Sunday, November 29, 2015

More On Climate Change> Water Not CO 2 Is Our Problem! Sowell Has Outlived His Usefulness Because There Is No Need For Logical Thinkers! Hysteria Rules!

Don't you talk about my home state!

A couple was in a busy shopping center just before Christmas. The wife suddenly noticed that her husband was missing, and as they had a lot to do, she called him on his cell phone. The wife said "Where are you? You know we have lots to do."
He said, "Do you remember the jewelry store we went into about 10 years ago, and you fell in love with a diamond necklace? I could not afford it at the time, and I said that one day I would get it for you."

Little tears started to flow down her cheek, and she got all choked up. Yes, I do remember that shop," she replied.

"Well, I'm in the sports bar next to that."
Knowing a little about history can prove interesting if you know how to read!

In 1947, 68 years ago, the British put the future of western Palestine into the hands of the United Nations, the successor organization to the League of Nations which had established the Mandate for Palestine.

To read the complete article online, please Click Here
Sent to me by a fellow memo reader  in response to my previous Climate Change posting.

This is the week that will determine whether we contain ISIS according to Obama.  If all the nations get together and cool the earth, ISIS will freeze to death and we will not have to engage in a war! 

The author's conclusion is that: "... if you really care about reversing the trend of global warming, it is WATER in the atmosphere, not carbon dioxide, you need to focus your activism on..."

In essence, the hysteria caused by politicians, and most particularly America's greatest climate scientist - Obama - are those engaged is placing the emphasis on the wrong "matter!" (See 1 below.)

So let's hear from Tom Sowell and more of his logic! (See 1a below.)
1)Earth atmosphere

    A simple analysis to quickly settle the AGW climate change debate

    I’ll be straight up honest with you.  I’m not a climatologist or meteorologist.  But I am someone who cares deeply about truth, science, reason, politics, economics, and living in a world in which as many people as possible can realize their fullest potential as individual human beings.  My technical and professional background is two degrees in aerospace engineering and a professional certification in project management.
    Given that context, and my persistent desire to apply my analytical reasoning skills to get to the point of an issue so that we can UNDERSTAND THE REAL TRUTH of something, so that we can then DO WHAT REALLY MATTERS and what HAS THE BIGGEST IMPACT, here is my take on the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) aka climate change controversy and debate.
    If we want to take a rational, logical, and practical approach to the problem, let’s try to agree on some basic fundamentals.  This is where I’m coming from.  If you don’t follow along with me, I won’t expect you to agree with my conclusions.  But if you also value a reality-based opinion and rational approach, this article describes the conversation I’ve had with myself.
    First, there is an objective reality and truth about what is happening with our climate.  Whatever is happening, it is real.  And it doesn’t matter what we as individuals or as a species believe or think or wish about it.
    Hopefully that isn’t a point of controversy or argument with you, dear reader.  But there are plenty of people in the world who disagree with that basic premise.  If someone believes that we can wish or meditate or pray the problem away, through pure consciousness, we’re already on a different page.  Different planet and universe, as far as I’m concerned!
    Second, whatever the facts truly are, we are capable of understanding it.  Probably not with 100% certainty and 100% granularity, but by using our powers of perception, analysis, technology, and rational discussion, we can find the truth together.  The situation is not inherently hopeless or unknowable.  Hopefully you agree with that premise too.  (I’ll spare you the rocket science analogy, even though that’s my background.  You just said it yourself I bet!)
    Third, I believe we as a species have the power and ability to find a peaceful, feasible, and sustainable solution.  We have learned how to not only live, but also prosper, in the harshest of environments across the planet.  Even beyond our planet!!  Admittedly, we haven’t advanced far beyond the survival phase in outer space, or underwater.  We haven’t learned how to sustain ourselves in either environment without help from the surface dwellers.  But with creativity, resourcefulness, innovation, and technology, we can certainly deal with a few degrees of temperature change or few inches (even feet) of water level change over decades or centuries.  We can’t forget the CONTEXT of what we are investigating and talking about!  We aren’t talking about our sun going supernova or swallowing our planet as a red giant anytime soon…we still have a few billion years to prepare for that!
    Which brings me to one more important point: PROPORTIONALITY.  This is an essential principle of successful engineering and design thinking.  Pareto coined the concept of the Pareto Principle, which is also known as the 80/20 rule.  If climate change is a genuine threat to our species, what are the highest impact or highest leverage actions we can take?
    I’m a very practical and goal-oriented person. If there is a genuine, urgent, and major problem, let’s not f__ around about it.  Time, money, and people’s lives are too precious to waste pursuing things that don’t matter or are ineffective or wasteful.
    By the way, don’t fall for the sloppy thinking or hyperbole that OUR WORLD IS THREATENED BY CLIMATE CHANGE!  “Our world” means our planet Earth. Earth itself is not threatened!!  Get a grip!  Remember the context!!  The point we must remember–the context that really matters–is the effect (if any) of these changes on HUMAN LIFE.

