How much CO2 for a trillion dollars?

By Andrew L. Urban.

If proof were needed that the climate change industry is in a feeding frenzy, the COP21 in Paris (December 2015) was it. Countless thousands converged on Paris for a talkfest that went on for two weeks. World leaders coagulated at the start of it. They all have a vested interest in continuing to assert that a) the world is warming and b) mankind is contributing to the warming. They agreed they want to stop b). They agreed it would cost trillions. They didn’t mention that those trillions will be soaked up by the very attendees and their teams.

But there is a crucial element missing from that blizzard of climate speak: specific facts about the human contribution. No IPCC report has ever announced how much of the 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere is of human contribution. Nor has it ever announced how much of that unknown amount would need to be cut to keep the increase in global temperature to the magic 1.5 or 2 C. In other words, the world is driving blind. A trillion dollars a year will be absorbed by the climate change industry, which doesn’t know where it’s going with climate change policies because nobody knows what effect any change in CO2 emissions will mean.

This is evident from the past 19 or so years, when CO2 emissions continued to rise, but global temperature has not.

Fake science has been invoked to maintain the charade; the constantly regurgitated and misleading claim that 97% of scientists agree on man made warming is so fraudulent it should be classified a crime, like disturbing the peace. It has become the defensive shield for advocates of warming. And it’s a blatant falsehood.

That fatally flawed statistic comes from a poll performed in 2008 by Professor Peter Doran and then-graduate student Margaret R.K. Zimmerman at the University of Illinois Chicago.

The “survey” was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded. (“Hundreds of scientists told the survey coordinators during the polling process, that the poll was fundamentally flawed and could be easily misinterpreted. Some even said they could not do the poll because of the mistakes.”) See Climate Science International

The two (unscientifically framed) questions:

1 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

(The possible answers were, “Yes”, “No”, and “I’m not sure.”)

2 What makes you unsure if human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing global mean temperatures?

Some typical answers from respondents:

“I do not know what you mean by significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”

“What is meant by significant? A major contribution, yes, but what is human activity compared with increased solar activity. So far, it is lost in the statistical models.”

“I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like ‘major,’ ‘important,’ or ‘significant’ and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.”

Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.

Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.

Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts.”

Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with “the consensus”. That’s where the 97 per cent comes from.” Reported in

A grubby 1998 exercise in science manipulation infamously known as ‘the hockey stick’ graph remains a fixed image in the minds of millions.

That graph and its provenance comes under withering attack by Mark Steyn in his book, A Disgrace to the Profession (Sept. 2015)

Science is invoked as the scripture of climate change, but much of what is presented as climate science is to real science what jihadi terrorism is to ISLAM.

Yet the most pertinent question that is posed by the assertion that mankind is contributing to global warming goes unanswered by science: how much CO2 of the total in the atmosphere is manmade and how much does that affect the warming? If we don’t know the answers to these two questions, we can not assert anything about manmade contribution. Not scientifically, at any rate.


This entry was posted in Democracy and global warming policies. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *