May 20, 2018

Tom Harris: Liberal carbon tax will do “virtually nothing” for global temperatures

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

 

On Friday’s show, I spoke with Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, about the Trudeau Liberals’ secretive climate change plan.

Watch as he explains what he found when he did the math that the Liberals won’t, and offers a suggestion to Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-05-25 19:33:45 -0400
Andrew you got to change your bs same shit you said to me
commented 2018-05-23 02:53:34 -0400
Thank you again Andrew Mirlach for “dusting Ms. Stephenson back from the plate”… Unfortunately, given past postings, it will not stop her and her ilk from parroting “the party line” again and again and again… (I’m guessing that being stems from the fact that they are paid for doing so?)… I can well remember the first version of this “global crisis B.S.” in the 70s when the “threat” was dangerous global cooling…(I was the environmental beat reporter for the St.Catharines Standard in those days..) Nobody from that crowd has ever acknowledged that this “the sky is falling” scenario was B.S. to this day… Correct me if I am wrong… So we went from “cooling” to “warming”, and when that didn’t pan out, to “climate change” – whatever that means!… Yes, the climate does change; always has… As the Bible says, “the sun also rises” but it DOESN’t radiate the same amount of energy from day to day to day… Or year to year to year… It should be evident to anybody with half a brain that “carbon taxation” is a game of fools directed at global wealth redistribution for the dictates of the “all-knowing” socialists who ALWAYS know “what is best for us”, even if they are obviously and blatantly clueless, but just can’t admit that the world – as Mommy told them – doesn’t revolve around their dimpled bum…
commented 2018-05-22 21:11:06 -0400
Andrew Mirlach, a friendly suggestion to you:
Copy and paste your comments into a Word file or use the search tool to find them again, Andrew Stephenson will post the same sh*t two weeks from now.
This is a mono-mania topic for her (yes her). Her other mono-mania topics include EV’s; all things LGBTQ2 plus (including bathrooms); abortions without limits…. Islamopandering and Trump bashing. I may have forgotten a few, but, you get the idea.

IMO, people with Asperger’s Syndrome tend to collect information and have difficulty applying it to real life.
commented 2018-05-22 18:42:54 -0400
“Why’d he pick 1959? Is he not doing exactly the same thing? Do you feel that global data predating satellites capable of measuring such things is comparable to data released by those satellites?” Why pick 1959? Maybe because that is the period of time covered by the Peer Reviewed Data NOAA mentioned? Who said anything about Satellites? It’s a Radiosonode record… And as for the Radiosonode record being comparable to Satellites, they compare very nicely. As seen in this graph showing something like 35 million Radiosonode readings compared to the Satellite record and the invalidated IPCC Models.

https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg

“This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.

Don’t underestimate the importance of the blue-green circles and squares that mark the “observations”. These are millions of radiosondes, and two independent satellite records. They agree. There is no wiggle room, no overlap.

Any sane modeler can only ask: “But how can the climate modelers pretend their models are working?”

Regarding your lie about the predictions being for a century and us needing more time before we call them invalid… “Considering they’re projections for say a century from now it’s a bit premature to call the predictions “wrong”. The data we have now does not refute current hypotheses.”

Lets hear what the actual Modelers said… NOAA, NASA, the UK MET of cLIEmate Gate infamy and the IPCC all said only 15 years of divergance from the model PREDICTIONS would be needed to invalidate the CAGW hypothesis.

NOAA had this to say about the CAGW Model PREDICTIONS… (Projections are never mentioned in the Scientific Method. Projecting is some thing left wing loons do.)

“According to NOAA 2008 State of the Climate report, regarding climate models (which are based on CO2 for driving the warming): “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” [http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf]

The UK MET said this…"Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals

of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

TRANSLATION – A standstill of 15 years or more invalidates the models."

The actual near-zero “pause”, or divergance from the models is now over 23 years long. And for those who try to claim there was no pause… Why have alarmists data diddlers made so many “excuses” for the pause they claim never existed? http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/11/20/its-official-there-are-now-66-excuses-for-temp-pause-updated-list-of-66-excuses-for-the-18-26-year-pause-in-global-warming/

Even serial data “adjusters” at NASA are making excuses for the Model Invalidating Pause… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/24/nasa-james-hansen-gavin-schmidt-paper-10-more-years-of-global-warming-pause-maybe/ Ten more years will have invalidated the models three times over by then.