    HUMAN LIFE must be the standard by which we evaluate the impact, the risk, and the effectiveness of any actions we take.

    I hope you are still with me.  Just to make my point with an argument to the point of absurdity–know one 100% guaranteed sure-fire way to eliminate the threat of human-caused global warming?  Get rid of all the humans!  Done.  Now we can all go home happy.  Except none of us will be here to enjoy it…
    stop the humans
    Don’t laugh too hard–if you favor a solution that is fundamentally incompatible with human life or human prosperity, you are not doing yourself (or the rest of us) any favors.  In fact, you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Please think about that before you advocate stripping away our ability to innovate or develop more efficient and advanced technologies in order to make better use of the resources we have available.  Those resources include the brainpower and ambitions of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and innovators from all walks of life.
    Now let’s get to the facts. How many of us actually understand the science and physics behind climate change?  With all of the hype and fervor and activism around the topic, why are so many people relying on arguments from authority?
    A clear consensus of experts agree…
    All of the honest experts agree…
    That argument has two flaws: the argument from authority, and the argument from consensus (or peer pressure).
    For something as important as climate change, which is claimed to be such a large and urgent threat that it threatens the very existence of our species,shouldn’t every one of us understand the fundamentals of what is really happening?
    Definitely, those who are advocating taking action or changing our current lives in some way should know what the hell they are talking about.  Perhaps that means you…
    I’m going to use my powers of engineering, analysis, and reason to get to the truth and share it with you. I hope you are ready for it.  
    Let’s use the scientific method to approach this problem.  Again, I hope you agree this approach works and is a smart way to approach our situation.
    What is the main hypothesis or claim?  It is this:

    Human activity is causing global climate change (specifically, global warming).

    Remember the importance of focusing on the highest impact causes and effects (the Pareto Principle).  What claims to be the primary driver of anthropogenic global warming?
    The answer we hear is:

    Carbon dioxide output (as a greenhouse gas) is the primary driver of anthropogenic global warming.

    Now, this has evolved or grown into talk about Carbon itself…think about how many times you’ve heard proposals about creating schemes and markets for CARBON TAX CREDITS or CARBON CREDITS.  For now, let me just remind you that CARBON IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE on our planet.  So, if CARBON is claimed to be the root cause of our problem with global climate change…where do you think that leads us?
    What if there was a tax based on carbon?  Guess what, my friend.  You’ve just created a scheme to justify a tax on every living being on the planet.  Not just humans…I wonder how we will collect taxes from all the other species being so greedy (!!) with all of those carbon atoms…
    Anyway, let’s focus on CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).
    Here’s a question I love to ask every person who believes CO2 is the primary culprit behind climate change.  When I do this in person, I often make it a bet for real money.


