Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



Scientists Deny Man-Made-Climate-Change
Raymond Richman, 9/13/2019

The head of the world’s foremost weather science organization, Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), told the Talouselämä magazine in Finland that he disagrees with doomsday climate extremists who call for radical action to prevent a purported apocalypse. Talaas said that establishment meteorological scientists are under increasing assault from radical climate alarmists who are attempting to move the mainstream scientific community in a radical direction. “Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists. They make threats,” Taalas said.

The WMO is one of the two organizations that founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. Since being formed, the IPCC has become the leading institution worldwide to promote the theory that human activity contributes to global warming. Talaas pointed out that climate extremists are selectively picking out facts from the IPCC reports to fit their narrative. The vast majority of the climate models the IPCC uses as the basis for its predictions have incorrectly forecast higher temperatures repeatedly. According to an analysis by the Cato Institute, 105 of the 108 models predicted a higher surface temperature for the period between 1998 and 2014 than the temperature actually recorded. The IPCC has previously admitted that climate models cannot be used to accurately predict long-term changes in the climate.

Talaas’s comments were sent to a list of 5,000 media contacts, but none have picked up the story according to Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London. Peiser said. “He talks about a religious cult. He talks about people being extremists and doomsters. It’s quite staggering. The language that he uses and the signal that he’s sending out is ‘We are afraid of these extremists. They are destroying our society.”

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.

In a paper published late last month, entitled "No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change", a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Here is a quote from professor Masayuki Hyodo, the lead researcher on the Japanese report:

"This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."

According to Hyodo, the  climate models asserting that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming are invalid because fail to take into account the umbrella effect of cloud cover in their calculations. A year earlier, Lord Monckton made the same point but he was ridiculed because he was no scientist.

Also, two years ago researchers in Australia concluded the current warming period on the planet was likely attributable to natural temperature trends that predated human industrialization. “After applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution,” the Australian team noted. “Our new technical paper … will likely be ignored,” one of the researchers wrote for The Spectator Australia. He was right  

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. 

Gregory Wrightstone of Pittsburgh, puts climate change into a geologic context of billions of years — a perspective derived from the author’s 35 years as a geologist. He states humans have thrived in previous periods significantly warmer than our modern age, most recently in the 13th century when Vikings farmed Greenland and citrus grew in England. Conversely, people have suffered during cold periods such as the Little Ice Age (1290-1850), which was marked by famine and disease.

The global alarmists have succeeded in getting governments and states around the world to subsidize solar and wind energy projects, install solar panels, and use hybrid and electric vehicles, a total waste of money. Wind and solar energy are much more expensive sources of energy than fossil fuels. One estimate is that the cost of such subsidies to date is one and a half trillion dollars and growing. The subsidies have made millionaires and perhaps a few billionaires without any effect at all on global warming.

To pay for the steps to be taken, a group headed by Ted Halstead, a climate activist whose principal intellectual achievement is that he got an MPA degree from the Kennedy School at Harvard proposes a carbon tax. Sponsors include three well-known economists George Schultz, Martin Feldstein, and N. Gregory Mankiw businessmen, an investment banker, and former government officials. The sponsors call their proposal “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” The very title of the proposal is deceptive. Their principal proposal is a carbon tax intended to discourage the burning of fossil fuel.

Only three of the sponsors are economists. Yet they were influential enough to get 3500 economists to sign on to the proposal. It is hard to believe that economists are so gullible.  As the papers published in Finland and Japan, which preceded their endorsement and publication of the proposal, the burning of fossil fuels is causing an insignificant amount of global warming. All climate change appears to be the result of natural factors originating in solar activity.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Nov 2019
    Oct 2019
    Sep 2019

    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation

    Last 100 Years
    Politics
    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade
    Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]