Skip to content

Is There A Climate Emergency?–Ross McKitrick

January 15, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 

 

 In another of the series of Climate Change information Briefs issued from the White House, Ross McKitrick questions the climate emergency:

 

 

image

image

image

image

40 Comments
  1. January 15, 2021 12:26 pm

    What a sensible and balanced article that is. I am sure Jo Biden and his climate extremist friends will demand that it be removed for that reason. Thanks for publishing it. It deserves a wide audience

  2. January 15, 2021 12:57 pm

    Excellent sober appraisement of our Climate, and it will be interred by the rich warmist establishment and co-conspirator’s in the Media especially the BBC and Guardian. Just too many people in fake science, the eco industry, “green” energy providers are on the rich perpetual “money teats” to give up their quest of crippling the economies of the West. Virtue signaling ignorant politico’s are the worst of enablers of the doomsters. When irreversible economic damage is done to everyone’s lives in the next 30 years it will be interesting to see who will take responsibility.

    • tom0mason permalink
      January 16, 2021 5:57 am

      Yes ‘johnbillscott’,
      From the Royal Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation
      (2016)
      3. The Independence of the BBC

      (1) The BBC must be independent in all matters concerning the fulfilment of its Mission and the promotion of the Public Purposes, particularly as regards editorial and creative decisions, the times and manner in which its output and services are supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
      (2) Paragraph (1) is subject to any provision made by or under this Charter or the
      Framework Agreement or otherwise by law.
      [They have proved themselves not to be independent by their own actions, comments, and stated opinions on many occasions — TM.]

      4.The BBC’s Object

      The BBC’s Object is the fulfilment of its Mission and the promotion of the Public Purposes.

      5.The BBC’s Mission

      The Mission of the BBC is to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain.

      [Note the order of the mission — inform, educate, and entertain — the money they get from the government is not spent correctly! It rarely truthfully informs, miseducates widely, and spends BIG money, taxpayers money, on celebrities and entertainment! — TM]

      And from
      2. Incorporation of the BBC
      Subject to article 60 (dissolution and winding-up), this Charter shall continue in force until the end of 31st December 2027. They are misinforming and preaching at us for a long time.

  3. Harry Passfield permalink
    January 15, 2021 1:24 pm

    Very sober analysis. I particularly liked this part: “The IPCC projects that the economic impacts of global warming over the next century will continue to be small relative to other changes.”
    Of course, the corollary to that is that the economic impacts of the extremists’ attempts to control the climate – rather than adapt to it (whichever way that might turn out to be) – will be huge relative to the small changes that will actually occur – which may even turn out to be beneficial.

  4. David Coe permalink
    January 15, 2021 1:30 pm

    I wonder if you would be interested in some work I have done recently on the IR absorptive characteristics of “greenhouse” gases. I am a physicist, having read physics at Oxford back in the sixties. My day job for the last 20+ years has been developing a range of sensors for the monitoring of gaseous emissions to atmosphere using infra-red absorption spectroscopy. I thus have not only some knowledge in this area but have access to a database of molecular absorption spectra for most common gases, particularly CO2 and H2O. I am the founding director of the company Codel International Ltd, based in Bakewell, Derbyshire.

    My findings suggest that it is simply not possible for CO2 to cause any significant warming of earth, simply because of the strength of the absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O. These two gases have already absorbed almost all the radiated energy in their respective absorption bands. Increasing the concentrations of those gases will have very little impact on further IR absorption.

    I have attached a copy of a paper detailing this work. I would be most grateful if you would read this and I would be delighted if you were prepared to post this on your excellent website. This paper has not been written as a scientific publication. I have tried to write for a wider audience than the climate science nerds who would almost certainly reject it out of hand in any case.

    All details of the calculations supporting this work can be made available to you.

    David Coe

    From: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT Reply to: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT Date: Friday, 15 January 2021 at 12:02 To: “coecharlesdavid@gmail.com” Subject: [New post] Is There A Climate Emergency?–Ross McKitrick

    Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood In another of the series of Climate Change information Briefs issued from the White House, Ross McKitrick questions the climate emergency: “

    • paul weldon permalink
      January 15, 2021 3:55 pm

      I for one would be interested to read it, should Paul wish to publish it. Perhaps highlighting the main points with a reference to the full article?.
      In the meantime perhaps you can give me the answer to one question that has puzzled me for a long time: I have 2 different versions of how greenhouse gases reemit radiation, and both sources appear to be sound. One states that the emissions are in the same waveband that are absorbed. The other states that re-emission is in a wide band proportional to the temperature of the gas. Of course the outcome for the atmospheric temperature and the greenhouse effect is quite different between the 2 scenarios.

      • Tonyb permalink
        January 15, 2021 8:40 pm

        Yes please, it would be good to read it

  5. Gamecock permalink
    January 15, 2021 1:54 pm

    Emergency is immediate. Climate is long-term.

    ‘Climate emergency’ is an oxymoron.

    McKitrick is right, of course, but the entire conversion is a clown show. Thanks to a corrupt press, NOT ONE JOURNALIST (finest kind) points out the problem.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 15, 2021 2:36 pm

      The late great Christopher Booker pointed it out.

  6. Ian Vernon permalink
    January 15, 2021 2:16 pm

    Am I right in saying that the IPCC is now much more attuned to the facts of climate change than they used to be? If so that is very good indeed.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 15, 2021 2:43 pm

      No, don’t think you are. Given that the CIMP6 models are even worse than their predecessors and that there has been a lot of criticism of the IPCC from the likes of XR – Andrew Neil was even quoting the IPCC in his take down of Zion Lights when she represented XR – I suspect their next report might be worse than any of the others.

      • January 15, 2021 5:22 pm

        Climate models get worse when reliance on greenhouse theory is increased, and vice versa.

        But modellers can never learn, because it’s more than their job’s worth. It’s easier to say ‘we need a bigger computer’.

  7. Gary Gould permalink
    January 15, 2021 2:37 pm

    I was interested to see the real briefing note. Unfortunately they have caused a bit of a storm (pun intended) because they were published without approval. See the Washington Post article:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/01/11/controversial-climate-skeptics-release-papers/

    Does anyone know where I can download copies because they do not appear to be available on the original site?

  8. Gerry, England permalink
    January 15, 2021 2:46 pm

    Interesting article on CapX linked from the GWPF speculating that the next financial crash will come from ‘green investments’. Seems quite likely since most – or all of it – is uneconomic and propped up by taxpayer cash.

    • Mad Mike permalink
      January 15, 2021 3:21 pm

      You don’t have to look very far for candidates for the source of the next financial crash, try HMG and the like around the world. The response to this virus means that the UK will be in hock for another £1trillion before we’ve finished. Couple that with a smaller economy and Boris’s green adventure, his 10 point plan, with another trillion plus cost and you have a decent platform for confidence in the UK’s ability to service it’s debts to disappear in short order.

      The only good thing to come out of this virus debacle is that our Chancellor might finally realise that the 10 point plan etc is no more than an economic suicide note and stop further funding. I’m not banking on that though.

      I’d be interested to see David Coe’s paper if Paul decides to post it, although I hope it is understandable to Janet and John readers like myself.

    • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
      January 15, 2021 11:58 pm

      I’m not convinced that “green investments” will be sufficiently great enough to cause a financial crash. As in the past, throwing money at certain ideas or companies is a waste. Other, so called green investments, are just using the idea to spread money widely. Widely being the key difference. This is unlike either the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s or the housing bubble of ’06-’07 that precipitated the recession of 2008. I’ll skip the details of those except to note the concentration of danger.

      I think that “throwing money widely” is akin to increasing the “velocity of money”; see . . .
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

      Inflation may follow, but not a crash.

      • Mad Mike permalink
        January 16, 2021 12:03 pm

        If it was solely the “green investments” but this will be on top of all the debt that already exists and the further large debt that is accruing by all governments. The “green investment” is largely a gamble on whether the new ideas will turn in to viable industries and create wealth or not.

        the Government was warned by parliamentary group a couple of weeks ago, can’t remember who they were, that the new green economy risked the jobs of 10 million workers in the UK if the new green industries didn’t take off.

        So we have a potential situation whereby the UK has enormous debt, part of the economy that doesn’t produce wealth replacing that which did, lots more unemployed and a decreased ability to service the debt. Suddenly the emperor has no clothes.