    If I offered you money to answer correctly to the nearest 1%, could you do it?
    What’s your answer?
    Let’s go back to our Pareto Principle, shall we?  I hope this doesn’t come across as condescending.  But since so many people seem to lack basic scientific knowledge about our planet, and a consistent lack of applying the scientific method, I’m afraid it is very helpful to take the time and effort to go through this process.
    Do you remember from school what is the most common element in our atmosphere?
    Think with me…
    Hopefully you said NITROGEN.
    And maybe you recall, it makes up a whopping 80% OF OUR ATMOSPHERE.  (Actually 78%, but how much is 2% worth when you are talking about our entire global atmosphere?)
    Obviously, there isn’t any hysteria about Nitrogen…
    Let’s consider #2…What is the second most prominent element in our atmosphere?
    Hopefully you know the correct answer is: OXYGEN.
    Hopefully you also know that Oxygen is what we humans (and almost all animal species) need to live and breath.
    oxygen mask
    Do you remember or know how much of our atmosphere is Oxygen?
    The answer is…
    approximately 20%.  (It’s actually closer to 21%.)
    What the…!??!?!
    There’s that Pareto Principle of the 80/20 rule showing up again!!!
    No, that’s not what is so shocking.  :-)  If you add 78% + 21% you get…
    99% !!!!
    WTH?!?  Where is CO2 in this equation?!
    It must be #3, right? 
    No, sorry.  It turns out that the #3 spot goes to Argon, at 0.93%.  That might as well be considered 1%.
    WTF?!?  Now we are at 100% and there is still no Carbon Dioxide!!!
    Check the facts…it turns out that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, to the nearest percentage, is:
    More exactly, it is 0.04%.  And that is rounded off slightly.  The more precise number is 0.039% of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide.
    Don’t believe me?  Go to Wikipedia or your favorite trusted resource yourself.  In fact, I don’t want you to take my word for it.  Use your own mind and judgment–please!
    Remember the importance of PROPORTIONALITY?
    If you believed that CO2 was 1% of our atmosphere, you would be too high off the mark by a complete order of magnitude.
    If you thought that CO2 was just 0.1% of our atmosphere, you would still be too high by an entire decimal place.
    But we are just getting started…don’t leave me yet.
    Remember that hypothetical bet I offered about correctly answering the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to the nearest full percentage?  I have yet to find someone who gives the correct answer of ZERO.  Now you have a fun way to earn some easy money the next time you are with friends, family, or climate change enthusiasts.


    That’s what we need to worry about, right?  And that’s what ‘all of the experts’ are saying we need to take drastic action to reduce, right?
    As summarized by here (but don’t trust me–do your own research), there are 730 gigatons (GT) (also billion tons) of CO2 in the atmosphere.  (BTW, that website is built by AGW proponents.)
    Humans release 29 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. (From what I can find from my research.  Again, YOU should do the work to find the number and convince yourself if you really care about the truth.)
    But the amount of CO2 that is increasing in atmosphere is 12 gigatons per year.
    What do you know, it is actually increasing…
    But let’s look at the actual numbers to get a sense of the proportions.
    The net load from human activity is 12 gigatons per year.  To say another way, 17 gigatons of what we create (29 – 12) is getting consumed (offset) by other natural forces.  The largest of these is PLANT LIFE, which has the opposite relationship of Oxygen to Carbon Dioxide via photosynthesis.  (For those that need a biology refresher, plants ingest carbon dioxide and expel oxygen.  We humans, like most animals, do the opposite.)
    If human activity reduced our CO2 output by 12 GT/year, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would stabilize.  (As best we can measure and understand the global climate mechanisms today, at least.)
    The amount of reduction for us would be very significant: 12 / 29 is a 41% reduction.  Try reducing your budget (of energy or money) by 41% and see how well you can maintain your standard of living.  You probably can’t!
    But here is the bigger picture. 
    That answer is 29 / 730, or
    More exactly, it’s 3.97%.  To put that in another perspective, 96% of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to be there no matter what humans do.
    Keep in mind, CO2 is 0.039% of the atmosphere anyway.  So all of this research and frenzy is about the human-created portion (4.0%) of 0.039% of the atmosphere.  What is 4.0% of 0.039%?  We are talking about 0.0015% of the atmosphere!
    How much of your tax dollars or your politicians’ attention do you think should be spent on a problem of that size?
    But let’s look more into these greenhouse gasses.  We aren’t done yet!  Maybe CO2 is actually a big factor, even though it’s essentially a trace gas.
    Do you know what the most powerful greenhouse gas is?  Again, let’s use the Pareto Principle as a guide.
    It isn’t CO2.  It’s something even more familiar and precious to all of us…
    Also known as H2O.
    water molecule
    How is that, you may ask?
    Greenhouse gasses trap heat created at the Earth’s surface and prevent that heat from escaping into outer space.  This phenomenon is critical in the climate change debate, so you need to understand it.  And you are about to.
    What is standing in the way between the Earth’s surface (land or water, doesn’t matter) and outer space?  Our atmosphere, of course.
    This is where the physics gets more complex…so to use an analogy, our atmosphere is like a big insulation blanket.  It dampens or filters out some energy from the sun as it comes in to Earth (like some types of radiation).  And it also acts as an insulation blanket in the reverse direction – keeping heat IN after the land or water has been heated by the sun’s energy (or more heat is created from Earth itself, such as volcanoes, forest fires, life, etc.)
    Earth atmosphere
    The scientific term to appropriately measure and compare this insulation capability for gasses is HEAT CAPACITY.  The Engineering Tool Box has a list of heat capacities for some common gases.
    I’ll use the value at a constant volume, because air pressure changes with altitude.  These values of c_v are in kJ/(kg K).
     Gas c_v (kJ/(kg K))
    Air (combined) 0.718
     N2 0.743
     O2 0.659
     CO2 0.655
     H2O vapor 1.46

