By Vijay Jayaraj
As a citizen of a third-world country, I bring a different perspective about climate change from that held by most people in wealthy countries. While they fret about possible tenth-of-a-degree changes in global average temperature, I think about how a billion of my fellow Indians and I will obtain the food, water, health care, and other things we need that our richer neighbors take for granted.
So we puzzle when we observe climate alarmists on a scaremongering crusade following the recent hurricanes in the Atlantic. They saw hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria as providing another opportunity to blame climate change. Indeed, they tend to hold human-driven climate change guilty for the occurrence of any natural disaster.
But this is common only in the mainstream media. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a leading authority on climate-change science and policy, admits in its assessment reports that there is no significant increase in the frequency of natural disasters.
Climatologists too were quick to point out that hurricane frequency in the past four decades has no increasing trend, contrary to claims by the climate alarmism propagandists.
In addition, anyone who respects data will agree that there were major hurricanes before the climate change narrative even began.
Nevertheless, weirder claims have been made about the negative impact of anthropogenic global warming on the food security of third-world countries.
But the state of the climate in some developing countries like India paints a very contrasting, indeed a promising, picture.
With its large and rapidly growing economy, India plays a key role in the global economy. Climatic effects can have a huge impact on the country’s large agricultural sector and eventually on the lives of a billion people.
Monsoon rains are the lifeline for crops in India. The monsoons have remained stable over the past 15 years and have shown no adverse changes in pattern.
Most recent research shows that monsoon rains in the past 15 years have ended a 50-year dry spell that was prevalent over North-Central India. Since 2002, rainfall has increased by 1.34 mm per decade since 2002.
Strongly sustained by these rains, and buoyed by the inventions in agricultural science and technology, the country’s agricultural production increased dramatically. For example, cereal yield increased 58 percent from 1990 to 2014, rising from 1687 to about 2662 pounds/acre.
The food production index (changes in the production of food crops in a given year relative to a base year) more than doubled, from 69.81 in 1990 to 145.1 in 2014. India’s total food grain production in the year 2015–16 recorded a massive 252.23 million tonnes, marginally higher than the previous year.
This should not surprise anyone who has a remote interest in the state of climate affairs. The global temperature levels showed no significant increase in the past 16 years.
Even the strongest climate alarmists acknowledged that the computer models used for prediction failed to reflect observational data, in what scientists call the ‘global warming hiatus’.
The models’ error can be attributed predominantly to the false assumption that carbon dioxide drives temperatures. Instead, in both long and short terms, temperature changes first, and carbon dioxide follows.
This not only exposes the influence of a bias in climate change sciences but also counterfeits the false imagery of a deteriorating environment.
Weather always holds risks—storms large and small, droughts, floods, heat waves, and cold snaps have been with us throughout human history. But the climate itself has been anything but dangerous over the last 150 years, and the evidence is there for everyone to see from the polar ice caps to the paddy fields of India.
It is impossible to save a planet that is not dying, and it is a disgrace to lead people into false fears concerning climate change.
Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in New Delhi, India.
Who’d ever thought i would agree with this FRAUD .. on anything
Bill Nye: “I am a Failure”
By Eric Worrall
Bill Nye seems to think he has failed to reach people with his demand for urgent action on climate change, but he blames others for creating the conditions which led to his failure.
Bill Nye on his climate change education efforts: “I am a failure”
“The Science Guy” looks back on his 1990s TV show, and why climate change education has not reflected policy change
Between hosting “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and serving as CEO of The Planetary Society, Bill Nye’s career as a science educator means he is also, inherently, an activist when it comes to combating climate change.
Nye joined Jeremy Binckes on “Salon Talks” to discuss his efforts raising awareness around climate change over the years, and to scoop a new documentary film that chronicles his rise from lively children’s show host to national science defender and advocate.
“I am a failure!” Nye exclaimed when reflecting back on the shows he created over two decades ago about the Earth’s warming.
Nye blamed the fossil fuel industry for creating the schism between climate deniers and believers, saying “they have worked so hard to introduce doubt.” He went on to say that he believed climate change was discovered in the 1970s, “and we’ve done virtually nothing about it all this time.”
Every time you read an assertion that people only doubt because the “fossil fuel industry” has created doubt, in my opinion you are seeing first hand the utter contempt climate enthusiasts have for people’s ability to weigh the evidence for themselves.
The reality is climate enthusiasts have destroyed their own credibility, with their outrageous omissions of adverse data, with their barrage of painfully wrong predictions over the years.
If climate enthusiasts want their claims to be treated seriously, they need to start getting things right once in a while.
And while i am at it, here’s another (Man Made) Global Warming fanatic ..
Al Gore’s Apocalyptic Fantasy Lecture at Rice University
As promised, I attended Al Gore’s climate change lecture at Rice University last night. Rice University is one of the most beautiful university campuses I’ve ever seen, so it was a delight to see it again. The architecture is outstanding, and the buildings are placed in a garden-like setting. It was lovely to walk from the parking lot to the fieldhouse. The speech was held in a packed Tudor Fieldhouse which seats 5,750. By the time the Rice University Provost was introducing Al Gore, there were no empty seats that I could see, see Figure 1.
A couple of minutes later, when Al Gore came on stage he received a standing ovation, I must say I was a little surprised, like I was in an alternate universe. However, about 40% of Texans vote Democratic and these voters are concentrated in Houston, San Antonio and Austin. As an example, Houston went for Hillary Clinton by over 160,000 votes. This was very apparent in Tudor Fieldhouse. The crowd even cheered when Gore railed against the fossil fuel industry and called for dismantling it. Although, I noticed lots of people (including the couple next to me) got up and walked out at that point. When the lights came up for questions, there were many empty seats, perhaps a quarter or more, had walked out during the speech.
