtually nothing at the expense of trillions of dollars, show the holes in Climate change alarmists views, debunk the “97% of scientists agree” statement, and show what really is being said by scientists about C02, fossil fuels, and so on, while being able to provide solutions.

In order:

  1. Paris Accords
  2. Holes in Climate Change alarmists views
  3. What do Scientists Really Say?
  4. What Scientists haven’t told you about Climate Change
  5. Is Climate Change really our biggest problem ATM?
  6. Some Odd Facts about CO2 and Fossils Fuels
  7. Debunking the “97% of scientists agree” statement
  8. Statements/Facts From Alarmists

Full Transcript to the video:

Much has been made of the Paris Climate Agreement signed by the leaders of 178 countries in 2016. French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, speaking for many, called it a “historic turning point.”

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, echoed the minister’s remark when she testified before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The Paris Agreement was, she said, an “incredible achievement.” But when pressed by committee members to explain exactly how much this treaty would reduce global temperatures, she would not –  or could not – say.

This combination of grand pronouncements and vague specifics is a good strategy for Paris Agreement fans to take. Because the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.

Consider the Obama administration’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. Using the same climate prediction model that the UN uses, I found that the power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris Agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century – the Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit.

The President has made further, and grander, promises of future U.S. carbon cuts, but these are only vaguely outlined. In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees.

To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.

Now let’s add in the rest of the world’s Paris promises. If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met (which itself would be a U.N. first), but sustained, throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop by 0.3 degrees – the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that’s using the UN’s own climate prediction model.

But here’s the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free; quite the contrary.

The cost of the Paris climate pact is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature, by the end of the century, by a grand total of three tenths of one degree.

Some Paris Agreement supporters defend it by claiming that its real impact on temperatures will be much more significant than the U.N. model predicts. But this requires mental gymnastics and heroic assumptions.

The Climate Action Tracker, widely cited by Paris Agreement fans, predicts a temperature reduction of 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. But this prediction is based very heavily on the assumption that even stronger climate policies will be adopted in the future. Actually, 98% of the assumed reductions will come only after 2030, which is what the current Paris agreement covers. And even such wishful thinking won’t achieve anything close to the 2 degrees Celsius reduction that has become the somewhat arbitrary, but widely adopted, benchmark to avoid the worst effects of global warming. The actual promised emission reductions under the Paris agreement literally get us just 1 percent of the way to the 2 degrees target. 99 percent of what would be required is put off until after 2030.

The Paris Agreement is the wrong solution to a real problem.The right solution will most likely be found through green-energy research and development, like that promoted by Bill Gates and the Breakthrough Coalition. Mr. Gates has announced that private investors are committing $7 billion for clean energy R&D.

Instead of political hot air and ever-larger government subsidies of today’s inefficient green technologies, those who want to combat climate change should focus on dramatically boosting green energy innovation.

The U.S. already shows the way. With its pursuit of fracking, making it safer and more efficient every year, America has drastically reduced the cost of natural gas. This momentous switch from coal to lower-CO2 gas as a source of energy has done far more to drive down carbon-dioxide emissions than any recent government climate policy.

Turns out that those politicians who gathered in Paris, France, could learn a lot from Paris, Texas.

I’m Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Click HERE for the transcript source.

So to outline the major points:

  1. Spend 1 to 2T per year to achieve a whopping total reduction of 0.3 degrees fahrenheit
  2. By 2030 the accords only get 1% of the way to the goal and leave the other 99% for next 70 years
    1. target is a reduction of 2 degrees fahrenheit
  3. The right solution will most likely be found through green-energy research and development
  4. The switch from coal to lower-CO2 gas as a source of energy has done far more to drive down carbon-dioxide emissions than any recent government climate policy

Full Transcript to the video:

Carbons emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted.

But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data is actually more encouraging than expected.

Yes, Arctic sea ice is melting faster than the models expected. But models also predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decrease, yet Antarctic Sea ice is increasing.

Yes, sea levels are rising, but the rise is not accelerating—if anything, two recent papers, one by Chinese scientists published in January 2014, and the other by U.S. scientists published in May 2013, have shown a small decline in the rate of sea-level increase.

