Climate Change Action Plan Final Version To P And S Committee: Fill & Download for Free

Of course major changes in the climate are real, what is unreal and in dispute is whether human emissions of trace amounts of Co2 is triggering rapid and dangerous warming of the planet. This view is unfounded pseudo-science as explained so well by Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaevar in his acceptance speech.Physics Nobel Laureate; "Global Warming" is PseudoscienceProfessor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong". This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates. The 2015 speech by Prof Giaever is here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_U...I have enumerated 10 key reasons why climate change redefined is unreal.WEATHER: same old variable seasons and temperatures no obvious change except colder weather overall. There is lots of rain, snow and little evidence of droughts or long term heat waves like the dirty thirties. Record colder winter storms are recurring and deny any climate crisis.DOUBT: too much uncertainty about the radical claim that humans recently (last 100 years) have had a warming effect on the climate to the point of crisis.DECEPTION: major evidence of data tampering of temperature data to make models and graphs show much more warming than in fact is actually happening.FRAUD: Alarmists like Justin Trudeau, Al Gore and Barack Obama are guilty of a scam when they dub carbon dioxide carbon pollution. Co2 is invisible trace gas and non toxlc as it is infact the air we breathe out at 35,000 ppmCONTRADICTIONS: leading alarmist cry coastal cities will drown from sea level rise and then they build extravagant coastal fine waterfront properties for their homes.EVIDENCE: there is no evidence of a climate crisis based on predictions of a too hot climate in the next few decades.HISTORY: climate history shows temperatures are chaotic and constantly swinging between high and low and there is no trend except over long time scales in millions of years.MISREPRESENTATIONS:alarmists make the false claim that 97% of scientist support their views of a climate crisis which is bunk as there is not even 3% support.FOOLED BY RANDOMNESS; The alleged climate crisis is based on too short time scale with the data only covering a couple of decades at most and ignoring the clear evidence of cooling in the sixties.CARBON DIOXIDE: when you think about the positive aspects of this marvelous gas and that it is the air we breathe and essential by the chemistry of photosynthesis to all plant life it cannot be pollution or the demon of climate.CONSENSUS: is not part of the scientific method and uncertainty and coubt are paths to progress in science.There is no unprecedented warming. The earth is cooling- winters are early and harsh with record cold and massive snowfall.How was the public duped into believing we are heading into a too hot catastrophe? Yes mostly the result of fear mongering with misleading data about dangers of warming becoming an uncritical social movement based more on faith than science.I also think the internet spewing out the fake Al Gore inconvenient truth graphs and videos on the internet played a role.The science blaming trace amounts of Co2 as the control knob of big climate changes is demolished as pseudo-science in the acceptance speech video of Nobel Laureate Dr. Iva Giaever viewed by millions…The most deceptive lie that continues today is the claim that ‘carbon pollution’ is the evil to be stamped out. But first CO2 is not carbon as the solid form is dry ice. There is no carbon in the atmosphere and the science is crystal clear Co2 is non-toxic and non polluting as it is the air we breathe out and essential to the marvelous photosynthesis process of plant growth. Reducing you carbon footprint is impossible as Co2 is invisible.You will remember the substance of this graph from your high school days.Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Energy | CK-12 FoundationThe grand pollution deception invoked by most politicians and governments and the basis of the PARIS ACCORD is to lead the public on a false mission of pollution reduction by attacking the so called climate effects of Co2.It is a classic bait and switch trick with pollution the bait and climate change the switch.Think about it when you breathe out, the air is full of invisible carbon dioxide at 35,000 ppm do you think you are breathing out pollution?It is no answer to say well if the amount goes higher than 400 ppm it becomes toxic, medical carbon dioxide uses a 20,000 ppm for baby incubators of surgery and commercial greenhouses use as much as 2000 ppm 7/24. Further submarine sailors suffer no health problems at 7000 ppm 7.24.New Italian petition urges governments to abandon the idea of a climate crisis based on fossil fuels.“The scientists argue that a nation’s policies with regard to global warming should not be based on hysterics but should be “consistent with scientific knowledge.”They state flatly that “the anthropogenic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis, deduced only from some climate simulation models.” In other words, the entire catastrophic global warming scare rests on very imprecise and almost invariably wrong simulation models, which cannot account for natural variability.“Natural variability,” in fact, “explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.” It is irresponsible and unrealistic to blame warming on human beings, and further, it’s nonsense to believe all the doom and gloom warnings. The climate simulation models “overestimate the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability.”The scientists completely blow up the myth that science is in any way based on a show of hands.”A quick insight to all of the above is found in the petition signed by 90 Italian scientists denying there is a climate crisis and that Co2 is a pollution problem.Groups of leading scientists around the world are signing petitions telling governments to back off the attack on fossil fuels as alarmism science is much too uncertain.“90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 2019NOTE: The English version of the petition that follows below is an unpolished translation of the original Italian version. The English version still needs to be polished up a bit, but it fully and accurately conveys the overall thrust of the original Italian version.In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human causeof current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.”http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…“90 Italian scientists reject global warming in petition to Italian leadersBy YEN MAKABENTAJuly 13, 2019YEN MAKABENTAFirst word“ONLY two months away from the convening of a climate action summit in New York, the United Nations has been rocked by news of a petition signed by 90 of Italy’s leading scientists that was sent to the highest Italian leaders.It carried the title “Petition on Anthropogenic Global Warming,” and it was addressed to the president of the Republic, the president of the Senate, the president of the Chamber of Deputies, and the president of the Council.The scientists told the leaders that carbon dioxide’s impact on climate was “unjustifiably exaggerated,” and catastrophic predictions were “not realistic.”The story calls to mind that of another Italian, the great Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who is acknowledged as the father of the scientific method. He was forced to recant his views during the Inquisition, and then was proved overwhelmingly right.Petition on global warmingI reproduce below key excerpts from the scientists’ petition:“The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.“In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.“But we must be aware that carbon dioxide is itself not a pollutant. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.“In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.“This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.“In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by an intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control…“However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis, deduced only from some climate models, that is, complex computer programs called General Circulation Models.“On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.“This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.