    First sanity check–do you notice how the heat capacity of air is in between the values of nitrogen and oxygen?  And it’s closer to the value of nitrogen.  That makes sense, considering that N2 is 78% of our atmosphere and O2 is 21%.
    Notice also how the heat capacity of CO2 is nearly the same as O2.  And there is OVER 500X more oxygen than carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.  Maybe we should look instead at reducing the amount of oxygen on the planet…ha ha.
    But here’s the more important point.  Water vapor has TWICE the heat capacity of air.  According to Wikipedia, the amount of water vapor at high altitudes (where the greenhouse effect is claimed to be most important) ranges from 0 to 4%.  Let’s assume a conservative average of 1%.  I couldn’t find an average value from any source, so if you have a better number I’ll be glad to learn it and use it.
    If the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is 1%, that is MORE THAN 25 TIMES the amount of CO2 (1 / 0.039 = 25.6).
    To compare apples to apples, we need to compare the heat capacities of these two gasses, for an equivalent volume.
    The proportional heat capacity of water vapor vs CO2 is 1.46 / 0.659 or 2.2x greater.
    And we estimated (conservatively) that there is 25.6 times more water vapor than CO2 at high altitude.
    That means that water vapor is 2.2*25.6 = 57 TIMES more influential on the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
    Forget oxygen…how about we start a global campaign to reduce the amount of water on the planet?
    water protest
    Let’s get real, people!  That would be ridiculous.  But if you really care about reversing the trend of global warming, it is WATER in the atmosphere, not carbon dioxide, you need to focus your activism on.
    Water vapor is what sometimes turns into clouds, which have the nice benefit of blocking the sun’s rays and creating a shade underneath them.  So less water in the atmosphere would also mean less clouds, which would seem to be a bad thing for global warming…the whole cloud mechanism in climate change models is still a big point of uncertainty and contention.  It is complicated and complex…a big challenge to model confidently in computer models and simulations, for instance.
    And if the importance of something that is 57 times more powerful than carbon dioxide when it comes to heat absorption is still under debate in computer models, why are so many people so certain about the effects of 0.04% of the atmosphere?
    To recap, does it make sense that a gas that is only 0.04% of our atmosphere is the driving force behind global warming and climate change?
    Does it makes sense that a gas with 1/57th the effective heat capacity of water vapor is the driving element behind global warming?
    How much of a country’s GDP (or the entire planet’s) should be spent on a phenomenon (human-created net increase in CO2) that is 0.0015% of the atmosphere?
    I can only conclude that the most rational and proportionate response should be the answer that corresponds to the answer of all of these other questions:
    ZERO.  Nada.  Zilch.  Nothing.
    But–if we WERE to do anything…it should be leaving people free to pursue, research, discuss, collaborate, invent, and earn a living (and/or profit) from whatever efforts they decide is best.  If you still think there are threats or opportunities worth pursuing, as long as you don’t compel me to pay for it or organize politicians to start taxing me for simply being alive (because you and I are both putting CO2 into the atmosphere right now), I’m not going to stop you. 
    Maybe you’ll actually create some device, process, or energy source that is more efficient and clever than what we have today.  That would be a great (and real) improvement, which I would be happy to see in the world.  Until then, keep the facts of reality in mind and remember a sense of proportionality as you engineer your innovation forward on our amazing planet!
    That’s all I have to say about the physics of APW or man made global warming and climate change.  In this article, at least…
    Care to challenge or correct any of these premises, assumptions, facts, or calculations?  If you are operating from a philosophy that respects facts, an objective reality, and a rational sense of proportionality, I’m open to hear from you.  If you would rather revert back to arguments from authority or fear or some other bogus premise…you can do that if you want but I’m just going to spend time with people who stick to the facts and the physics about our atmosphere and the temperature mechanisms within it.
    Do I really think this one article will settle the climate change debate?  No, of course not.  Because most people who need to read this, won’t be (ha).  There are several other reasons why it will continue to be a big debate too.  But if you think more people should read this, I’ll be humbled and appreciative (and maybe a little nervous) if you’ll find it worth sharing. :-)
    Thanks for reading this article.  It’s my humble attempt at contributing some facts, logic, and proportionality to the debate that is consuming so much of our world today.
    Brett Hoffstadt

    1a) Random Thoughts

    Thomas Sowell

    By Thomas Sowell

    Article Tools

    Random thoughts on the passing scene:

     Some financial institutions may be considered "too big to fail," but contemporary Western society may be too frivolous to survive. The Romans had bread and circuses to keep the masses passive and unthinking. We have electronic gadgets, drugs and pornography. Like the Roman Empire, we too may decline and fall. What happened in Paris may be just the beginning.