We are often being told that we’re seeing more and more droughts, but a study published in March 2014 in the journal Nature actually shows a decrease in the world’s surface that has been afflicted by droughts since 1982.

Facts like these are important because a one-side focus on worst-case stories is a poor foundation for sound policies.

Hurricanes are likewise used as an example of things getting worse. But look at the U.S., where we have the best statistics: if we adjust for population and wealth, hurricane damage during the period of 1900-2013 actually decreased slightly.

At the UN climate conference in Lima, Peru in December 2014 attendees were told that their countries should cut carbon emissions to avoid future damage from storms like Typhoon Hagupit, which hit the Philippines during the conference, killing at least 21 people and forcing more than a million into shelters. Yet the trend for strong typhoons around the Philippines have actually declined since 1950, according to a study published in 2012 by the Journal of Climate.

Again, we’re told that all things are getting worse, but the facts don’t support this. This does not mean that global warming is not real, or a problem, but the one-sided story of alarmism makes us lose focus. If we want to help the world’s poor, who are the most threatened by natural disasters, it’s less about cutting carbon emissions than it is about pulling them out of poverty.

The best way to see this is to look at the world’s deaths from natural disasters over time. In the Oxford University database for death rates from floods, extreme temperatures, droughts, Free Courses for Free Minds .com and storms, the average in the first part of last century, was more than 130 dead every year per million people. Since then, the death rates have dropped 97% to a new low in the 2010s of less than 4 per million.

The dramatic decline is mostly due to economic developments that help nations withstand catastrophes. If you’re rich like Florida, a major hurricane might cause plenty of damage to expensive buildings, but it kills few people and causes only a temporary dent in economic output.

If a similar hurricane hits a poorer country like the Philippines or Guatemala, it kills many more people and can devastate the economy.

So let’s be clear. Climate change is not “worse than we thought” That doesn’t mean it’s is not a reality or not a problem. It is.

But the narrative that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse is unhelpful alarmism that prevents us from focusing on smart solutions.

A well-meaning environmentalist might argue that, because climate change is a reality, why not ramp up the rhetoric and focus on the bad news to make sure the public understands its importance? But that’s exactly what we’ve done for the past 20 years.

Yet despite dramatic headlines, apocalyptic documentaries and annual climate summits, carbon emissions continue to rise, especially in rapidly developing countries like India, China and many African nations.

Alarmism has encouraged the pursuit of a one-sided climate policy of trying to cut carbon emissions by subsidizing wind farms and solar panels. Yet today, according to the International Energy Agency, only about 0.4% of global energy consumption comes from solar photovoltaics and windmills. And even with exceptionally optimistic assumptions about future deployment of wind and solar, the International Energy Agency expects that these energy forms will provide a minuscule 2.2% of the world’s energy by 2040.

In other words, for at least the next two decades, solar and wind energy are simply expensive, feel-good measures that will have an imperceptible climate impact. Instead, we should focus on investing in research and development of green energy to lower its costs, so everyone will want it, including China and India.

We urgently need a more balanced climate conversation if we are to make sensible choices and pick the right climate policy that can actually help fix climate change.

I’m Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Click HERE for the transcript source.

So to outline the major points:

  1. Much of the data on climate change points to good progress
  2. For the next 20 years wind “optimistically” can only power ~2.2% of the world
  3. We need a more balanced climate conversation

Full Transcript to the video:

I’m an atmospheric physicist. I’ve published more than 200 scientific papers. For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has changed remarkably little. But the cry of “global warming” has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming or, as it is now called—“climate change.”

There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and the media.

Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels—oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.

Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics.

We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes—the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.

But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists. The following are such points of agreement:

1) The climate is always changing.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

3) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

4) Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.

5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Most importantly, the scenario that the burning of fossil fuel leads to catastrophe isn’t part of what either group asserts. So why are so many people worried, indeed, panic stricken about this issue. Here’s where Group Three comes in—the politicians, environmentalists, and media.

Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want: For politicians it’s money and power. For environmentalists it’s money for their organizations and confirmation of their near religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. And for the media it’s ideology, money, and headlines. Doomsday scenarios sell.

