5/18/13, "Causes of warming: climate surveys are to decide disputes," Der Spiegel, Alex Bojanowski, (following is google translation)
parag. 5, "For the collection of environmental activists, the website "SkepticalScience" climate studies have evaluated thousands. The volunteers examined on behalf of Cook and his colleagues, whether man-made (anthropogenic) climate change was assumed to be given in the summaries of the work. Less than one percent of the studies contradicted explicitly the influence of man.
Over two-thirds had no position on the subject -- they were left out. The other 97 percent put a basic human influence.
In a second step, the authors were asked in writing to its assessment of whether their studies presuppose man-made climate change. 35 percent indicated that their studies would not take a position - they were not taken into account for the result. Those researchers who attributed their studies as to the cause of the warming, a position were nearly all agree: Some 98 percent said that they made their work an influence of man is based.
Another current polls in this respect comes to almost exactly the same result. 123 of 292 climate scientists surveyed had participated in their unpublished study reported Senja mail from the University of Mainz SPIEGEL ONLINE. Only five of them believed that natural influences which played a major role in the warming. However, post also asked about the extent of human influence - and because the result was different. Only 59 percent of the researchers said, therefore, that the "climate development over the past 50 years mainly influenced by the behavior of the people" will. A quarter said that human and natural influences were balanced.
Skeptical of the participating researchers have expressed in their survey on computer models, says political scientist Senja post. Only one in ten have called climate models as "sufficiently precise". And only 15 percent had replied that "climatic processes sufficiently understood" were to calculate the climate. One-fifth or one-quarter felt that empirical data were already available and sufficiently precise."...
==================================
"Climate news from Germany in English," NoTricksZone German blogger P. Gosselin translates and summarizes above Der Spiegel article including that the survey was done for the purpose of changing public opinion:
5/18/13, "Spiegel Trashes John Cook’s Survey. Man’s Impact “Remains Hotly Disputed”…Only 10% Have Faith In Models," P. Gosselin, No Tricks Zone
"German flagship news magazine Spiegel Online today has an article authored by Axel Bojanowski which takes a close look at the recent John Cook survey. German alarmists like the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research hailed it as proof that climate science was settled and done.
But Spiegel draws a different a totally conclusion.
First Bojanowski describes how a large number of Americans have serious doubts when it comes to man-made climate change, and so surveys get conducted with the aim of trying to sway public opinion. The latest was carried out by John Cook of the University of Queensland in Australia, and the results were published in the journal of Environmental Research Letters: 97% of thousands of papers surveyed agree that climate change is man-made, it asserted.
But Bojanowski trashes the findings....Bojanowski then gives Spiegel readers the results produced by Cook: “About two thirds took no position on the subject – they remained on the sidelines. 97% of the rest supported man-made impact.
Also in an additional step, 35% of the authors who took no position were left out of the survey results altogether. ...
Bojanowski then reports on another still unpublished German survey conducted by the University of Mainz in Germany. Senja Post told SPIEGEL ONLINE that “123 of 292 climate scientists asked participated in the study“...Bojanowski...writes that skepticism is even far more widespread when it comes to the reliability of computer models. ”Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated.”"...via Climate Common Sense
============================
Australian
blogger John Cook, left, thrilled green millionaires and billionaires
like Obama in their never-ending quest to drown out ordinary Americans
who have the nerve to think they have some say about the country.
America's starving have to volunteer for more starvation to save the
planet or face ridicule. This is how CO2 terror became a success, by
taking advantage of kind hearted people and causing them to choose slow
suicide. The other key to CO2 terror is politicians. Obama likes any
idea that punishes starving Americans and gives him endless billions to
redistribute to his political allies--as the EU does in
financing green groups.-------------------------------------------------------
6/4/12, “Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006,” Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage
“Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord."… Here is the biggest shocker of all: the average American's CO2 emissions are down to levels not seen since 1964 -- over half a century ago.... It is exactly America's historical role of biggest and dirtiest that makes their sharp decline in CO2 pollution so noteworthy and potentially game changing at the global level."...
===================================
News of US CO2 plunge has been described as:
- “Surprising,“
- “little noticed,“
- “dramatic,“
- “stunner,“
- “most people are surprised to learn,“
- “quiet but tremendous progress,”
- “major long term implications,”
- “game changing,”
- “shocker,”
- “huge contrast to the forecast.”
Yale 360 authors cite US government expenditures in climate over past 3 decades for US CO2 reductions which they say will continue:
4/21/12, "Why [CO2] Emissions Are Declining in the U.S. But Not in Europe," by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, newgeography.com
.
"As we note below in a new article for Yale360, a funny thing happened: U.S. emissions started going down in 2005 and are expected to decline further over the next decade....
Why? The reason is obvious: the U.S. is benefitting from the 30-year, government-funded technological revolution that massively increased the supply of unconventional natural gas, making it cheap even when compared to coal."...