As some predicted, prior to the speech, questions were pre-screened by the provost (Professor of statistics Marie Lynn Miranda). She is an unquestioning true believer in catastrophic man-made global warming (CAGW) just like Al Gore, so the three hand-picked questions she asked were softballs that merely prompted more vitriol about “deniers.” Yes, he used the word a few times. Once he said, “I know I’m being dismissive of them, but what can I do?” This was accompanied with an irritatingly smug and superior smile, like the one that lost him the election in 2000.
The first question is the only one I’ll discuss here. It was (paraphrasing): Why is the media ignoring climate change? Al Gore’s answer was very long and rambling, but he essentially said, even though climate change is the most important issue facing human civilization ever, the media ignores it because too many people turn off their TV’s or radios or change the channel whenever it comes up. He believes the media are not informing any more but, they are entertainment only. That was interesting, I agree with him on that point. Then he went on to say the internet and social media are not a positive thing today, they are divisive; but he had hopes for the future of social media. The media is toast, since both sides now think it has devolved to entertainment.
Points made in the lecture
The lecture was in two parts. In the first Gore asserted that humans are causing “dangerous” climate change, without offering any proof. He further asserted that 16 of the 17 warmest years “on record” were in this century, asserted that greenhouse gases (“mainly carbon dioxide”) were the cause since they “trap” 400,000 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat on the Earth every year. He presented no evidence that the greenhouse connections are related to the warming or that heat is “trapped” by them. The “evidence” that man’s emissions cause climate change is computer-model based, and not based on, or supported by, observations as discussed here. The popular concept of greenhouse gases “trapping” heat is very misleading and inaccurate as described by Rasmus Benestad here.
The idea that 16 of the 17 warmest years “on record” are in this century is debatable and depends upon which surface temperature record one chooses to use and the estimate of error-of-measurement one chooses to use. For a discussion of this see Pat Frank’s post here. This statement also ignores the very small change in temperature in this century, versus the latter part of the 20th century, as can be seen here. Further, the measured global temperature record only goes back to 1880, at the earliest, and this was the end of the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age is the coldest period on Earth since the beginning of the Holocene as can be seen here in figures 3A and 3B. Do we really want to go back to the cold and miserable Little Ice Age? This was a very difficult time, as discussed here. I and most people like it warmer than that.
So, Gore’s assertions are very contestable, yet he moves on undeterred, and describes cherry-picked catastrophes all over the world, with emotional pictures. According to him, all are linked to man’s supposed changes to the global climate. He asserts that hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria were all made worse by global warming. He acknowledges “some say no link of climate change to extreme weather can be shown.” He doesn’t mention a source, but I suspect he was referring to the excellent work by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. (here) and Dr. Cliff Mass (here). Dr. Judith Curry, a hurricane expert, has also discussed global warming and hurricanes here. Dr. Curry, in the cited post, says:
“Thinking that reducing fossil fuels is going to help with extreme events on the timescale of the 21st century is a pipe dream. Even if you believe the climate models, and we are able to drastically reduce fossil fuel emissions by 2050, we’re going to see miniscule impacts on the climate and the weather by the end of the 21st century. Any benefits would be realised in the 22nd and 23rd centuries. If we think we have enough wisdom and knowledge to what might happen in the 22nd and 23rd Century — personally I’d rather see us deal with here and now, and maybe focus on what we might be facing out to 2050. That seems a more practical and realistic goal, for what we should be trying to do. That’s my opinion.”
But, then he asserts that the “probability” of “record breaking” extreme weather events are increased, although he contradicts himself to the “extreme” within a few seconds, the crowd did not seem to notice.
He moves on to blame global warming (or climate change) for “record breaking” precipitation, droughts, wildfires, etc. Sea level rise will flood Miami and other low-lying cities. “Rain bombs” are the new scary monster. He says CO2, through warming, supposedly increases water use by plants, ignoring evidence that CO2 decreases wateruse per pound of plant. Further, he says climate change also caused the “Arab Spring,” destabilizes governments, and we are in the sixth great extinction event. Fifty percent of all species will be wiped out, and on and on. If it’s in the news, global warming caused it.
Al Gore believes that fossil fuels receive $700 billion in subsidies. He didn’t supply a period of time, but this was just for U.S. A 2015 report by the EIA, exclusive of welfare programs like LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance), the U.S. industry receives $3.4 million in subsidies per year (see here).
At the end he received a standing ovation.
The climate alarmists appear to be losing the battle for public attention and concern, but you would never know it from the reception to this speech. Those opposed to the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming, if they even came to the talk, left before the end.
The speech was all over the place, floods here, droughts there, sea level rise, wildfires, etc. Mr. Gore, there is always a flood, a drought or a very high tide somewhere, they don’t have to be caused by the same thing. As a skeptical scientist, with some knowledge in the area, I was unconvinced, but the others in the audience seemed happy with what he had to say.
I interpreted Gore’s speech to be more anti-fossil-fuels than pro-CAGW. He stated that he wanted to completely replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy. He is also pro-nuclear.
These issues are very political these days and very unscientific, which is a shame. But, then, many other issues are as well.
I had two questions, but was never asked for them, they are below:
16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred in this century. The record goes back to 1880, the end of the Little Ice Age, which geologists believe is the coldest period since the end of the last glacial period, 12,000 years ago. Why use such an unusually cold period as a benchmark temperature?
Both Nature magazine (2012 editorial) and the IPCC (in AR5, 2013) have determined that we cannot compute the man-made global warming contribution to any storm or to any trend (increasing or decreasing) in extreme weather. This is also the conclusion of Dr. Roger Pielke (University of Colorado). Can you comment on this?
If I had been allowed to ask the questions, I wonder what he would say? Would he call me a denier and go to the next question?