So yes Andrew, it’s NOT premature to call the predictions “wrong”. The data we have now DOES refute current hypotheses.” At least according to NASA, NOAA and the Gold Standard of cLIEmat UN-science, the IPCC’s AR5 report. LOL… So you admit that the IPCC is a lobby group and not actual science? Baby Steps…

“I prefer the primary research, not regurgitating secondhand reports by lobby groups, be they IPCC or petroleum geologists.” (Points for the Ad hominem against geologists. Where most Climatology departments are housed.) Scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed “climatologists”. Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials and Models that work are not… https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927316303589

Nowhere in the scientific method is an appeal to authority or concensus mentioned, nor any kind of Ad hominem. Only predictive skill as tested by falsifyable testing, observation or experiment. CAGW Failed all of these.

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

The average of 74 failed IPCC models is being used to form economic policy in the form of Carbon Taxes, which we know do nothing to reduce emissions.
commented 2018-05-22 14:29:37 -0400
“‘conservative’ cowards who haven’t got the spine to stand up to it, who I guess you could add to the category of fools. "

Well, RON, as far as I’m concerned they’re squarely in the parasite column because they hope to benefit from their silence.
commented 2018-05-22 14:18:33 -0400
Robert, you may have been assuming the fake PhD Andrew Stephenson can read a graph, but with his mail order high school GED, he has proven over and over that he can’t. It’s like getting the liberals to answer an absolutely straight forward question in the HOC, they won’t, they deflect with rehearsed bafflegab.
commented 2018-05-22 13:33:11 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 16 mins ago
“Mark Chadwick commented 1 hour ago
Andrew there is no warming trend "

You might want to check out our friend Hewgill’s link, which shows emphatically that there is.

That is normal variability. While the overall trend is down. On top of that, all of the sustained warming since the beginning of the end of the little ice age took place before 1930, and the average mean temperature is no warmer today that it was in the mid 1920’s.
commented 2018-05-22 11:14:46 -0400
JAMES MACMASTER commented, “There are two kinds of people pushing the apocalyptic AGW story: fools and parasites.” And I would add ‘conservative’ cowards who haven’t got the spine to stand up to it, who I guess you couid add to the category of fools.
commented 2018-05-22 10:25:11 -0400
Carefully crafted doesn’t mean precise and honest Andrew.
Your posts contain a lot of spin…even you lose track of what you are saying from one comment to the next later in the thread. This topic and others.
commented 2018-05-22 09:33:06 -0400
There are two kinds of people pushing the apocalyptic AGW story: fools and parasites.
commented 2018-05-22 08:32:14 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, you claimed to hold a PhD. Where is the proof of your claim? Until then, your claims are worthless. That would make you an outright liar and leave you where you started, with absolutely ZERO credibility. Provide the proof you liar.
commented 2018-05-22 07:57:11 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
And a warming trend in the last 150, when human influences began to be noticeable.
________________________________________________________________________________
Quite possibly a post hoc fallacy.
commented 2018-05-22 05:39:11 -0400
Not virtually nothing – ABSOLUTELY nothing. You could shut the Canadian economy down completely and the temperature of the planet won’t change a degree. Ridiculous to think it would.
commented 2018-05-22 00:17:28 -0400
Butts; <10 days now. Tick Tock.
You, McKenna, Trudeau and Notley. What’s your next move?
Have you checked the Forum Research poll today? How do you like that for trending data?
commented 2018-05-22 00:02:47 -0400
The Carbon tax does not do a thing to improve co2 levels. Show us some proof you money grabbing political idiot. The Carbon tax is actually paying for migrants and illegal immigration, that all Canadians are paying for. The money has to come from somewhere. I know, let’s get asshole ralph to prove or disprove any of this, if any liberal could ever answer a question without saying, "we have been looking into that, and will continue to analyze this until we can come up with some type of solution in the future. In other words, what he is really saying is “fuck off”, you are bothering me you stupid peon.
commented 2018-05-21 22:41:47 -0400
Robert Hewgill commented 4 hours ago
You might want to look again, because it actually shows a cooling trend for the last 10’000 years. "

And a warming trend in the last 150, when human influences began to be noticeable

“Andrew Mirlach commented 2 hours ago
“Considering they’re projections for say a century from now it’s a bit premature to call the predictions “wrong”. The data we have now does not refute current hypotheses.”

Seems like you cannot read a graph, It clearly plots the IPCCs invalidated CIMP5 model predictions out to 2030. The Data we have now has clearly refuted the invalidated model predictions."
A prediction doesn’t refute another prediction. Only data can refute predictions. It’s not yet 2100.

“She has carefully crafted her responses and reuses them over and over and over. She’s stuck in the in the era of “irrefutable IPPC evidence” and believes it lock, stock and barrel. Never mind the models were a fabrication and experts have dismissed the IPCC as one of the tools to deceive the people into thinking their wealth distribution plan is sound.”

I never said I endorsed the IPCC model. Strawman. Argue against what i actually wrote. You’re correct in that I carefully craft my responses – so as not to be wrong. I prefer the primary research, not regurgitating secondhand reports by lobby groups, be they IPCC or petroleum geologists.

“And just how much sea level rise are we talking about? ”https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/fort-lauderdale-sea-level-identical-to-55-years-ago/" rel="nofollow">https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/fort-lauderdale-sea-level-identical-to-55-years-ago/"

Prime example of cherry picking. You need more than one station. I would bet you could easily find stations where it’s dropping, due to isostatic rebound raising land faster than the water’s rising.

“Again with the missdirection. The graph compares the warming predicted by the models at those latitudes and over the plotted time period. Besides, all of the invalidated Co2 Models predicted a hot spot at those lattitudes. The only way it could be “found” was to use Homoginized wind data… LOL… Funny how Sherwood only admited there was a missing Hot Spot until after he “found” it… ”http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/" rel="nofollow">http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/"

Now we’ve gone from comparing global readings to tropical surface, now we’re looking just below the tropopause? Yeah, the models talk about surface temperature. That there’s more warming at 35,000 feet isn’t a “gotcha” but simply reflects the fact that we mostly worry about surface effects, which as this link shows, are primarily temperate.

“Andrew Mirlach commented 1 hour ago
More on the lies by omission file. In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph. Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming. Link to the Peer Reviewed 37 years of data they are omitting”

Why’d he pick 1959? Is he not doing exactly the same thing? Do you feel that global data predating satellites capable of measuring such things is comparable to data released by those satellites?
commented 2018-05-21 22:07:00 -0400
“She will not read and absorb any research which debunks her position.
Don’t worry, her “cherry picking” comments is a reflection of what she does here every day.”

What the CBCs paid troll called “cherry picking” was nothing of the sort. It was clearly marked on the graph what was “predicted” and when. Here is a presentation that shows who the real “cherry pickers” are. “It’s a fascinating and concise presentation, well worth the 30 minutes of your time to watch. In it he explains how solar cycles control the climate and also notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations….I know, shocker. He also talks about how temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe, contrary to the IPCC computer model predictions.”

http://www.floppingaces.net/2011/04/04/dr-vincent-courtillot-on-how-the-sun-controls-climate-not-co2/

Ad the link was broken… http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/21/europes-co2-emissions-increase-while-americas-fall-maps/
commented 2018-05-21 21:32:11 -0400
Sorry missed a link to the Co2 emissions, EU vs USA. dailycaller.com/2016/05/21/europes-co2-emissions-increase-while-americas-fall-maps/
commented 2018-05-21 21:29:08 -0400
More on the lies by omission file. In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph. Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming. Link to the Peer Reviewed 37 years of data they are omitting. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493(1978)106%3C0755%3AGTVSMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2 https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

And while we are on the topic of evidence based policy, where is the evidence that “carbon” taxes reduce emissions? Even the alt-left see the failure. https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/03/08/BC-Carbon-Tax-Failure/