“The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore unjustifiably exaggerated, and catastrophic predictions are not realistic.“The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.“Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years.“These periods of the past have also been warmer than the present period, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.“It is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.“All the evidence suggests that these models overestimate the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon and ocean oscillations.“Finally, the media has released the message of an almost unanimous consensus among scientists.“The alleged consensus does not exist. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists — climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists — many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.“There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.“In conclusion, given the crucial importance that fossil fuels have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that our leaders should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with illusory pretense of controlling the climate.”The driving force behind the petition was a “promoting committee” of eight prominent Italian scientists and experts, with 90 more Italian scientists signing the document.What now for global climate catastrophe?The detailed letter to lawmakers challenges the claim that man is causing catastrophic global warming, and that carbon dioxide emissions are the culprit.The scientists argue that a nation’s policies with regard to global warming should not be based on hysterics but should be “consistent with scientific knowledge.”They state flatly that “the anthropogenic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis, deduced only from some climate simulation models.” In other words, the entire catastrophic global warming scare rests on very imprecise and almost invariably wrong simulation models, which cannot account for natural variability.“Natural variability,” in fact, “explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.” It is irresponsible and unrealistic to blame warming on human beings, and further, it’s nonsense to believe all the doom and gloom warnings. The climate simulation models “overestimate the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability.”The scientists completely blow up the myth that science is in any way based on a show of hands.They are living proof that “the alleged consensus (on global warming) does not exist.” Their petition itself demonstrates clearly the absence of a scientific consensus on the matter.The list of signers includes professors of physics, atmospheric physics, physical chemistry, natural sciences, environmental engineering, astronomy, applied geology, volcanology, meteorology and climatology, oceanography, satellite interferometry, hydrogeology, and probability and mathematical statistics. In other words, they are outstanding and highly credentialed scientists. They know what they are talking about.Will UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres answer them? What happens now to his forecast of global climate catastrophe?The ship of climate change is [email protected] belongs to : www.manilatimes.net”Historically the earth is starved at only 400 ppm as on average Co2 has for most of history exceeded 1000 ppm.Seeing that life flourished at 5000 ppm CO2, and seeing we could never push it that high, it is reasonable to assume we will never be harmed by CO2. We have 40,000 ppm CO2 in our lungs every time we breath, 24/7. The Earth is greening. CO2 is entirely beneficial - #CelebrateCO2!Dr. Patrick MooreWhat is the most iconic image for climate change and Co2? If you google carbon pollution what images? Answer WASHINGTON POST ST0RY IN MARCH 2019 -"We Are in Deep Trouble": Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global SetbackCHRIS MOONEY & BRADY DENNIS, THE WASHINGTON POST27 MAR 2019Global energy experts released grim findings Monday, saying that not only are planet-warming carbon-dioxide emissions still increasing, but the world's growing thirst for energy has led to higher emissions from coal-fired power plants than ever before.What is wrong with this story? Answer: carbon dioxide is invisible - remember when you breathe you do not see lack smoke.The deception of calling Co2 carbon pollution is deliberate and intended to gain support for a broad attack on fossil fuels and blame humans for the weather.Co2 is the air we breathe out at 35,000 ppm and it is non-toxic and entirely beneficial.By high school students knew about photosynthesis.This question exposes a key problem in the climate debates where the lefty political leaders including Justin Trudeau, Al Gore and Barack Obama misused science to mislead the public about the very heart of the alleged climate crisis. They frequently referred to ‘carbon pollution’ when they meant carbon dioxide.Hard to believe that this is just an innocent mistake as from high school days they knew about photosynthesis and Co2 as plant food and that it is the air we breathe.There are many examples of Trudeau, Obama and Gore and others misleading the public by calling Co2 carbon pollution.“Obama says carbon pollution caps will 'protect health of vulnerable' – as it happenedEPA unveils proposal to cut carbon emissions at power plantsGore: 'most important step' on climate in US historyPlants to cut pollution 30% from 2005 levels by 2030Critics say plan too costly – or cuts not deep enough….President Barack Obama will outline new regulations to cut carbon emissions to 30% of 2005 levels by 2030. Photograph: Susan Walsh/APHigher electricity bills and more blackouts: that's what the average American can expect from the proposed new EPA rules, according to one very interested party, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) digs into a press release quoting president ACCCE president Mike Duncan:“Sadly, EPA’s proposed regulations put America’s low- and middle-income families most at risk of paying disproportionately more for energy," Duncan said. "More so, the rule threatens the energy reliability and economic promise we enjoy today. Only by recognizing the importance of an energy portfolio rich in fuel source diversity will we preserve America’s access to stable and affordable power.Ref. Obama says carbon pollution caps will 'protect health of vulnerable' – as it happenedCarbon pollution does not exist in science - it is an invented boggy man to scare the public.Photosynthesis uses the air we breathe out full of Co2 at 35,000 ppm to complete in the fundamental life giving chemical process converting light into energy for plants.Co2 is actually green as it feeds plants and helps deserts retain water. Evidence abounds how the earth is greening from recent increase in Co2.“The Earth has been rapidly greening in recent decades, and CO2 fertilization may explain 70% of the trend (Zhu et al., 2016). A new study finds models have significantly underestimated the greening effect of rising CO2.Image Source: Winkler et al., 2019CO2 is a pollutant?In recent years, carbon dioxide (CO2), an essential ingredient in plants’ food-making processes (photosynthesis), has been unscientifically cast as a villainous pollutant.This colloquial development has been fomented by climate activists like Dr. Michael Mann, an atmospheric scientist who routinely characterizes rising CO2 concentrations as “global warming pollution.”’New Study: The Recent CO2 Increase Has Had An Even Greater Earth-Greening Impact Than Previously ThoughtWhat do scientists say about the reality of Co2 as a pollutant?Have a quick read at how leading scientists explain the non-toxic reality of Co2.“Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not PollutionCarbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and the global warming debate has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current global warming debate is about - greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution.People are confusing smog, carbon monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere - carbon dioxide (CO2). Real air pollution is already regulated under the 1970's Clean Air Act and regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner".They are also misled to believe that CO2 is polluting the oceans through acidification but there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about current measurements of ocean water pH and a future rise in pCO2 will likely yield growth benefits to corals and other sea life.Thus, regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through either 'carbon taxes', 'cap and trade' or the EPA will cause all energy prices (e.g. electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil) to skyrocket."CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality."- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, MIT"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet."- John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science."- Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."- S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia"To state in public that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is a public advertisement of a lack of basic school child science. Pollution kills, carbon dioxide leads to the thriving of life on Earth and increased biodiversity. Carbon dioxide is actually plant food."- Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned."- Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant."- Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University"C02 is not a pollutant as Gore infers. It is, in fact essential to life on the planet. Without it there are no plants, therefore no oxygen and no life. At 385 ppm current levels the plants are undernourished. The geologic evidence shows an average level of 1000 ppm over 600 million years. Research shows plants function most efficiently at 1000-2000 ppm. Commercial greenhouses use the information and are pumping C02 to these levels and achieve four times the yield with educed water use. At 200 ppm, the plants suffer seriously and at 150 ppm, they begin to die. So if Gore achieves his goal of reducing C02 he will destroy the planet."- Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product."- Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land."- David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth."- Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany"To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practiced by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma - not science)."- Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants."- Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry”http://www.populartechnology.net...BUT SHAKING THE FALSE REALITY OF CO2 WILL BE A DIFFICULT TASK BECAUSE OF THE ‘SOCIAL MOVEMENT.’What is the most startling fact about climate change?QUORAAlistair Riddoch, studied at York UniversityAnswered Dec 25I have been startled since day one that anybody actually believes humans can cause it.Haven’t we learned from the many times throughout history where some people have claimed to other people that humans can influence weather or climate?All the Gods that have been made up that can cause tidal waves, winds, rain, extreme sea level rise and global flooding.This is at least the 50th instance where humans have been asked to believe. Almost every civilization has had some form of it or another. Chinese, Japanese, Egyption, Greeks, Romans, Native Americans, Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, The Norse, the Celts, The Saxons, the Turks, various African cultures, aboriginal Australians, Philippines, Koreans, Vietnamese.Noah’s Ark. Thanksgiving. Rain Dances.Just look up any of the lists of “Sky Deities”, or “Sea Deities” or “Sun Deities”.Each time, the public have been told by their Elders, or Monarchs, or Emperors, or Pharaohs, or Medicine Men, or priests, preachers, ministers, Popes, etc (authority figures), that modification of human behaviour is the way to control the weather, or the climate.Make this offering or sacrifice. Pray on this schedule. Perform this dance, ritual or ceremony.I am startled people don’t recognize this and say “Wait a minute, you expect us to believe this time, plot re-use #46 or #56 or whichever number the current claims are, this time, the claims are supposedly true, even though we know every single other such claim has been 100% false??”I am startled that people are not universally skeptical.Is it just too strong a trust in authority?Or is it the common belief that rich=bad and poor equals the burdened martyr?Is it that everyone wants an opportunity to be saviours?Is it that everyone wants someone to point a finger at?What is it that drives people to be so easily convinced?That is what startles me.Are we still, now, in the 21st century as easy to fool as the people who have believed in “The Great Flood” and gone looking for the remains of the Ark?Noah's Ark Found in Turkey?Have we really progressed so little, that all you have to do is say “science” and people believe as though it is gospel truth?”I give the last word on this to Dr. Tim Ball who castigated the UN IPCC for the false the hockey stick graph of past temperatures and won the libel case brought by Michael Mann trying to shut down Ball’s stinging and valid criticisms.“PREFACETO BOOK“I’ve studied climate both scientifically and academically for over forty years after spending eight years studying meteorology and observing the weather as an air crew and operations officer in the Canadian Air force. When I began the academic portion of my career, global cooling was the concern, but it was not a major social theme. During the 1980s the concern switched to global warming which he became a major political, social and economic issue.I watched my chosen discipline– climatology– get hijacked exploited in service of a political agenda, watched people who knew little or nothing enter the fray and watched scientists become involved for political and funding reasons-willing to corrupt the science , or, at least, ignore what was really going on. The tail is more than a sad story because it set climatology back 30 years and damaged the credibility of science in general.It also undermines the environmental movement by incorrectly claiming massive environmental damage and setting up a classic ‘cry wolf’ scenario. It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage is yet to be exposed and measured.There have been of course, other sad deceptions throughout history, but all of them were regional, or, at most, continental. The Deceptive idea that human– generated Co2 causes global warming or climate change impacts every person in the entire world, thus it reflects Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the global village. This book shows how the deception was designed to be global by involving every nation through the agencies of the United Nations. Historians with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight will wonder how such a small group was able to achieve such a massive deception. There are several reasons why the public was deceived.1. The objective and therefore the science were meditated.2. The scientific focus was deliberately narrowed to CO2.3. From the start unaccountable government agencies were involved and in control.4. Science and political structures and procedures were put in place to enhance the deception.5. Actions were taken to block or divert challenges.6. The people’s natural fears about change and catastrophe were exploited.7. The public’s lack of scientific understanding, especially with regard to climate science, was exploited.8. People find it hard to believe a deception on such a grand scale couldn’t occur.9. Opponents were ruthlessly attacked, causing others to remain silentSome call the human – caused global warming theme a hoax, but that is incorrect: a hoax is defined as a humorous or malicious deception. The Piltdown man was a hoax for perpetrated by one academic to expose the arrogance and pomposity of another. Its impact was in academia but had little relevance in the real world. There is nothing humorous about the corruption of climate science. Further, a political objective need not be malevolent; however the methods used to achieve the goals are assuredly ugly, malicious and wrong.Some have called the corruption of climate science a conspiracy partly because conspiratorial themes are fueled by speculation on the Internet. But a conspiracy is defined as a secret plan to do something unlawful or harmful. There is no doubt what the activists have done is harmful, but pursuing a political goal is lawful. What is unlawful is using deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying the scientific method and research. Indeed, it is amazing how they deceived the entire world through using existing laws and societal structures; it fits the classic description of daylight robbery.It is more appropriate to identify the group as a cabal: a secret political clique or faction. This book explains their motive and objectives which were political, not scientific. It explains how in order to do this they bypassed and converted the scientific method–the normal and proper method by which science progresses. They effectively silenced scientist who tried to perform the normal roles of critics and skepticsConsider this brave but late admission German physicist meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus:Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data… first I started with the sense of doubt, but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what IPCC and the media had been telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by many scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.… scientifically it is sheer absurdity to Think we can get a nice climate by turning a Co2 adjustment knob.The Role of Extremists…In the moral vacuum created by the defeat of religion by science many sought a new belief system. Environmentalism fits the bill. It harkened back to the worship of nature, known as animism, of non—Christian societies. Ironically, in becoming the new religion, environmentalism became dogmatic like all religionsSo, in the Western world we moved from the dogmatism of Christianity to the dogmatism of science and then to the dogmatism of environmentalism. It is unsurprising that Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and lead editor of the first three IPCC Reports confronted the dilemmas in an article for The Global Conversation:…At the basis of all scientific work are the ‘laws’ of nature– for instance, the laws of gravity, thermodynamics and electromagnetism and the puzzling concepts in mathematics of quantum mechanics. Where do they come from? Scientist don’t invent; they are there to be discovered. With God as Creator, they are Gods laws and the science we do is God’s science.The earth is the Lords and everything in it (Psalm 24), and Jesus is the agent that Redeemer of all creation ( John 1: 2 ).A special responsibility that God has given to humans, created in His image, is to look after and care for creation (Genesis 2:15) Today the impacts of unsustainable use of resources, rapidly increasing human population and the threat of climate change almost certainly add up to the largest and most urgent challenge the world has ever had to fact—all of us are involved in the challenge, whether as scientists, policy makers, Christians or whoever we are.”The Truth about the past -There is no carbon pollution, global warming or global cooling. We are living in the interglacial comfort of the Holocene Period of the Quaternary Ice Age. Get used to colder weather as it could get much worse.Extreme Weather GSMTHE CONTINENTAL U.S. JUST SET IT’S COLDEST-EVER OCTOBER TEMPERATURE, BREAKING THE PREVIOUS RECORD FROM 1917OCTOBER 29, 2019 CAP ALLONThe western U.S. was blasted by a yet ANOTHER brutal Arctic air mass yesterday, Oct 28, with this one delivering the COLDEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.Peter Sinks, Utah –east of Logan– broke the Lower-48’s cold temperature record for the month of October on Monday morning with a staggering reading of minus 35 degrees.The area is know for it’s cold temperatures thanks to its high elevation (8,164 ft) as well as its unique topography, said Chicago meteorologist Tom Skilling.“It is a basin a half mile (804.67 meters) in diameter with no outlet, like a large bowl. Cold air collects in the basin on clear, calm nights,” Skilling said. “Very low temperatures can occur there, especially during outbreaks of arctic air in the winter.”The weather station located at the bottom of the sink took the -35F (-37.2C) reading at approximately 6:15AM on Monday morning, Oct 28 — beating-out the previous record low of -33F (-36.1C) set way back in 1917 (just after weak solar cycle 14, which was similar to the cycle we’ve just experienced, 24).Forgive me but I’d like to type it again, the Lower-48 just broke it’s coldest-ever temperature record for the month of October. And in addition, and perhaps even more astonishingly, the record may not even last that long — another all-time low mark is expected to be reached overnight Wednesday.Brutal Arctic air will continue to be funneled southwards from Canada by a dominant meridional (wavy) jet stream flow, which itself is associated with historically low solar activity.“That dip in the jet stream will slowly migrate eastward late in the week taking the colder air with it,” reports the Weather Channel.In neighboring Colorado, record-breaking cold is forecast Tuesday and Wednesday, with the front expected to expand eastward, hitting the Great Plains on Wednesday, the Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys on Thursday, and the East Coast late Friday and into Saturday, according to the NSW — record cold and snow are predicted throughout the vast region.GFS TEMP ANOMALY (C) OCT 28 to NOV 4

No. There is no climate crisis except in the minds of some politicians with a strong lefty bias. There are only spooky exaggerations based on shoddy and pseudo science for the fears of rising seas, melting glaciers and extinctions. On the other hand the actions urged by the Paris Accord and other attacks on fossil fuels are having devastating effects. For example more die in the UK from heat poverty than road accidents due to 50% increase in electricity from useless wind and solar subsidies.Freezing to death when the choice is between heat and eat!The best retort to the belief in a fake climate crisis comes from the recent petition of 90 Italian leading scientist urging governments to hold off taking action on warming because of uncertainty. The Italian petition shows that warming has been inconsistent from the start of the alarmist campaign.“It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.”The full terms of the Italian petition follows -90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”By P Gosselin on4. July 2019NOTE: The English version of the petition that follows below is an unpolished translation of the original Italian version. The English version still needs to be polished up a bit, but it fully and accurately conveys the overall thrust of the original Italian version.In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. Source. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leadersTo the President of the RepublicTo the President of the SenateTo the President of the Chamber of DeputiesTo the President of the CouncilPETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.This uncertainty is enormous.In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.http://www.opinione.it/…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/…PROMOTING COMMITTEE:Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society.Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union.Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center.Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara.Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001.Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics.Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples.SIGNATORIESAntonino Zichichi, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Bologna, Founder and President of the Ettore Center for Scientific Culture Majorana di Erice.Renato Angelo Ricci, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Padua, former President of the Italian Society of Physics and Society European Physics; Galileo Movement 2001.Aurelio Misiti, Professor of Health-Environmental Engineering, University of Sapienza, Rome.Antonio Brambati, Professor of Sedimentology, University of Trieste, Project Manager Paleoclima-mare of PNRA, already President of the National Oceanography Commission.Cesare Barbieri, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, University of Padua.6. Sergio Bartalucci, Physicist, President of the Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.7. Antonio Bianchini, Professor of Astronomy, University of Padua.8. Paolo Bonifazi, former Director of the Institute of Interplanetary Space Physics, National Astrophysical Institute.9. Francesca Bozzano, Professor of Applied Geology, Sapienza University of Rome, Director of the CERI Research Center.10. Marcello Buccolini, Professor of Geomorphology, University University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.11. Paolo Budetta, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Naples.12. Monia Calista, Researcher in Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.13. Giovanni Carboni, Professor of Physics, Tor Vergata University, Rome; Galileo Movement 2001.14. Franco Casali, Professor of Physics, University of Bologna and Bologna Academy of Sciences.15. Giuliano Ceradelli, Engineer and climatologist, ALDAI.16. Domenico Corradini, Professor of Historical Geology, University of Modena.17. Fulvio Crisciani, Professor of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, University of Trieste and Marine Sciences Institute, Cnr, Trieste.18. Carlo Esposito, Professor of Remote Sensing, La Sapienza University, Rome.19. Mario Floris, Professor of Remote Sensing, University of Padua.20. Gianni Fochi, Chemist, Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa; scientific journalist.21. Mario Gaeta, Professor of Volcanology, La Sapienza University, Rome.22. Giuseppe Gambolati, Fellow of the American Geophysica Union, Professor of Numerical Methods, University of Padua.23. Rinaldo Genevois, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Padua.24. Carlo Lombardi, Professor of Nuclear Plants, Milan Polytechnic.25. Luigi Marino, Geologist, Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.26. Salvatore Martino, Professor of Seismic Microzonation, La Sapienza University, Rome.27. Paolo Mazzanti, Professor of Satellite Interferometry, La Sapienza University, Rome.28. Adriano Mazzarella, Professor of Meteorology and Climatology, University of Naples.29. Carlo Merli, Professor of Environmental Technologies, La Sapienza University, Rome.30. Alberto Mirandola, Professor of Applied Energetics and President of the Research Doctorate in Energy, University of Padua.31. Renzo Mosetti, Professor of Oceanography, University of Trieste, former Director of the Department of Oceanography, Istituto OGS, Trieste.32.Daniela Novembre, Researcher in Mining Geological Resources and Mineralogical Applications, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti Pescara.33. Sergio Ortolani, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Padua.34. Antonio Pasculli, Researcher of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.35. Ernesto Pedrocchi, Professor Emeritus of Energetics, Polytechnic of Milan.36. Tommaso Piacentini, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.37. Guido Possa, nuclear engineer, formerly Deputy Minister Miur.38. Mario Luigi Rainone, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Chieti-Pescara.39. Francesca Quercia, Geologist, Research Director, Ispra.40. Giancarlo Ruocco, Professor of Structure of Matter, La Sapienza University, Rome.41. Sergio Rusi, Professor of Hydrogeology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.42. Massimo Salleolini, Professor of Applied Hydrogeology and Environmental Hydrology, University of Siena.43. Emanuele Scalcione, Head of Regional Agrometeorological Service Alsia, Basilicata.44. Nicola Sciarra, Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.45. Leonello Serva, Geologist, Director of Geological Services of Italy; Galileo Movement 2001.46. Luigi Stedile, Geologist, Geological Risk Review and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome.47. Giorgio Trenta, Physicist and Physician, President Emeritus of the Italian Association of Medical Radiation Protection; Galileo Movement 2001.48. Gianluca Valenzise, Director of Research, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome.49. Corrado Venturini, Professor of Structural Geology, University of Bologna.50. Franco Zavatti, Astronomy Researcher, University of Bologna.51. Achille Balduzzi, Geologist, Agip-Eni.52. Claudio Borri, Professor of Construction Sciences, University of Florence, Coordinator of the International Doctorate in Engineering Civil.53. Pino Cippitelli, Agip-Eni Geologist.54. Franco Di Cesare, Executive, Agip-Eni.55. Serena Doria, Researcher of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.56. Enzo Siviero, Professor of Ponti, University of Venice, Rector of the e-Campus University.57. Pietro Agostini, Engineer, Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research.58. Donato Barone, Engineer.59. Roberto Bonucchi, Teacher.60. Gianfranco Brignoli, Geologist.61. Alessandro Chiaudani, Ph.D. agronomist, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.62. Antonio Clemente, Researcher in Urban Planning, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.63. Luigi Fressoia, urban architect, Perugia.64. Sabino Gallo, nuclear engineer.65. Daniela Giannessi, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.66. Roberto Grassi, Engineer, Director of G&G, Rome.67. Alberto Lagi, Engineer, President of Restoration of Complex Damaged Plants.68. Luciano Lepori, Ipcf-Cnr Researcher, Pisa.69. Roberto Madrigali, Metereologo.70. Ludovica Manusardi, Nuclear physicist and scientific journalist, Ugis.71. Maria Massullo, Technologist, Enea-Casaccia, Rome.72. Enrico Matteoli, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa.73. Gabriella Mincione, Professor of Sciences and Techniques of Laboratory Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara.74. Massimo Pallotta, First Technologist, National Institute for Nuclear Physics.75. Enzo Pennetta, Professor of Natural Sciences and scientific divulger.76. Nunzia Radatti, Chemist, Sogin.77. Vincenzo Romanello, Nuclear Engineer, Research Center, Rez, Czech Republic.78. Alberto Rota, Engineer, Researcher at Cise and Enel.79. Massimo Sepielli, Director of Research, Enea, Rome.80. Ugo Spezia, Engineer, Industrial Safety Manager, Sogin; Galileo Movement 2001.81. Emilio Stefani, Professor of Plant Pathology, University of Modena.82. Umberto Tirelli, Visiting Senior Scientist, Istituto Tumori d’Aviano; Galileo Movement 2001.83. Roberto Vacca, Engineer and scientific writer.FOLLOW UP OPINION - What now for global climate catastrophe?“90 Italian scientists reject global warming in petition to Italian leadersThis question about early snowstorms in Montana opens a critical issue not well addressed by many answers so far and that is, why did the UN IPCC and 97% clearly predict moderate winters and the end of snow?The answer will shoot a fatal dart through the heart of the so called climate crisis. The earth is cooling everywhere and it is now obvious to all that there is no global warming climate crisis.You would need to be batty to think early snowstorms in Montana are evidence of a climate getting dangerously too hot.But this early snowy weather is relevant to the disputed climate change or global warming in this way or that the new warming is cooling?There is one science term, ‘THE ALBEDO’, that is crucial to the special significance of snow as it explains the basis of a cooling cycle building on itself as 90 % of warming sunlight fails to happen because the snow reflects it back into the atmosphere.“Thermodynamics: AlbedoAlbedo is a non-dimensional, unitless quantity that indicates how well a surface reflects solar energy. Albedo (α) varies between 0 and 1. Albedo commonly refers to the "whiteness" of a surface, with 0 meaning black and 1 meaning white. A value of 0 means the surface is a "perfect absorber" that absorbs all incoming energy. Absorbed solar energy can be used to heat the surface or, when sea ice is present, melt the surface. A value of 1 means the surface is a "perfect reflector" that reflects all incoming energy.Albedo generally applies to visible light, although it may involve some of the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. You understand the concept of low albedo intuitively when you avoid walking barefoot on blacktop on a hot summer day. Blacktop has a much lower albedo than concrete because the black surface absorbs more energy and reflects very little energy.Sea ice has a much higher albedo compared to other earth surfaces, such as the surrounding ocean. A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy. The sea ice absorbs less solar energy and keeps the surface cooler.Snow has an even higher albedo than sea ice, and so thick sea ice covered with snow reflects as much as 90 percent of the incoming solar radiation. This serves to insulate the