CO2 realists have scientific and ethical high ground yet fail to claim it. Two simple charts show it’s never been about CO2. GOP ‘leadership’ won’t let members talk about CO2 science, that CO2 isn’t a danger, instead forces them to change subject to jobs

.
The facts about CO2 speak for themselves, that it’s not a danger. It’s literally impossible to defend CO2 terror. The entire hypothesis is that CO2 causes rising temperatures but that hasn’t happened  in 15-17 years. If it ever happened. Even if you ignore CO2 science, US CO2 has plunged while other countries’ has risen. It’s beyond criminal to continue diverting time and taxpayer money on CO2 terror. Beltway “GOP leadership” won’t let members talk about the science when it’s a simple case to make with ample evidence. Members are told to change the subject to jobs if CO2 comes up. The case against CO2 danger in 2013 couldn’t be clearer. GOP perhaps wants the big money pushing non-existent CO2 terror.

6/27/13, “GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science,” Politico, Darren Goode

“The jobs-centric rhetoric is no accident, GOP consultant Mike McKenna said — although he noted that many Republicans won’t go along with that approach.

“This is a strategy that leadership wants to take, especially in the House,” McKenna said. “Rank and file are perfectly willing to talk about the underlying science.”“

———————————————

7/1/13, “Seizing the High Ground,” Joe Bastardi, The Patriot Post

“The president’s recent climate speech has rekindled the fire of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate. I believe skeptics have the high ground scientifically, ethically and economically — yet they fail to seize it….

It only takes one example to disapprove their idea. So when this chart comes up, CO2 vs. temps through the ages [the purple line showing CO2 much higher in the past]:

 

or this (below) chart demonstrating the disconnect with Co2 as air temperatures move in tandem with ocean temps:”

Jan. 2013, “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature,“ Global and Planetary Change, Ole Humlum^{a, b, ,} ,Kjell Stordahl^c, Jan-Erik Solheim^d

“Fig. 1. Monthly global
atmospheric CO₂“

(continuing): “It satisfies right off the bat the idea this carbon theory is wrong. If saying it’s wrong is too harsh, at the very least it calls into question its relevance, enough so that it’s open for debate. But it should also lead us to ask: Why would one be trying to force this idea on people when there’s at least obvious doubt, if not outward refutation?…

Ethics.

What is ethical about suppressing other ideas in a debate about the future, when there is obvious doubt? Doubts raised by skeptics are dismissed out of hand, with the hope that the public doesn’t know about such examples as listed above. The mere fact that the other side always claims there’s no doubt, when obviously there is given recent temperature trends that they struggle to explain — and when they do (the so-called missing heat in the ocean) we can find Dr. Bill Gray explaining it with the paper above — calls into question not only their ideas, but motives (I will leave dealing with motives out in this missive).

But here’s the other angle. By advocating draconian solutions that cut down the lifeline of the economy with no clear cheaper alternative, they suppress the chance for society as a whole to thrive. It threatens the ideas that are the basic foundation of this nation to even survive. Does anyone remember “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? A life without liberty has no pursuit of happiness, and without a vision, the people perish. It’s not a hard equation. So I don’t think it’s ethical to destroy the chance for people to make a better life for themselves. And handcuffing the economy certainly does that — and in reality, it’s unethical.”…
 
=================================

2/21/13, “IPCC Head Pachauri Acknowledges Global Warming Standstill,” The Australian, Graham Lloyd

.

“The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”…

.

=============================
.

Latest global CO2 emissions:

.

6/10/13, “US Carbon Dioxide Emissions Fall as Global Emissions Rise,“ Cato.org, Paul C. ‘Chip’ Knappenberger
  
“Notice that the U.S. is far and away the leader in reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, while China primarily is responsible for pushing global CO₂ emissions higher. In fact, CO₂ emissions growth in China more than offsets all the CO₂ savings that we have achieved in the U.S.”
 



Chart from IEA report, p. 2 

 —————————————————–

1/18/13, UK Met Office says no warming since 1998:
.

1/18/13, “Climate change: scientists puzzle over halt in global warming,” Der Spiegel, by Axel Bojanowski (translation from German). Chart by UK Met Office, via Der Spiegel

UK Met Office chart via Der Spiegel

===============================

.

134 scientists write to UN Sec. Gen., ask him to desist from blaming climate disasters on global warming that hasn’t happened for 16 yrs.:
.

“Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.” Includes NOAA citation:

 

—————

12/11/12, “Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists,“ Special to the Financial Post (Scientists’ letter dated 11/29/12)

.

“The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”…(2nd parag. fr. end of letter). 

“Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.”…
.

=========================

.

NOAA study says US 2012 weather extremes due to natural causes, not global warming:
:
4/12/13, “Study Reveals Global Warming Not To Blame For Last Year’s Crippling Drought,” stlouis.cbslocal.com with AP
.
“A new federal study reveals that global warming is not to blame for last year’s extreme drought that crippled the central Great Plains. The study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Drought Task Force places the blame on natural variations.“…  

.

  ==================================
.
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.”

==============================
.

6/20/13,“The Economist on The New Republic on the ‘pause’,“ Dr. Judith Curry, JudithCurry.com  

.

===========================================

1/27/12, Nobel Prize-winning scientist and Obama supporter Dr. Ivan Giaever resigned from elite American Physical Society over its policy advocating global warming. 16 scientists sign WSJ article supporting facts that CO2 is not a pollutant and isn’t harming the world.

.

“Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.”

1/27/12, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,“ Wall St. Journal, opinion
.

“There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.”

“Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:”… 

 

================================

.

A May 2013 CBO report commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) states US on its own has little effect on global climate:

p. 14: “Acting on its own, the United States could have only a modest effect on the amount of warming.”

May 2013 CBO report, “Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment“


===============================

The May 2013 Waxman commissioned report also says further US CO2 reductions will be meaningless, that global emissions won’t improve  without significant reductions from countries like China and India (page 14, left column), and that any further US CO2 reductions:
p. 14, “would be offset by increases in emissions overseas—.”…

.