    • tom0mason permalink
      January 16, 2021 2:48 am

      Indeed so ‘Gerry, England’, in the UK were our borrowings have reached (probably exceeded) our yearly gross domestic product (GDP).
      Is this truly a conservative government when national financial conditions are in such a mess? Or are we yet again going to witness more fiscal chicanery through more quantitative easing. Measures that eventually leading to the mayhem of negative interest rates, while leaving future generations with the expensive, onerous task of repairing the financial damage.

  9. sarastro92 permalink
    January 15, 2021 3:15 pm

    Except for slight warming, climate is basically unchanged since 1900… the climate of today may be slightly more benign with less episodes of Extreme Weather than in 1900.

    In any case, CO2 is NOT the climate driver. Even within recorded history, It’s been much warmer and much colder with CO2 levels 30-40% lower than the levels of today.

  10. Peter permalink
    January 15, 2021 5:39 pm

    The work described by David Coe agrees with the conclusions of William Happer and William Wijngaarden who have shown that the absorption bands are fully saturated, including any pressure broadening or doppler effects. They published their work on the internet last Autumn when leading journal editors refused to look at it. David Wojick has published a summary of the work in layman’s language at cfact.org.

    H&W also looked at the other major greenhouse gases. It is not possible for anything other than minor increases in temperature no matter how much more fossil fuels we burn. This is the end of the big scare but clearly the alarmist community is ignoring it. I really do not understand why the rest of us are not shouting about this from the rooftops. It should be the killer blow that finishes climate change.

    • paul weldon permalink
      January 17, 2021 7:59 am

      I looked at the H&W paper too, and was surprised to find in the conclusion that they estimate that a doubling of GHGs for atmospheric temperature would be around 2.3C. That seems to be at odds with the statement that rising GHS will have little future effect. Or did I read it wrong?

  11. Ian Phillips permalink
    January 15, 2021 5:43 pm

    David Coe’s paper looks very interesting, and understandable, without too much advanced maths.
    I am now beginning to make notes, and with ideas on how it can be used, with my background as a school physics teacher.
    This could provide the necessary underpinning we need.

  12. January 15, 2021 5:47 pm

    “Global warming over the past 200 years ” . . . ” whether climate change is natural or human-caused”

    Is not the consensus (be it correct, or not) that most of the GW since roughly the 1970’s is AGW – thus perhaps 0.3C + of the total during this period?

    Is not the theory (be it correct or not) that it’s this bit of additional warming that will lead to changes in the natural variability of our climate, ACC, or CACC?

    Should not the skeptical side here always distinguish between natural GW and CC and man-made?

    I propose that we’re giving the ship away by falling into their trap.

    • January 16, 2021 7:45 pm

      A consensus is only needed if the science is NOT settled. Politicians reach a consensus, while scientists rely on the evidence. If just one fact doe not fit, the theory needs to be altered or abandoned.

  13. Peter permalink
    January 15, 2021 7:21 pm

    Carbon dioxide driven global warming is an old idea but it did not become a serious issue until Hansen pushed it hard in the Eighties. As the scare became established and activists flocked to join the scientific orders radiative physics was the order of the day. Hubert Lamb had started up CRU at East Anglia in the Seventies to understand the fundamentals of our climate but CO2 driven climate change dominated for the next 30 years. This explains why most climate scientists worship CO2 as the only true god.

    Most people don’t realise that apart from CRU, climate as an academic subject did not exist. I heard recently that the first degree course started in the US within the last decade.

    I do believe that true, fundamental work on ocean oscillations, solar effects and natural variability has only started in recent years. Climate science is being researched back to front.

    First,study the effect of CO2 and attribute all climate change to it.. Second, discover the fundamentals that really control climate change and how much variability is natural.

  14. January 15, 2021 7:46 pm

    “Climate Emergency” is undefined so a figment of the catastrophists’ publicity adverts rather than a realstic concept.
    It is a successful ruse, despite its insubstantiality, but too difficult for the uncritical to see through.
    A politician’s catch phrase,nothing more.