Meanwhile, over the last decade, scientists outside of climate physics have jumped on the bandwagon, publishing papers blaming global warming for everything from acne to the Syrian civil war. And crony capitalists have eagerly grabbed for the subsidies that governments have so lavishly provided.

Unfortunately, group three is winning the argument because they have drowned out the serious debate that should be going on. But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won’t be able to bury the truth. The climate will have the final word on that.

I’m Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, for Prager University.

Click HERE for the transcript source.

So to outline the major points:

  1. There are 3 groups when it comes to talking/explaining climate change
    1. IPCC
    2. Skeptics
    3. Media, Politicians, and Environmentalists
  2. There is agreement among the first 2 groups
    1. The climate is always changing.

    2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

    3. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

    4. Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.

    5. Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

  3. Group 3 is winning and non-climate physics scientists have jumped on the bandwagon
  4. The climate of Earth will have the last word

Full Transcript to the video:

The only constant… is change.

That’s true about life. And it’s true about the climate. The climate has been constantly changing since the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago.

For example, in just the past 2000 years, we have seen the Roman Warm Period, when it was warmer than today…Then came the cooler Dark Ages… Followed by the Medieval Warm period, when it was at least as warm as today… Then we had the Little Ice Age — that drove the Vikings out of Greenland. And, most recently, a gradual 300-year warming to the present day. That’s a lot of changes. And, of course, not one of them was caused by humans.

During the past 400,000 years there have been four major periods of glaciation — meaning that vast sheets of ice covered a good part of the globe — interrupted by brief interglacial periods. We are in one of those periods right now. This is all part of the Pleistocene Ice Age which began in earnest two and a half million years ago. It’s still going on, which means that we are still living in an ice age. That’s the reason there’s so much ice at the poles. Thirty million years ago the earth had no ice on it at all.  

So, then, what about carbon dioxide, the great villain of the Global Warming alarmists? Where does that fit into this picture? Not as neatly as you might think.

Temperatures and carbon dioxide levels do not show a strong correlation. In fact, over very long time spans — periods of hundreds of millions of years — they are often completely out of sync with each other. 

Over and over again, within virtually any time frame, we find the climate changing — for reasons we do not fully understand. But we do know there are many more factors in play than simply the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere — factors such as the shape and size of the earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun, activity from the sun, and the amount of wobble or tilt in the earth’s axis, among many others. Even the relatively short 300-year period from the peak of the Little Ice Age to the present has not been steady. The latest trend has been a warming one, but it began nearly a century before there were significant carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. And, there has been no significant warming trend in the 21st century. Contrary to media headlines, the trend over the past couple of decades has been essentially flat

Meanwhile human-caused CO2 emissions are higher than ever. About 25 percent of all the CO2 emissions from human sources have occurred during this period of no net warming.

So, what are we in for next? Will the temperature resume an upward trend? Will it remain flat for a lengthy period? Or, will it begin to drop? No one knows. Not even the biggest, fastest computers. 

All the information I’ve presented — the increases, decreases and plateaus in temperature over the ages and into the last centuries — is available to anyone who wants to seek it out. Yet to state these simple facts is to risk being called a “climate change denier.” Not only is that absurd, it’s mean-spirited. It’s absurd because no one, not even the most fervent skeptic, denies that the climate is changing. And it’s mean-spirited because to call someone a climate change denier is to intentionally link them to people who deny the Holocaust. So, maybe it’s time to stop the name-calling.

Predicting the climate, one of the most complex systems on earth with thousands of inputs, many of which we don’t understand, isn’t an exact science, or anything close to it. Maybe it’s just a tad arrogant to suggest that we can predict the weather or the climate or just about anything 60 years from now.

The science is not “settled.” The debate is not over. The climate is always changing. It always has. And it always will. 

I’m Patrick Moore, Co-Founder of Greenpeace, for Prager University.

Click HERE for the transcript source.