sea ice, maintaining cold temperatures and delaying ice melt in the summer. “National Snow and Ice Data CenterThe snow albedo effect is one of the key reasons winter weather has a unique place in the climate debate not given to any other type of severe weather.IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of personkind…IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeTHEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”warmer-winters-ipccWhy did 2007 : Die Zeit…“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”THE END OF SNOW QUOTES ARE NOW LAUGHABLE THEY HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE SO WRONG, BUT THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE HERE.THE END OF SNOW AND THE “97% of Experts” Agreed Too!2000 : a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research…“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif2000 : Spiegel…“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”2004 : Mark Lynas told us…“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas2005 : Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel…Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”2005 : George Monbiot on climate change and snow…Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…2006 : Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg …“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”Less Snow and Drier Summers in German Forecast | Germany| News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | 30.04.20062006 : The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”…The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”…“It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.2007 : Schleswig Holstein NABU…“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office…Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”Why was predictions about winter weather so important as evidence of global warming?In fact the whole thesis of man made global warming is based on the view current warming is happening so fast it threatens our survival. The whole alarmism hangs on this thread - recent warming is unprecedented. While it has been warmer in the past but this warming is happening faster - really - what about the pause and record cold winters. The public are not duped .WHY 97% CONSENSUS ABOUT THE END OF SNOW?This is a vital question and the answer punctures the human caused Co2 climate change meme.The alarmists claimed that the climate will become too hot and cause a ‘catastrophe’ for human civilization. With this view of the future of course winters must end as they moderate a too hot summer preventing a climate crisis. This predictions puts winter weather in play in a way all other weather is not. Further, this prediction about moderate winters must happen or the apocalyptic view that human emissions of fossil fuels will create a climate crisis catastrophe is just fiction? There is no polar ice imagined in the future by the NOAA alarmists.NOAA PROJECTED END OF POLAR ICE AND SNOW BY 2085.FAILED. The prediction of moderate winters without the Arctic polar ice is bunk. Mother nature and natural variation wins over the discarded theories of the the 1800s. After 2000 Arctic ice expands and does not retreat as predicted. Here is reality not computer modeled political scaremongering -IMAGES | SEPTEMBER 20, 2000Global View of the Arctic Oceanhttps://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceim...NASA researchers have new [sic] insights into the mysteries of Arctic sea ice, thanks to the unique abilities of Canada's Radarsat satellite. The Arctic is the smallest of the world's four oceans, but it may play a large role in helping scientists monitor Earth's climate shifts.Using Radarsat's special sensors to take images at night and to peer through clouds, NASA researchers can now see the complete ice cover of the Arctic. This allows tracking of any shifts and changes, in unprecedented detail, over the course of an entire winter. The radar-generated, high-resolution images are up to 100 times better than those taken by previous satellites.Arctic ice is expanding further in 2018 not retreating.Also of course the world continues to suffer brutal winters with massive snowfall. Mother nature has rebutted the alarmists with aplomb.“2008 : Another false prediction…A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. ”I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.2014 : the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…2017 : The Age’s resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam signalled the end of snow…Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope | The AGEAustralia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia's ski industry on a downhill slopeWRONG so much winter snow Australia has extended their ski season this past summer..Australia snow bus for skiers.‘END OF SNOW’ UPDATE : Natural Snow Depth In Australia The Highest In Two DecadesPosted: August 17, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Australia,Heaviest snow in years expected over WA’s Stirling Ranges this weekend as cold blast hits – ABC NewsSNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)***WEATHER is, of course, not climate.WE are keenly reminded of this fact by ourglobal warmingclimate change hysterical friends ‘if’ a significant snow event or cold blast is reported on the media.THOUGH, do keep in mind the “End-Of-World” prophecies declared by our same friends every time a two-day heat wave (in summer) is reported, on repeat, throughout the mainstream media.THE rules are simple – cold equals weather, hot equals climate!*SKIING in Australia takes place in the high country of the states of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, as well as in the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra), during the southern hemisphere winter. The season varies between ski fields and years, starting from mid June and ending mid October. The past three years have seen extended seasons across most higher altitude resorts.THE 2019 ski season started early after the heaviest May snow in decades across Australia’s east coast.WHILE most of the regular season since then has been ‘regular’, the latter half has been anything but, with the past two weeks seeing record snow dumps.OFFICIAL MEASUREMENTSSNOWY Hydro have been measuring weekly natural snow depths at three locations the Snowy Mountains of NSW since the 1950’s. Their highest measuring site is at Spencers Creek (1,830m elevation) near Charlotte Pass.THE latest readings have been impressive. Record-breaking, in fact …ACCORDING to Elders weather:The natural snow depth at Spencers Creek was 202.7cm this week. This is the earliest date for a depth of two metres to be measured at Spencers Creek in 15 years.It’s also an increase of 77.5cm from last week and, impressively, the third weekly increase of more than 70cm so far this season. This is a new record for Spencers Creek. Prior to 2019, there had only ever been two weekly depth increases 70cm or more in any one season, with data available back to 1954.While there have been some long periods without any significant snow this season, when it has snowed, it’s been exceptional in a historical context.Elders Weather*WITH more snow on the way this weekend for Australia’s ski fields, natural snow depth could reach its deepest level in two decades …”australia ski bus | Search Results | ClimatismWinter starts in October now in ALBERTA AND MONTANA“SNOWPOCALYPSE: Alberta To FREEZE This WeekendNICO JOHNSON2019-10-25 14:47:32There is severe winter weather coming to Alberta. Alongside the snow showers expected this weekend, Albertans are also going to have to suffer through 100 km/h winds, according to CTV news.To prepare for this Snowpocalypse, the RCMP are advising motorists to avoid driving this weekend due to poor road conditions, which have already created accidents on Highway 43.”Niagara falls frozen over winter of 2018THE BIGGEST MYTH OF ALL NO SNOWThe End of Snow? – The New York TimesHeavy snow forecast for the Australian Alps despite ski season ending a month ago“Australia’s snowfields have been overdosed by snow over the past 5+ years.”“DISAPPEARING” SNOW UPDATE – August 8, 2017Emergency services warn of avalanches in Victoria’s alpine regionTHE “Blizzard Of Oz” That Wasn’t Meant To Be | Climatism