=========================
Yale 360 authors say US achieved climate results without cap and trade, that Germany increased its use of coal under EU's now failed cap and trade system:
2/27/12, “Beyond Cap and Trade: A New Path to Clean Energy” Yale 360, by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger
And yet, the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which has been in place for almost a decade now and has established carbon prices well above those that would have been established by the proposed U.S. system, has had no discernible impact on European emissions.
The carbon intensity of the European economy has not declined at all since the imposition of the ETS. Meanwhile green paragon Germany has embarked upon a coal-building binge under the auspices of the ETS, one that has accelerated since the Germans shut down their nuclear power plants. Even so, proponents of U.S. emissions limits maintain that legally binding carbon caps will provide certainty that emissions will go down in the future, whereas technology development and deployment — along with efforts to regulate conventional air pollutants — do not." ...
===========================
.
Overwhelming scientific consensus says global warming has paused:
1/18/13, “Climate change: scientists puzzle over halt in global warming,” Der Spiegel, by Axel Bojanowski (translation from German by google)
===================================
Grist author thinks few talk about plunging US CO2 emissions because the causes are seen as negative for Obama in some circles, such as natural gas fracking, the recession, and harsh EPA regulations:
.
7/17/12, "U.S. leads the world in cutting CO2 emissions — so why aren’t we talking about it?" Grist, David Roberts
"Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is making progress on climate change.
We have cut our carbon emissions more than any other country in the world in recent years — 7.7 percent since 2006. U.S. emissions fell 1.9 percent last year and are projected to fall 1.9 percent again this year...
Why isn’t this extraordinary story a bigger deal in U.S. politics? You’d think Obama would be boasting about it! Turns out, though, it’s a little awkward for him, since several of the drivers responsible are things for which
he can’t (or might not want to) take credit."...
=====================================
May 2012 Washington Post citation about China CO2, China's increasing emissions render US reductions meaningless globally:
"China was the biggest contributor (in 2011), with carbon dioxide output growing 9.3 percent." (3rd parag.)
5/25/12, "U.S. cut its carbon emissions in 2011 — but China erased the gains," Washington Post, Brad Plumer
"Yes, it’s true: Americans are slowly starting to tackle global warming. U.S. carbon emissions dropped 1.7 percent last year, according to the International Energy Agency. But that only went so far. Thanks to China’s fast growth, the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions hit record highs in 2011....
China was the biggest contributor, with carbon dioxide output growing 9.3 percent — thanks in large part to a rise in coal consumption."...
=======================================
China emitted 4 billion tons more CO2 than the US in 2011, per AP:
12/2/12, "Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds per second," AP, Seth Borenstein
"The overwhelming majority of the increase (in 2011) was from China, the world’s biggest carbon dioxide polluter. Of the planet’s top 10 polluters, the United States and Germany were the only countries that reduced their carbon dioxide emissions....
The 2011 figures for the biggest polluters:
1. China, up 10 percent to 10 billion tons.
2. United States, down 2 percent to 5.9 billion tons
3. India, up 7 percent to 2.5 billion tons.
4. Russia, up 3 percent to 1.8 billion tons.
5. Japan, up 0.4 percent to 1.3 billion tons.
6. Germany, down 4 percent to 0.8 billion tons.
7. Iran, up 2 percent to 0.7 billion tons.
8. South Korea, up 4 percent to 0.6 billion tons.
9. Canada, up 2 percent to 0.6 billion tons.
10. South Africa, up 2 percent to 0.6 billion tons."
=========================================
This is how Obama takes personal charge of the "man caused global warming" crisis:
In November 2012, Obama took 'climate action' by giving $6 billion US taxpayer dollars to the Sultan of Brunei who owns 5000+ cars and to the Pres. of Indonesia, a country so corrupt even the World Bank says crime adds 20% to costs. Below, one of the Sultan's cars:
7/24/12, "The Sultan's Cars," wheel to wheel blog.
=================================
Australia's John Cook can now be mentioned in the same conversation as Hien T. Tran, the fake scientist who enabled California cap and trade:
May 2012, "The Fraud of Hien T. Tran," killcarb.org
"Hien T. Tran was the lead scientist who wrote the (CARB) report upon which the heavy duty truck and bus regulations are based. He bought a mail order Ph.D. from Thornhill "University" located at 255 Madison, New York. Using his fake Ph.D., the unqualified liar applied for and got the position as Manager of the Health and Ecosystem Assessment Section. Some of the board members, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols knew of the fraud before voting on the controversial regulation. The board members who knew, kept the information from other board members for nearly a year after the vote. The Governor also had the information and failed to take action."
=======================
California CO2 terror was faked but will bring in trillions:
10/8/10, "Overestimate fueled state's landmark diesel law," San Francisco Chronicle, Wyatt Buchanan
"California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.
The pollution estimate in question was too high - by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007."...
========================
5/17/13, "The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions," Anthony Watts, WattsUpWithThat
"Proving that crap can flow uphill, yesterday, John Cook got what one could consider the ultimate endorsement. A tweet from the Twitter account of the Twitterer in Chief, Barack Obama, about Cook’s 97% consensus lie."...
===========================
photo of blogger John Cook above from Climate Depot
.
No comments:
Post a Comment