     With the "global warming" zealots predicting catastrophic consequences over the next century, I wonder if anyone has studied how accurate five-day weather forecasts turn out to be.

     Cheap shots at the police by politicians and the media are in fact very expensive, in terms of the human lives that are lost when the effectiveness of law enforcement is undermined. The sharp increase in murders in places like Baltimore, New York and other places where the police have been trashed, shows how expensive.

     It is bad enough to hear someone boasting about his past achievements. What is truly repulsive is hearing someone boasting about the future achievements he thinks he is going to have, as Donald Trump does repeatedly.

     Why have a national debt ceiling if it doesn't really put a ceiling on the national debt? What the national debt ceiling does is allow Democrats to gain votes by spending the government's money — and then force Republicans to share responsibility for raising the national debt ceiling, under threat of being blamed for shutting down the government if they don't.

     Since doctors have the same 24 hours a day as the rest of us, do believers in Obamacare understand that every hour a doctor spends filling out government forms is an hour that is not spent treating patients?

     With all the charges of "racism" against conservatives, has anyone noticed that Dr. Ben Carson's strongest supporters are in the conservative wing of the Republican party?

     In what part of the world is the situation better for America than it was when Barack Obama became President and Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State? If you want an easier question, in what part of the world is the situation worse?
     How can anyone consider it to be either logical or moral to force other people to be defenseless because of a theory without any factual evidence? Yet that is what gun control laws amount to.

     Some Americans will never appreciate America, until after they have helped destroy it, and have then begun to suffer the consequences.

     People who argue that the hostility to Israel in the Middle East is due to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians should explain why hostility to Jews in the Middle East was so great back in the 1930s that Middle East leaders were pro-Hitler. This was long before there was a modern state of Israel or a Palestinian problem. If the 2016 election comes down to Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, my advice to the younger generation would be to try to find some other country to live in. Australia or New Zealand might be a good place to start looking.

     Now that President Obama has sent a few dozen American troops into Syria, will they be wearing sneakers, so that he can claim that he has kept his promise not to put "boots on the ground"?

     Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day.

     The way the Obama administration's Department of Justice has been used politically to put local police under siege, and to shield the administration's own law-breakers, suggests that the Department of Justice should be taken out of the control of any future administration, and made an independent agency like the Government Accountability Office.

     Have we become a country whose leaders are charlatans, and whose people are sheep?

     Our situation today reminds me of what Winston Churchill said to his bodyguard, after the king appointed Churchill prime minister in the darkest days during World War II: "All I hope is that it is not too late. I am very much afraid it is. We can only do our best." He had tears in his eyes.

    Saturday, November 28, 2015

    Climate Change and Funding ISIS !

    Climate Change, another Obama change that is mostly specious and based on unproven scientific evidence parading as fact..

    However, it serves Obama's political purpose because it allows dissension and pits citizen against citizen which eventually leads to anarchy.

    The side games played by these anarchists reflect themselves in campus protests, Wall Street protests, street riots and protests and the list keeps growing. (See 1 below.)

    How America Created And Funded ISIS:

    Palestinians keep stabbing and getting arrested and killed.  They never learn nor want to learn. (See 2 below.)

    Oren links Obama. (See 2a below.)

    IAF strikes at terrorist targets. (See 2b below.

    Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate

    At the Paris conference, expect an agreement that is sufficiently vague and noncommittal for all countries to claim victory.