Carbon taxes have done nothing to reduce emissions. Fracking on the other hand has gotten real results without any “redistribution”. dailycaller.com/2016/05/21/europes-co2-emissions-increase-while-americas-fall-maps/

Carbon taxes are the vehicle for the true intention of the IPCC, Wealth redistribution. “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” – Ottmar Edenhofer
For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/

The evidence is clear. Wealth Redistribution by Carbon Taxation does nothing to reduce emissions. Fracking does. So if your concerned about Co2 warming which only exists in failed IPCC models, you should be against Carbon Taxation which does nothing to reduce Co2, and you should support Fracking which is proven to reduce not only Co2, but real pollution.
commented 2018-05-21 21:20:01 -0400
Andrew Mirlach, the other Andrew has several mono-mania topics, this is one of them. (Asperger’s Syndrome)
She has carefully crafted her responses and reuses them over and over and over. She’s stuck in the in the era of “irrefutable IPPC evidence” and believes it lock, stock and barrel. Never mind the models were a fabrication and experts have dismissed the IPCC as one of the tools to deceive the people into thinking their wealth distribution plan is sound.
She will not read and absorb any research which debunks her position.
Don’t worry, her “cherry picking” comments is a reflection of what she does here every day.
Climate alarmists such as Andrew and our Minister of AirMiles want us to ignore actual science and evidence their scheme is falling apart at the seams.
commented 2018-05-21 20:51:32 -0400
“Considering they’re projections for say a century from now it’s a bit premature to call the predictions “wrong”. The data we have now does not refute current hypotheses.”

Seems like you cannot read a graph, It clearly plots the IPCCs invalidated CIMP5 model predictions out to 2030. The Data we have now has clearly refuted the invalidated model predictions.

“Again with the cherry-picking. Climate change is expected and mostly observed to be to be primarily temperate and polar, rather than tropical. Overlaying a tropical dataset on a global average doesn’t mean much. Why are sea levels rising, by the way? Current explanation is thermal expansion implying warming.”

Again with the missdirection. The graph compares the warming predicted by the models at those latitudes and over the plotted time period. Besides, all of the invalidated Co2 Models predicted a hot spot at those lattitudes. The only way it could be “found” was to use Homoginized wind data… LOL… Funny how Sherwood only admited there was a missing Hot Spot until after he “found” it… http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/

Lets look at some Arctic Satellite Data used in both the IPCC FAR and SAR reports. The ask your self why Alarmists pretend the Satellite record began in 1979? https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/more-on-the-arctic-ice-satellite-scam/

Why are sea levels rising? Likely for the same reason they have been rising for the last 10000 years? Something do do with an ice age? Who might imagine it could be warming after an Ice Age?

And just how much sea level rise are we talking about? https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/fort-lauderdale-sea-level-identical-to-55-years-ago/
commented 2018-05-21 20:33:01 -0400
Andrew Stephenson,
In Europe you can get “fix climate change” pills
commented 2018-05-21 19:57:10 -0400
Christians in heavily Christian ridings across Canada MUST stop voting Conservative and vote CHP in order to elect enough CHP MP’s to hold the balance of power and be able to enact real change for Canada.
commented 2018-05-21 19:04:39 -0400
have a look at this: Trudeau Government Refuses To Tell Canadians How Much Taxpayers May Spend On Pipeline- go to Spencerfernando.com and read this.
Also on the same site, read this: DISLOYAL: Hypocrite Horgan Planning To Buy Oil From Washington State If Alberta Cuts Shipments
For those here in Ontario, you might want to read this on the same site as well:
FAIL: Horwath NDP Made $1.4 BILLION Mistake In Campaign Platform
commented 2018-05-21 18:51:53 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 16 mins ago
“Mark Chadwick commented 1 hour ago
Andrew there is no warming trend "

You might want to check out our friend Hewgill’s link, which shows emphatically that there is.

You might want to look again, because it actually shows a cooling trend for the last 10’000 years.
commented 2018-05-21 18:43:36 -0400
Just another everyday person expressing their thoughts while we can…