George, I randomly stumbled upon this and re-called a research paper I wrote in college, that in part, may help answer this question. It has been reproduced below.Addressing Global Warming on a Global ScaleThe issue of climate change has been a significant point of discussion within political circles and media outlets worldwide. There is an international consensus within organizations dedicated to mitigating climate change that tackling the this worldwide challenge is best handled through multilateral agreement because climate change will affect all the countries of the world irrespective of whether or not they contributed to the problem. The United Nations has acted as a key force in bringing the many nations of the world together for meetings on appropriate strategies based on the key scientific evidence in regards to human-induced climate change.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) with the support and backing of the United Nations. The organization was created after scientific data supporting dramatic changes in the earth’s climate. Their main objective is published reports on the “the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation“.Based on their mission, assessments, and reports the IPCC supports the main international treaty on climate change established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (3). This international treaty, also known as the Kyoto Protocol, was created with the mission of “stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system (3).One of the main focuses of the IPPC is identifying climate change as a cause by human-induced activities rather than natural variability has dominated the discourse on climate change in the last decade (1). Particularly, the aim of the IPCC is to assess the scientific information from three major areas relating to the scientific data pertaining to human-induced climate change, the impacts of such climate change, and options for “adaption and mitigation” in response to the information assessed. The IPCC states that an overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that current shifts and pace of climate change are largely due to human-induced activity caused greenhouse gases; primarily due to the generation of electricity, land use changes such as deforestation), and from agriculture and transportation (2).It is interesting to note that the IPCC as an organization does not conduct original research of their own; but rather bases their reports and assessments based on many of the scientific research and literature from a variety of sources, with preference given to peer-reviewed sources, but may use non peer-reviewed literature if they are deemed of sufficient scientific quality.These reports are analyzed, written and contributed by thousands of experts in climate change from through the scientific community around the world. The researchers are nominated by their respective governments and formed into relevant research teams. The reports are then sent to over 120 governments for review. The IPCC reports contain a specific section titled “Summary for Policymakers,” which must be approved methodically line-by-line by delegates from all the participating governments on the panel (3). Therefore the IPCC can be viewed as a scientific body reporting on evidence based literature for climate change so that countries belonging to the United Nations and their respective governments can formulate their climate policy changes.So far the IPCC has published four different assessments reports (with the fifth to be finalized at the end of this year – 2014) that comprehensively review the most recent published literature of climate change from leading scientific experts throughout the world. The first assessment report (AR 1) was produced in 1990, AR 2 in 1995, AR 3 in 2001 and the latest one AR 4 in 2007. The latest AR 4 is the most comprehensive of all the reports and highlights the conclusions of all the previous assessment reports as well. The reports was contributed my members from over 120 countries, over 2500 scientific experts, and over 800 contributing authors over a six year period (3).The conclusions of the report state that: changes in climate change are in large part due to the production of human-induced greenhouse gases, primarily from carbon dioxide, which is released into the atmosphere. Quoted directly from AR 4, the IPCC states that the “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level”. Another very starking and bold statement that the 4th Assessment Report from the IPCC states: “Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt” (6).The assessment report also stresses the need for governments and citizens to adopt measure to reduce vulnerability and the impact of global warming is real and will continue into the foreseeable future. The report also highlights keys issues of concern that should be taken into account by policy makers in national , regional and multinational agencies and gives a measure of cost analysis, infrastructure and technology required to minimize the impact of climate change.As stated earlier, the Fifth Assessment report by the IPCC is set to be completed at the end of this calendar year (2014). However, since these reports take years to compile and write, the IPCC has published the Working Group 1 report of AR5. There are many interesting statements made in this report in regards to the severity and pervasiveness of human-induced activity in affecting climate change. The report states that human influence on the climate system is clear, with a 95-100% scientific probability that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1901-2010. (6)A recurring theme in all assessment reports from the IPCC identifies three main areas of human-induced activities that are largely responsible for greenhouse gas emissions: that of which are energy use in industrial production and transportation where fossils fuels are burnt, agriculture and deforestation. Estimates presently show a 1.5F increase in temperature since the 1900’s and the potential of further increases in temperature in the range of 2 to 11.5ºF by 2100 (5).Plans to for Adaption and MitigationTo reduce greenhouse gases we must adopt more sustainable living patterns and alternative energy. Through a global effort of releasing less fossil fuels emissions and adopting green technology, global warming can be completely eliminated. IPPC, UNFCC (Kyoto Protocol) and UNEP are all organization between countries acting together and in an attempt to set environmental establishments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world. Through these international agreements, policy options and considerations for governments to help reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions have been voiced and formulated. The main policy initiatives have been suggested in the form of carbon emission taxing, solar energy alternatives and emission trading systems; all of which help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by government control. However, it is up to the countries individual governments to take such considerations into action and implement them within their respective areas.IPCC is of the view that although the bulk of greenhouse gases are produced in the industrialized countries, the impact of climate change is and will in the future be felt more in the developing countries (7). The IPCC states that due to the infancy of their industrialized production markets, developing countries are more vulnerable to producing vast fluctuations in greenhouse emission and therefore need to adapt their technology and production processes towards earlier to better suit and a cleaner environment. It is therefore imperative that more industrialized and financially powerful nations offer help and support to these developing countries to establish an infrastructure that supports the mission of the IPCC and UNFCCC. The fourth assessment report of the IPCC states that “Some planned adaptation (of human activities) is occurring now; more extensive adaptation is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change” (6)In 2010, the UNFCCC signed an agreement, known as the Copenhagen Accord, to provide financial assistance to developing countries to help mitigate the costs of establishing the appropriate technologies and infrastructure to reduce their carbon footprint. The Convention agreed to provide $30 billion to developing countries from industrialized nations to support climate change initiatives