    In February President Obama said, a little carelessly, that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Next week he will be in Paris, a city terrorized yet again by mass murderers, for a summit with other world leaders on climate change, not terrorism. What precisely makes these world leaders so convinced that climate change is a more urgent and massive threat than the incessant rampages of Islamist violence?
    It cannot be what is happening to world temperatures, because they have gone up only very slowly, less than half as fast as the scientific consensus predicted in 1990 when the global-warming scare began in earnest. Even with this year’s El NiƱo-boosted warmth threatening to break records, the world is barely half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was about 35 years ago. Also, it is increasingly clear that the planet was significantly warmer than today several times during the past 10,000 years.
    Nor can it be the consequences of this recent slight temperature increase that worries world leaders. On a global scale, as scientists keep confirming, there has been no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts, while deaths attributed to such natural disasters have never been fewer, thanks to modern technology and infrastructure. Arctic sea ice has recently melted more in summer than it used to in the 1980s, but Antarctic sea ice has increased, and Antarctica is gaining land-based ice, according to a new study by NASA scientists published in the Journal of Glaciology. Sea level continues its centuries-long slow rise—about a foot a century—with no sign of recent acceleration.
    Perhaps it is the predictions that worry the world leaders. Here, we are often told by journalists that the science is “settled” and there is no debate. But scientists disagree: They say there is great uncertainty, and they reflected this uncertainty in their fifth and latest assessment for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It projects that temperatures are likely to be anything from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer by the latter part of the century—that is, anything from mildly beneficial to significantly harmful.
    As for the impact of that future warming, a new study by a leading climate economist,Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, concludes that warming may well bring gains, because carbon dioxide causes crops and wild ecosystems to grow greener and more drought-resistant. In the long run, the negatives may outweigh these benefits, says Mr. Tol, but “the impact of climate change does not significantly deviate from zero until 3.5°C warming.”
    Mr. Tol’s study summarizes the effect we are to expect during this century: “The welfare change caused by climate change is equivalent to the welfare change caused by an income change of a few percent. That is, a century of climate change is about as good/bad for welfare as a year of economic growth. Statements that climate change is the biggest problem of humankind are unfounded: We can readily think of bigger problems.” No justification for prioritizing climate change over terrorism there.
    The latest science on the “sensitivity” of the world’s temperature to a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels (from 0.03% of the air to 0.06%) is also reassuring. Several recent peer-reviewed studies of climate sensitivity based on actual observations, including one published in 2013 in Nature Geoscience with 14 mainstream IPCC authors, conclude that this key measure is much lower—about 30%-50% lower—than the climate models are generally assuming.
    A key study published in the Journal of Climate this year by Bjorn Stevens of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, found that the cooling impact of sulfate emissions has held back global warming less than thought till now, again implying less sensitivity. So the high end of the IPCC range is looking even more implausible in theory and practice. When politicians intone that, despite the slow warming so far, “two degrees” of warming is inevitable and imminent, remember they are using high estimates of climate sensitivity.
    Yes, but if there is even a tiny chance of catastrophe, should the world not strain every sinew to head it off? Better to decarbonize the world economy and find it was unnecessary than to continue using fossil fuels and regret it. If decarbonization were easy, then sure, this would make sense. But the experience of the last three decades is that there is no energy technology remotely ready to take over from fossil fuels on the scale needed and at a price the public is willing to pay.
    Solar power is cheaper than it was, but even if solar panels were free, the land, infrastructure, maintenance and backup power (for nighttime and cloudy days) would still make it more expensive than gas-fired electricity. Solar provides about 0.5% of the energy generated world-wide. Wind has expanded hugely, but at massive cost, yet still supplies a little more than 1% of all energy generated globally. Nuclear is in slow retreat, and its cost stubbornly refuses to fall. Technological breakthroughs in the production of gas and oil from shale have outpaced the development of low-carbon energy and made it even less competitive.
    Meanwhile, there are a billion people with no grid electricity whose lives could be radically improved—and whose ability to cope with the effects of weather and climate change could be greatly enhanced—with the access to the concentrated power of coal, gas or oil that the rich world enjoys. Aid for such projects has already been constrained by Western institutions in the interest of not putting the climate at risk. So climate policy is hurting the poor.