So to outline the major points:

  1. The climate has been constantly changing since the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago
  2. Temperatures and carbon dioxide levels do not show a strong correlation. In fact, over very long time spans — periods of hundreds of millions of years — they are often completely out of sync with each other.
  3. The latest trend has been a warming one, but it began nearly a century before there were significant carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. And, there has been no significant warming trend in the 21st century. Contrary to media headlines, the trend over the past couple of decades has been essentially flat.
  4. All the information I’ve presented — the increases, decreases and plateaus in temperature over the ages and into the last centuries — is available to anyone who wants to seek it out.
  5. The science is not “settled.

Full Transcript to the video:

One of the most persistent claims in the climate debate is that global warming leads to more extreme weather. This is a common concern expressed by those who fear a dangerously warming planet. President Barack Obama did so eloquently in his 2013 State of the Union Address when he talked about “the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” Many others have offered similar sentiments.

Global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed, but exaggeration doesn’t help. It often distracts us from simple, cheaper and smarter solutions. To find those solutions, let’s address the three horsemen of the climate apocalypse to which President Obama referred.

Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%. Estimates published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows  that even with global warming, the level of wildfires will continue to decline until mid-century and won’t resume on the level of 1950 — the worst for fire — before the end of the century.

Claiming that droughts are a consequence of global warming is also wrong. The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in March 2014 shows globally that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.

The U.N. Climate Panel in 2012 concluded: “Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”

And finally, the third horseman: hurricanes. Global hurricane activity today, measured by total energy, hasn’t been lower since the 1970s.

While it is likely that we will see somewhat stronger (but fewer) storms as climate change continues, damages will be lower because we’ll be better adapted. A March 2012 Nature study shows that the global damage cost from hurricanes will be 0.02% of gross domestic product by 2100 — down 50% from today’s 0.04%.

Let me make this clear: this does not mean that climate change isn’t an issue. It means that exaggerating the threat concentrates resources in the wrong areas.

Consider hurricanes (though similar points hold for wildfire and drought). If the aim is to reduce storm damage, then first focus on resilience — better building codes and better enforcement of those codes. Ending subsidies for hurricane insurance to discourage building in vulnerable zones would also help, as would investing in better infrastructure (from stronger levees to higher-capacity sewers).

These solutions are quick and comparatively cheap. Most important, they would diminish future hurricane damage, whether climate-induced or not. Had New York and New Jersey focused resources on building sea walls and adding storm doors to the subway system and making simple fixes like porous pavements, Hurricane Sandy would have caused much less damage.

In the long run, the world needs to cut carbon dioxide because it causes global warming. But if the main effort to cut emissions is through subsidies for chic renewables like wind and solar power, virtually no good will be achieved — at very high cost.

The cost of climate policies just for the European Union — intended to reduce emissions by 2020 to 20% below 1990 levels — are estimated at about $250 billion annually, or about $20 trillion over the century.  And the benefits, when estimated using a standard climate model, will reduce temperatures only by an immeasurable one-tenth of a degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

Even in 2040, under its most optimistic scenario, the International Energy Agency estimates that just 2.2% of the world’s energy will come from wind and solar. As is the case today, almost 80% will still come from fossil fuels. As long as green energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, growing consumer markets like those in China and India will continue mostly to be powered by them.

Solar, wind, and other renewables are still inefficient because they require subsidies of more than $120 billion a year. And even in 2040, they won’t be efficient. The International Energy Agency estimates they will still require more than $200 billion dollars annually.

Instead of pouring money into subsidies for existing, inefficient wind and solar energy, we’d be far better off supporting research and development of green energy technologies to make them cheaper, faster.

When innovation eventually makes green energy as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuel energy, everyone will use it, including China and India. Until then, let’s cool the fear mongering and make practical decisions that will help people now.  

I’m Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Click HERE for the transcript source.

So to outline the major points:

  1. Wildfires have decreased globally by 15%
  2. There has been little change in drought frequency and damage over the past 60 years
  3. Global hurricane activity today, measured by total energy, hasn’t been lower since the 1970s
  4. As long as green energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, growing consumer markets like those in China and India will continue mostly to be powered by them
  5. Solar, wind, and other renewables are still inefficient because they require subsidies of more than $120 billion a year. And even in 2040, they won’t be efficient. The International Energy Agency estimates they will still require more than $200 billion dollars annually.