leading up to 2012, and a mandate to increase funding $100 billion by 2020 (7)).An agreement was also reached between the nations that set up a deal to reduce deforestation in return for “subsidized” cash from developed countries. But this part of the agreement lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the U.S. and others demanded, raising the issue of certainty whether another nation's pledge of financial commitment can be monitored and used efficiently.It has been criticized that a major drawback of international conventions such as the Kyoto Protocol is the main issue of regulation: there are no legally binding implications or regulations for reducing CO2 emissions that would help achieve their aim for keeping temperature rises below 2°C (8) . President Obama urged countries to show the world their achievements. He said that if they had waited for a binding agreement, no progress would have been made. Obama said: “This progress is not enough. We have come a long way, but we have much further to go” (8)Stronger proposals for climate control were drafted out final agreements made between the members of the protocol. This included earlier proposals that would have aimed to limit temperature rises to never rise above 1.5°C and to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 were drafted out at the last minute. Poor countries such as Africa supported this change. Developing nations saw the rejected proposals as an attempt by the rich world to thwart responsibility for climate change in order to protect economic growth. Personally, I see the summit’s inability to live up to the expectations of many due to a number of factors; most notably the recent global monetary crisis and politically conservative domestic pressure in the US and China. Coal is a major economic backbone for many countries and with stringent CO2 emissions reductions, economies would take a major hit in an already difficult recession.I believe the real work of coordinating international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions should rest directly upon on a small group of wealthy nations, primarily the United States and China, who combine for about half of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. These wealthy nations should be responsible for reducing 90% of global warming emissions. Is it not these industrialized nations who produce the chemicals that increasingly drive CO2 emissions higher and higher?One of the proposed methods to lower carbon dioxide emissions is through a cap and trade system currently being review by the Obama Administration. It is a method for managing pollution, specifically carbon dioxide emissions, with its primary goal of reducing the overall pollution in the United States. Many proponents of pollution control support the concept of cap and trade systems, arguing that they are extremely effective, and that they make sense economically. On the contrary, others say the cap and trade will do absolutely nothing; having the change to be corruptible and passing on the costs to the consumer.Under a cap and trade system, the government would first set an overall cap on the allowed amount of carbon emissions released by certain industries, and defining an overall total of how much carbon emissions will be allowed in the nation as a whole. Companies would therefore be issued carbon issues “credits” depending on their area of industry. These credits essentially act as licenses to pollute carbon into the atmosphere and are measures measured by the ton. By issuing licenses or permits, the government would set an enforceable limit (hence the term “camp”) on the company that is critical to meet emissions reductions guidelines. If a company’s carbon emissions are below their capped credit, they may sell the un-used credits to other companies for economic benefit.In the pure capitalistic society that we live in, with the free selling and trading of carbon permits, I believe the cap and trade system would always maximize the pollution to the highest enforceable limits allowed by the government for companies which cannot get their pollution under control, a cap and trade system penalizes them for their excess pollution, while still bringing overall pollution rates down to the cap set by the government. In a sense, the need to purchase credits acts as a fine, encouraging companies to reduce their emissions. The money made by the government from taxing carbon emissions will create a large and dependable revenue stream that can therefore be used to invest in alternative, green energy and climate mitigation.However, I think a major concern with the cap and trade system would is regulation and accountability of the companies, especially in underdeveloped or underserved nations. Strict government agencies must be established to monitor continuing emissions on a federal, regional, and statewide levels from all carbon-emitting companies to ensure that they are reporting their emissions accurately and truthfully, without fraud or noncompliance. Continuous monitoring would also help close the gap on the ultimate goal of reducing carbon emission to yield public health and environmental results. Databases with public access to emissions levels and allowance data should be setup up to provide access to complete, unrestricted data on trading, emissions, and compliance.In order for the cap and trade system to be effective, much planning into the implementation, maintenance, and progress of carbon emission mitigation would have to occur in the long run. This is simply not an overnight solution, but rather one that would take decades to formulate. Consistent implementation, review, and ratification of the enforced policy to meet the current environmental and financial market will have to be assessed. Remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day.ConclusionClimate change is one of humanity’s most pressing and difficult challenges. Without urgent and concerted action, climate change will seriously affect the way of life in all countries and threaten global security. Since climate change is a long-term problem, it cannot be addressed successfully through short-term, country-based actions alone. Resolving the climate crisis will require international cooperation at all levels—from bilateral to regional to global. Organizations such as IPCC that continue to promote their agendas through reporting scientific based findings are bringing awareness to the issue and planning for long-term change.There is no doubt that since 1990, the assessment reports released by the IPCC have profoundly impacted policies of climate change throughout all facets of government throughout the world in order avert the anticipated effects of global warming. In fact, the contributions of IPCC have been recognized as highly significant by the Nobel Prize Committee which named it as joint recipient (along with Al Gore) of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.References(1)Weart, Spencer (2011). ”International Cooperation: Democracy and Policy Advice”. The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. Accessed 30 May June 2014.(2)IPCC. Principles governing IPCC work”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 28 April 2006. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2014.(3)IPCC. “Organization”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2010. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml Accessed 30 May 2014.(4)Morita, T., et al., “Ch 2. Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Scenarios and Implications”, 2.5.1.1 IPCC Emissions Scenarios and the SRES Process, in Working Group 3. Accessed 1 June 2014(5)Borger, Julian (16 October 2006). “Global Warming: How History Is Being Manipulated to Undermine Calls for Action”. History News Network. Accessed 30 May 2014.(6)IPCC (11 November 2012). Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes, in: Summary for Policymakers IPCC AR4 WG1 2013, p. 13 Accessed 2 June 2014 http://www.climate2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf(7)IPCC (11 November 2013): Table SPM-2, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version), in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 21 Accessed 2 June 2014 http://www.climate2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf(8)Hansen, James; et al. (2012). “Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” Science 308 (5727): 1431–1435.