    To put it bluntly, climate change and its likely impact are proving slower and less harmful than we feared, while decarbonization of the economy is proving more painful and costly than we hoped. The mood in Paris will be one of furious pessimism among the well-funded NGOs that will attend the summit in large numbers: Decarbonization, on which they have set their hearts, is not happening, and they dare not mention the reassuring news from science lest it threaten their budgets.
    Casting around for somebody to blame, they have fastened on foot-dragging fossil-fuel companies and those who make skeptical observations, however well-founded, about the likelihood of dangerous climate change. Scientific skeptics are now routinely censored, or threatened with prosecution. One recent survey by Rasmussen Reports shows that 27% of Democrats in the U.S. are in favor of prosecuting climate skeptics. This is the mentality of religious fanaticism, not scientific debate.
    So what will emerge from Paris, when thousands of government officials gather from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11 to agree on a new U.N. climate deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2020? Expect an agreement that is sufficiently vague and noncommittal for all countries to sign and claim victory. Such an agreement will also have to camouflage deep and unbridgeable divisions while ensuring that all countries are liberated from legally binding targets a la Kyoto.
    The political climate is conducive to such an ineffectual agreement. Concerns about the economy, terrorism and international security have been overshadowing the climate agenda for years. The fact that global warming has slowed significantly over the past two decades has reduced public concern and political pressure in most countries. It has also given governments valuable time to kick painful decisions down the road.
    The next 10-15 years will show whether the global-warming slowdown continues or whether a strong warming trend terminates the current pause for good. The Paris summit is likely to agree to a review process that reassesses global temperatures and carbon-dioxide emissions every five years. If the climate is less sensitive to carbon-dioxide emissions than climate models assume, the new accord should allow for the possibility of carbon-dioxide pledges to be relaxed in line with empirical observations and better scientific understanding.
    Concerned about the loss of industrial competitiveness, the Obama administration is demanding an international transparency-and-review mechanism that can verify whether voluntary pledges are met by all countries. Developing countries, however, oppose any outside body reviewing their energy and industrial activities and carbon-dioxide emissions on the grounds that such efforts would violate their sovereignty.
    They are also resisting attempts by the U.S. and the European Union to end the legal distinction (the so-called firewall) between developing and developed nations. China, India and the “Like-Minded Developing Countries” group are countering Western pressure by demanding a legally binding compensation package of $100 billion a year of dedicated climate funds, as promised by President Obama at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009.
    However, developing nations are only too aware that the $100 billion per annum funding pledge is never going to materialize, not least because the U.S. Congress would never agree to such an astronomical wealth transfer. This failure to deliver is inevitable, but it will give developing nations the perfect excuse not to comply with their own national pledges.
    Both India and China continue to build new coal-fired power stations. China’s coal consumption is growing at 2.6% a year, India’s at 5%, which is why coal was the fastest-growing fossil fuel last year. China has pledged to reduce energy and carbon intensity, but that is another way of saying it will increase energy efficiency—it doesn’t mean reducing use.
    For the EU, on the other hand, a voluntary climate agreement would finally allow member states to abandon unilateral decarbonization policies that have seriously undermined Europe’s competitiveness. The EU has offered to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. However, this pledge is conditional on all nations represented at the Paris summit adopting legally binding carbon-emissions targets similar to and as a carry-over of the Kyoto Protocol.
    According to the EU’s key demand, the Paris Protocol must deliver “legally binding mitigation commitments that put the world on track toward achieving the below 2°C objective. . . . Mitigation commitments under the Protocol should be equally legally binding on all Parties.” The chances of such an agreement are close to zero. If there are no legally binding carbon targets agreed to in Paris, the EU will be unlikely to make its own conditional pledges legally binding.
    Any climate agreement should be flexible enough so that voluntary pledges can be adjusted over the next couple of decades depending on what global temperatures do. The best we can hope for is a toothless agreement that will satisfy most governments yet allow them to pay lip-service to action. In all likelihood, that’s exactly what we can expect to get in Paris.
    Mr. Ridley is a columnist for the Times (U.K.) and a member of the House of Lords; he has an interest in coal mining on his family’s land. Mr. Peiser is the director of the Global Warming Policy Forum.
    Two wounded in back-to-back stabbing attacks in Jerusalem