Full Transcript to the video:

What are two of the dirtiest words in the English language? Well, if you’re concerned with Global Warming as so many people are these days, the answer is obvious. The two words are “Carbon Dioxide.” Or as it is known by its chemical symbol — CO2. One atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen. If we pump much more of it into the atmosphere, the argument goes, we’re going to alter the climate. Catastrophically. 

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, which constitute 85% of our energy use must be reduced to zero by 2100. If we don’t save ourselves from ourselves, we’re toast. That’s the claim. 

Here’s what strange, though. All life is carbon-based, and the carbon for all that life originates from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All of the carbon in the fossil fuels we are burning for energy today was once in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide before it was consumed by plankton in the sea and plants on the land. Coal, oil, and natural gas are the remains of those plankton and plants that have been transformed by heat and pressure deep in the earth’s crust. 
In other words, fossil fuels are 100 percent organic and were produced with solar energy. Sounds positively green.

If there were no carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the Earth would be a dead planet. Period. Talk about catastrophic climate change. Take away CO2 and you’d have it. And yet, the US Environmental Protection Agency has deemed this essential ingredient for life a pollutant! But, how can something that makes life possible be bad?

Before I deal with that question, let’s get clear on our terms. It has become common to refer to the emissions from burning fossil fuels for energy as “carbon” emissions. That is entirely misleading. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas which is an indispensable food source for all living things. Can you have too much of it? In theory, yes. That’s what climate alarmists say is happening now — CO2 levels are getting too high. Are they right? Well, if we look at the big picture we find something surprising.

For most of the history of life on earth carbon dioxide has been present in the atmosphere at much higher levels than it is today.  During the Cambrian explosion, when multicellular life first came on the scene, CO2 levels were as much as 10 times higher than they are today. From a big picture perspective, we’re actually living in a low carbon dioxide era. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth, for example, is four to five times what is currently found in our atmosphere. That’s why greenhouse growers worldwide actually inject additional CO2 into their greenhouses — they want to promote plant growth. Likewise, higher CO2 levels in the global atmosphere will boost food and forest productivity. That will come in handy since by mid-century we will have to feed 8-10 billion people.  

In fact, we’re already seeing the positive effects of increased carbon dioxide now.  Satellite measurements have noted the “greening of the earth” as crops and forests grow due to our higher levels of CO2. It turns out that carbon dioxide are not “dirty” words after all. We should celebrate CO2 as the giver of life that it is.

I’m Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace for Prager University.

Click HERE for the transcript source.

So to outline the major points:

  1. The carbon dioxide amount was as much 10x higher than it was today when multicellular life was formed
  2. Plant require about 4 to 5 times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than currently is available for optimal plant growth
  3. We have satellite proof of “greening”

 

Full Transcript to the video:

What if I told you that someone had developed an energy source that could help us solve our biggest environmental challenges, purify our water and air, make our cities and homes more sanitary, and keep us safe from potential catastrophic climate change? What if I also told you that this energy source was cheap, plentiful, and reliable?

Well, there is such a source. You probably know it as fossil fuel. Oil. Natural gas. Coal.

But wait? Don’t fossil fuels pollute our environment and make our climate unlivable? That, of course, is what we’re told…and what our children are taught. But let’s look at the data. Here’s a graph you’ve probably never seen: the correlation between use of fossil fuels and access to clean water. More fossil fuel. More clean water. Am I saying the more we that we have used fossil fuel, the cleaner our water has become? Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

In the developed world, we take clean water for granted. We turn on a tap and it’s there. But getting it there takes a massive amount of energy. Think of the man-made reservoirs, the purification plants, the network of pipes. In the undeveloped world, it’s a much different story. They lack the energy, so they lack clean water. More fossil fuel. More clean water.

The same is true of sanitation. By the use of cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy from fossil fuels, we have made our environment cleaner. Take a look at this graph. More fossil fuel. Better sanitation.

Okay, what about air quality? Here’s a graph of the air pollution trends in the United States over the last half century based on data from the Environmental Protection Agency. Note the dramatic downward trend in emissions, even though we use more fossil fuel than ever. How was this achieved? Above all, by using anti-pollution technology powered by…fossil fuel: oil, natural gas and coal.