  15. thecliffclavenoffinance permalink
    January 15, 2021 10:15 pm

    The climate emergency is policymakers forcing taxpayers to pay huge sums of money to replace existing inexpensive, reliable sources of electric power, with more expensive, intermittent sources of electric power, that need up to 100% fossil fueled back-up.

    Much more expensive if batteries are used to replace the fossil fueled back up generators.

    With one billion people in the world having no electricity, those with electricity will spend a lot of money on themselves, to make their own electric power more expensive and less reliable? That kind of backwards thinking is an emergency.

    Concerning the climate itself, what emergency?
    I can’t even identify a problem.

    The climate has been improving since the Little Ice Age centuries.
    The people who lived in the cooler 1600s would have loved today’s climate.
    So exactly who was hurt by the intermittent global warming since the late 1600s?
    No one.

  16. tom0mason permalink
    January 16, 2021 2:31 am

    Averaged global temperature variations over any short period are fairly meaningless. They are an measurement observation and as such, by themselves tells you nothing about the underlying processes that bring about such changes. Temperatures have risen since the Little Ice Age, thank God and nature for that.
    OK the AGW crowd’s beliefs has it linked to CO2 levels but the evidence for this supposition is still missing (despite 50 years of intensely looking for it). History of the climate certainly does NOT favor this outlandish idea see What Global Warming? 148 New (2020) Scientific Papers Affirm Recent Non-Warming, A Degrees-Warmer Past at the notrickszone website for the peer-reviewed evidence.

  17. John Brydon permalink
    January 16, 2021 2:57 am

    Is there a link to the references anywhere ?

  18. David Coe permalink
    January 16, 2021 9:34 am

    In reply to Paul Weldon. Gases absorb and emit radiation in the same wavebands. The intensity of the radiation emitted at given wavelengths is however still governed by Planck’s equation and is a function of the temperature of the gas. Hope this helps.

    • paul weldon permalink
      January 17, 2021 8:05 am

      Thanks, David. That was my preference too, The alternative was part of an online course on weather, produced jointly by Reading University and The Royal Meteorological society. Many of these online courses are produced by UK universities and contain many mistakes/ important missions. I wonder if they do not consider supporting the climate agenda more important than being true to the science.

  19. Cheshire Red permalink
    January 16, 2021 1:10 pm

    ‘Emergency’
    ‘Crisis’.
    ‘Chaos’.
    ‘Catastrophe’.

    Emotive words that convey fear, imply short time thresholds and become calls to action.

    Exactly the same reasoning is behind claimed (but entirely fake) 1850-1900 era comparisons for modern temperature thresholds of 1.5 and 2C of ‘global warming’.

    There’s no ‘tipping points’.
    There’s no amplification or positive feedbacks (at the levels required.)
    There’s no ‘irreversible’.
    There’s no ‘unprecedented’.

    Appeals to authority.
    Fear.
    Deadlines.
    Calls to action.
    Repeat, repeat, repeat.

    The world is being gaslighted, yet again.

    • jack broughton permalink
      January 16, 2021 8:30 pm

      My own list of hate words almost exactly.
      Missed Sustainable tho’
      I’d also add “experts say” and “scientists say” to the list!

  20. Yosef Robinson permalink
    January 17, 2021 12:37 am

    If there were to be a gigantic volcanic eruption on the scale of Tambora or even of Krakatoa sometime in the near future, and said eruption screwed up with the global climate for a good year or two or even three, then *that* would be a true climate emergency, albeit on a relatively temporary basis.

    • paul weldon permalink
      January 17, 2021 2:01 pm

      I wonder if it is correct to limit the effect to a few years? If the eruption is close to the equator with the ability to send ash clouds into the atmosphere in both hemispheres for a few years, then as oceans are covering 70% of the Earth’s surface and the energy of the Sun is mostly absorbed by them, then the heat loss could be considerable and take many years to slowly replete.

      • Yosef Robinson permalink
        January 17, 2021 4:38 pm

        Most probably over land the strongest effects would be limited to a few years, but in the oceans the effects would linger for decades, especially since the oceans take longer than land for the temperatures to warm up once again. Indeed, a number of AGW alarmist scientists say that if it weren’t for the Krakatoa eruption, the degree of warming (man-made or otherwise) in the oceans would have been even greater until now than it has been.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: