1988 – Global Warming To Sharply Reduce Rice Yields
via Real Climate Science
February 12, 2020 at 08:01AM
Month: February 2020
Pick a number, any number — the message is always the same. In 2018 the IPCC dropped the arbitrary 2C target to an arbitrary 1.5C target. The world hadn’t warmed fast enough, and worse, the new round of CMIP6 models were pushing their estimates of climate sensitivity up. But regardless, there are PR points to be made in every change. It’s an excuse for another round of “worse than we thought” press releases.
Commenter Joe teased:
Have the IPCC now become deniers? looks like we can only expect only .5 degrees C warming over the coming decades….
and Bobl sagely replied:
bobl February 11, 2020 at 5:31 pm
You’ve lost sight of the pea.
All the wild predictions are based on “Post Industrial” there has been about 0.95 deg since then, plus 0.5C brings us to the magic 1.5.
What you have to see is that all the $billions is about “preventing” an imperceptible and completely harmless 0.5 deg C change in temperature that might just come naturally anyway.
You are being duped. The aim frankly is to create an income stream via treaty that requires sovereign countries to levy […]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
via JoNova
February 12, 2020 at 07:29AM
By Paul Homewood
As regular as clockwork, the Guardian wheels out its “cities underwater” warnings:
A series of detailed maps have laid bare the scale of possible forest fires, floods, droughts and deluges that Europe could face by the end of the century without urgent action to adapt to and confront global heating.
An average one-metre rise in sea levels by the end of the century – without any flood prevention action – would mean 90% of the surface of Hull would be under water, according to the European Environment Agency.
English cities including Norwich, Margate, Southend-on-Sea, Runcorn and Blackpool could also experience flooding covering more than 40% of the urban area.
Across the North Sea, Dutch cities including the Hague, Rotterdam and Leiden were predicted to face severe floods from an average one metre sea-level rise, which is forecast if emissions rise 4C–6C above pre-industrial levels.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/10/fires-floods-maps-europe-climate-catastrophe
Back in the real world, sea levels around Britain have been rising at about 1.9mm/year, with no sign of acceleration:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=170-053
At this rate, the Guardian’s 1 meter sea level rise will arrive by AD 2546!
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
February 12, 2020 at 06:33AM
By Paul Homewood
Ben Pile uncovers the dirty secrets behind the Climate Assembly:
The first two meetings of Climate Assembly UK, dubbed a ‘citizens’ assembly’ on climate change, have taken place in Birmingham over the course of a couple of weekends in January and February.
The climate assembly has brought together 110 randomly selected members of the public to discuss a range of climate issues and policies with a range of experts, including David Attenborough. The task of the assembly, which will meet over two more weekends this spring, is to decide on a set of recommendations for how the government can best meet its pledge to achieve Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The reason for establishing the climate assembly is clear enough. It is an attempt to exorcise the democratic deficit that haunts political environmentalism. And it seeks to do this by involving a tiny, but supposedly representative, sample of citizens in the policymaking process. But can it really achieve its aim, given it excludes approximately 45million other members of the electorate from its decision-making?
In short, no. Watching the proceedings of the first assembly, it became clear very quickly that the process is rigged in favour of the environmentalist agenda. Expert after expert, each echoing the same message, made his or her presentation to the assembly. This was followed by a rapid question-and-answer session in which the assembled were told what’s what by said experts. It didn’t look much like a democratic debate. It looked like instruction.
These shortcomings should not be a surprise, however, given the climate assembly’s origins. Initially advocated by Extinction Rebellion, the climate assembly was eventually set up last year by six House of Commons select committees, in partnership with several third-sector organisations. None of these organisations has a democratic mandate. But they do all have a commitment to promoting the green agenda.
Take, for instance, the participation of Involve, the Sortition Foundation, and mySociety. These three organisations claim to want to encourage democratic engagement, and to reformulate the democratic process. All noble aims. But their role in the climate assembly is less to encourage democratic engagement than to limit and set the parameters of debate. Hence, the climate assembly will not hear from anyone remotely critical of climate science, environmental ideology or emissions-reduction policies.
Dig deeper and you discover that the majority of the assembly’s funding comes from the the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation (EFF) (which also funds Involve and mySociety), and the European Climate Foundation (ECF). These are not neutral organisations. Both the EFF and the ECF are explicitly committed to promoting an environmentalist agenda. As the ECF puts it on its website: ‘[We call for] the transformation of our systems and markets and the creation of a Net Zero society.’
The ECF is also the major funding partner of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), which provides communication support for the assembly. Indeed, the ECF is one of the largest funders of climate-change campaigns throughout Europe.
The ECF itself is part-funded by the US-based organisation it best resembles: the ClimateWorks Foundation. According to its website, the ClimateWorks Foundation acts as a ‘strategist to a wide range of foundations, helping them evaluate the global landscape of greenhouse-gas-reductions opportunities, develop philanthropic strategies, and coordinate and evaluate their investments’. Or, in other words, it acts as an environmentalist coordinator, distributing millions upon millions of dollars to numerous climate campaigns, using the funds of a few foundations.
Full story here.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
February 12, 2020 at 05:48AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 