    Palestinian terrorist, 17, stabs foreign national at bus station and flees • Attacker later apprehended, confesses • Earlier, Palestinian terrorist stabs border policeman in neck, is shot dead • PM: We have defeated terrorism before and we will again.
    Israel Hayom Staff

    A Nepalese woman was stabbed by a Palestinian terrorist on Sunday while waiting at a bus station in Jerusalem. The terrorist fled the scene.

    The woman, a 30-year-old foreign worker living in Israel, sustained moderate injuries to her back and was taken to Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem for treatment.

    Security forces combed the area for the attacker, ultimately apprehending him at a nearby construction site. The attacker, a 17-year-old Palestinian from the Hebron area, confessed to the stabbing.
    Two additional suspects have been detained for questioning.

    Earlier Sunday, another Palestinian terrorist from Hebron stabbed a border policeman in the neck in the Old City in Jerusalem.

    Abed al-Rahman, 38, came into the Old City through Damascus Gate, and upon noticing a pair of border policemen patrolling the area, he pulled out a knife and stabbed one of them while yelling "Allahu akbar!"

    The other policeman shot and killed the attacker. A search of his body yielded another concealed knife.
    The victim was evacuated by emergency medical personnel who described his condition as light to moderate and stable.

    Speaking at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "terrorism has dogged us for close to a hundred years, and we have defeated it time and time again. We will defeat it again this time.

    "What drives this terrorism is a fundamental objection to the existence of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people within borders of any kind. Compounding this resistance is radical Islam, which is striking terror across the globe: in Paris, London, Madrid, Mali, places where obviously there are no settlements or territories," he said.


    Michael Oren ties U.S. shortcomings in peace process to Obama

    Speaking in southern Israel, the previous Israeli Ambassador to Israel says Obama won't be 'cop of the world,' unwilling to use military force.

    To understand American failures in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, MK Michael Oren (Kulanu) said yesterday, it is imperative to understand U.S. President Barack Obama's worldview, which was influenced by exposure to Islam in his youth and the principles he absorbed on U.S. college campuses.

    Speaking to an audience in Be’er Sheva, Oren said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had not gotten enough credit from the Obama administration for his decision during his previous term to stop construction in the West Bank.

    “I want to see a left-wing government that freezes construction on French Hill in Jerusalem,” referring to a veteran East Jerusalem Jewish neighborhood, he said. 

    Oren said he was relying on Obama’s own writings to draw this conclusion. He noted that these writings show unwillingness to use military force, to be “the cop of the world,” and extending a hand to the Muslim world while moving away from Israel on a diplomatic level. Hwoever, Oren said that on the military level Israel has received a warm embrance from the United States.

    According to Oren, after the attacks in France, at Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Casher supermarket the United States did not send a senior official to the march of world leaders because it was defined as a march against radical Islam. “Obama will never utter the words 'Islamic extremism,'” Oren said.

    To underscore his arguments, Oren quoted from Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech after the last terror attack in France, when he was visiting the U.S. Embassy in Paris. Oren quoted Kerry as saying that while some rationale could be found or explanation of the anger of the attackers in the Charlie Hebdo attack, the current attack was  “absolutely indiscriminate.” According to Oren, who cited Kerry’s slip of the tongue by using the word “legitimacy,” according to the U.S. administration’s worldview, when Muslims attack Western targets there is anger, there is a reason and that reason is on the Western side, we take part of the responsibility.

    Oren also mentioned Obama’s speech after the attacks in Paris last year. According to Oren, in Obama’s speech he called the terrorists “extreme radicals,” and called the Hyper Casher a “deli” and the Jewish terror victims “folks.” The use of these words, Oren said, showed Obama’s worldview.
    In June Oren published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “How Obama Abandoned Israel.” In it, he criticized the president’s policy toward Israel. After the article came out, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, slammed Oren’s statements, calling them “an imaginary account. Kulanu chairman Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon summoned Oren for clarifications and tried to persuade him to apologize. Oren refused, and Kahlon subsequently wrote a letter of his own to Shapiro, rejecting Oren’s comments.


    Report: Israel Air Force strikes targets in Syria near Lebanese border
    Israel has reportedly hit area in the past which has served as a major transit point for Hezbollah fighters, equipment.
    The Israel Air Force attacked Syrian army and Hezbollah targets in the area around Qalamoun in Syria overnight Saturday, Israel Radio reported citing Syrian forces. 

    The Lebanese media outlet Almustaqbal reported that there were dead and wounded Hezbollah fighters in the attack which hit the area close to the Lebanese border.

    The IDF refused to comment on the report.

    Last week, Israel reportedly attacked targets in the same area of Syria.

    In that attack, the sources claimed that 13 Syrian troops and Hezbollah fighters were killed and dozens were wounded, including four seriously.

    Qalamoun has been a major transit point for Hezbollah fighters and other logistical equipment to and from Syria.

    In October, Syrian media reported Israeli fighter jets attacked numerous Hezbollah targets in the South of Syria including a weapons convoy destined for Hezbollah fighters.

    Israel has reportedly struck Hezbollah in Syria several times over the past year, although the military regularly declines to comment on foreign media reports.