But even without modern pollution control technology, fossil fuel makes our air cleaner. Indoor pollution—caused by burning a fire inside your house, cabin, hut or tent to cook and keep warm—was a deadly global problem until the late 19th century when cheap kerosene, a fossil fuel byproduct, became available in America and Europe. Indoor pollution is still a major issue in the developing world today. The best solution? Fossil fuel.

And now we come to the biggest fossil fuel concern of all—global warming. On this very sensitive topic we need to get our terms straight: There is a big difference between mild global warming and catastrophic global warming. We can all agree on that, right?  The issue isn’t: does burning fossil fuel have some warming impact? It does. The issue is: is the climate warming dangerously fast?

In 1986 NASA climate scientist James Hansen—one of the world’s most prominent critics of the use of fossil fuels—predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. But as you can see from this graph, since 2000 the trend line is essentially flat—little or no warming in the last 15 years. That’s probably why we hear much less talk about “global warming” and much more talk about “climate change.”

Has this “climate change” made our world more dangerous? The key statistic here, one that is, unfortunately, almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” that is, how many people die each year from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures. In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide has rapidly declined — by 98%.

The reason is that the energy from fossil fuel has allowed the developed world to build a durable civilization, one highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on. The developing world—where natural disasters can still wreak terrible havoc—would like the chance to do the same. But to do that they will need a lot more energy. The cheapest, fastest and easiest way to get that energy is from fossil fuels.

In sum, fossil fuels don’t take a naturally safe environment and make it dangerous; they empower us to take a naturally dangerous environment and make it cleaner and safer.

I’m Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress for Prager University.

Click HERE for the transcript source.

So to outline the major points:

  1. More fossil fuel. More clean water.
  2. More fossil fuel. Better sanitation.
  3. Indoor pollution is still a major issue in the developing world today. The best solution? Fossil fuel.
  4. Since 2000 the trend line is essentially flat—little or no warming in the last 15 years. That’s probably why we hear much less talk about “global warming” and much more talk about “climate change.”
  5. In sum, fossil fuels don’t take a naturally safe environment and make it dangerous; they empower us to take a naturally dangerous environment and make it cleaner and safer.

 

Full Transcript to the video:

“97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.”

How many times have you heard that statement? Probably hundreds. It may seem like a compelling and scientific argument against fossil fuels, but it’s one of the most illogical, unscientific arguments you can make. To see how, let’s use this form of argument for another controversial product, vaccines.

An anti-vaccine person approaches you and says, “97 percent of doctors say that the side effects of vaccines are real?”

What would you say in response?

You’d probably say, “Yeah but the benefits far outweigh the side effects.”

By saying that “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real” without mentioning any of the benefits of vaccines, the anti-vaccine activist is trying to get you to look at the potential dangers of vaccines out of context.

When fossil fuel opponents say “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real,” they are doing the same. Yes, using fossil fuels for energy has a side effect—increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Okay. But what about the upside? In the case of fossil fuel that upside is enormous: the cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy that makes modern life possible, and at a scale no other energy source can match.

So, how significant is the side effect? This raises another problem with the statement “97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.” It tells us nothing about the meaning or magnitude of “climate change”—whether it’s a mild, manageable warming or a runaway, catastrophic warming. This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation—using the same term in different, contradictory ways.

If someone were to say “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real,” what exact “vaccine side effects” do the doctors agree on? That a certain number of babies will get a rash? Or that large percentages will get full-blown autism? Precision is key, right?

But fossil fuel opponents don’t want you to know the precise magnitude of climate change. Because if you did you wouldn’t be scared of climate change, you would be scared of losing the benefits of fossil fuels.

For example, listen to how Secretary of State John Kerry manipulates the “97 percent of scientists” line. “97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible,” he said in a speech in Indonesia in 2014. Later, in the same speech, he claimed that Scientists agree that, “The world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.” 97 percent of climate scientists never said any such thing.

So what did the 97 percent actually say? It turns out, nothing remotely resembling catastrophic climate change. One of the main studies justifying 97 percent was done by John Cook, a climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute in Australia. Here’s his own summary of his survey: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

“Main cause” means “over 50 percent. But the vast majority of papers don’t say that human beings are the main cause of recent warming. In fact, one analysis showed that less than 2 percent of papers actually said that.

How did Cook get to 97 percent, then? First, he added papers that explicitly said there was man-made warming but didn’t say how much. Then, he added papers that didn’t even say there was man-made warming, but he thought it was implied.

A scientific researcher has a sacred obligation to accurately report his findings. Cook and researchers like him have failed us—as have the politicians and media figures who have blindly repeated the 97 percent claim to support their anti-fossil fuel goals.

How can we protect ourselves against this kind of manipulation? Whenever someone tells you that scientists agree on something, ask two questions: “What exactly do they agree on? And, “How did they prove it?”

I’m Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, for Prager University.

Click HERE for the transcript source.

So to outline the major points:

  1. One of the main studies justifying 97 percent was done by John Cook, a climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute in Australia. Here’s his own summary of his survey: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
  2. One analysis showed that less than 2 percent of papers actually said that.
  3. How did Cook get to 97 percent, then? First, he added papers that explicitly said there was man-made warming but didn’t say how much. Then, he added papers that didn’t even say there was man-made warming, but he thought it was implied.
  4. A scientific researcher has a sacred obligation to accurately report his findings. Cook and researchers like him have failed us—as have the politicians and media figures who have blindly repeated the 97 percent claim to support their anti-fossil fuel goals.

CONCLUSION

The use of fossil fuels in modern society has allowed for massive improvements in air quality, sanitation, and water cleanliness. The fact that it’s cheap and easy to find/use has allowed for situations like this. In fact, they don’t pollute environments quickly, they allow for nations to do just the opposite exponentially faster than it does.

So, 97%? False and unprovable in any realistic situation. At most, maybe 10-30% if you’re generous. Even more so, basic scientific history has proven that CO2 levels were dramatically higher when life was formed and that with rising CO2 levels the Earth is finally “greening” again. We have satellite, and biological, proof of this is practice, and theory, as Greenhouses that are used today will stand behind this 100%.

For alternative/greener energy, the answer ATM is not solar or wind. Together they power at most 2.2% by 2040, 0.4% currently, while costing us more than 120 billion dollars a year. The energy we are looking for most likely will not be produced from these but rather the “RnD” groups on green energy that are hard at work and making interesting discoveries every year. You can find numerous discoveries they’ve made or implemented over the years through a simple web search.

On the 3 groups, the media is greatly exaggerating most statistics or blatantly using false data, non-climate scientists are joining the bandwagon, and actual climate physicists/scientists are calling them out on their lies. The funny thing is the skeptics have proven to the other 2 groups that “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” through their own studies and citings.

Finally, Paris. 1-2 trillion a year for 1% of 2 degrees fahrenheit over 13 years? How would/could anyone ever justify that, especially when the accords are non-binding in nature. Meaning no one is held accountable for if they meet the standards or not.

Overall, I hope I’ve shown you the reasons climate alarmists are a joke and the media is using it for money.

“Science, however, is never conducted as a popularity contest, but instead advances through testable, reproducible, and falsifiable theories.”
Michio Kaku

ADDITIONAL READS:

http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2014/08/22/saving-lives-with-fossil-fuels/#2efb05013f83

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/28/how-fossil-fuels-cleaned-up-our-environment/#5ea695118075

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/amtthews/Personal/Papers/Matthews%20Food%20prices%20and%20poverty.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/14/how-opposition-to-fossil-fuels-hurts-the-poor-most-of-all/#497b3c9e74ce

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V20/jan/a17.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V20/jan/a11.php

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323485704578258172660564886

http://ecolonomics.org/top-5-challenges-the-third-world-is-facing-today/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-0

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/9/E535.full

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/abs/nature11575.html

https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/COP18/Pachauri_COP18_address.pdf

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies-and-external-costs.aspx

https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/why-i-am-a-climate-change-skeptic

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/photo/c/caricap.php

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/17/plants-genetically-modified-to-boost-photosynthesis-produce-greater-yields-study-shows

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Smhn1gL6Xg

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/dec/a18.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V20/jan/a5.php

Advertisements

One comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s