Climate Change Rhetoric is Nothing More Than a Cover for Wealth Redistribution.

Nine Experts Slam EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ Speech
Like a river in Colorado, the EPA is poisoning the climate debate.
by Tom Harris
August 24, 2015
Anyone trying to understand why the climate change debate has become so toxic need look no further than the August 11 speech by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy.

In her presentation at the Resources for the Future (RFF) Policy Leadership Forum, her first public appearance since the August 3 release of the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan“ (CPP), McCarthy demonstrated everything that is wrong with the Obama administration’s approach to the issue. The EPA employs error-riddled interpretations of climate science and economics, and couples this with language designed to trick the public and the press into thinking the plan is something it is not.
————-

A Biased Host

The forum started with an introduction by Dr. Raymond Kopp, RFF’s Energy & Climate Economics co-director, who told the audience:

As many of you know, we’re not an advocacy organization. We’re not cheerleaders for any particular policy or point of view. Our goal is really to provide the best scholarly research to the policy community so it can develop the most efficient, efficacious, affordable, and best public policies possible.

Laudable goals indeed … but Kopp immediately betrayed RFF’s supposed objectives when he next said:

The Clean Power Plan in its current form as a final rule is likely the most significant development in U.S. history with respect to climate change. I don’t think any of us believe otherwise. It is a tremendously substantial rule and one that will have significant impact.

[Developing the rule] took a lot of hard work by many people inside and outside of government and it took an awful lot of leadership and luckily Gina McCarthy was available, ready, and willing to undertake that leadership role and for that we are most thankful.

Addressing McCarthy directly, Kopp concluded:

Thank you for getting the job done, for doing it exceedingly well, and shepherding the Clean Power Plan through all of these hurdles that were necessary to bring it to a final rule today. And, I think, thank you for doing it in an environment where the politics and the rhetoric really make this job as difficult as possible.

Considering Kopp’s remarks, it is not surprising that, according to RFF Forum attendee Dr. Alan Carlin — former EPA senior analyst and manager, and past chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club — “RFF went all out to prevent me from handing out my comments and to keep out any skeptical comments from the Q&A.”

So much for RFF’s claim to not be “cheerleaders for any particular policy or point of view.”

—————

EPA Misrepresents Climate Science

McCarthy started the climate change part of her presentation with a politically correct assertion:

Climate change is one of the most important issues that we face. It is a global challenge but, in many ways, it’s also very personal to all of us because it affects everything and everyone we know and we love.

Climate change is, of course, a regional challenge, not a global one.

There is no super being straddling the planet, experiencing global trends. All that matters is what is happening — increases or decreases in the incidence of floods and droughts, heat waves and cold spells, and so on — in regions where people, plants, and animals are found. For example, what sense would it make for a community to prepare for a global sea level rise if, in that particular region, sea level was falling?

New Zealand-based renewable energy consultant Bryan Leyland pointed out:

Climate change has been a problem to mankind for hundreds of thousands of years. But we survived the last ice age, compared with which, the recent change in climate is but a minor wiggle. The greatest climate risk we face at the moment is a high probability that we are entering a period of cooling comparable to the Little Ice Age.

Many scientists agree with Leyland. For example, Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, explained:

The Earth is on a descent into the next 100,000-year ice age. For the moment, the glaciers seem to be in retreat, but they are not remnants of the last ice age. They have been growing during the last 8,000 years.

High-resolution spectroscopy specialist Dr. John Nicol, former senior lecturer of physics and dean of science at James Cook University in Australia, elaborated:

Since 1997, the Earth has not warmed but has, in fact, very slightly cooled even though atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing. McCarthy’s assertion that climate change is “very personal to all of us” clearly demonstrates her emotional rather than the scientific approach to this non-issue.

————–

Gina McCarthy next said:

By now we all know that climate change is driven in large part by carbon pollution and it leads to more extreme heat, cold, storms, fires, and floods.

Referring to carbon dioxide (CO2) as “carbon pollution” is one of the most common rhetorical tricks employed by the Obama administration. In the EPA’s news release announcing the CPP, they referenced “carbon pollution” five times in the release’s first four sentences.

Calling the gas “carbon” encourages the public to think of it as something dirty, like graphite or soot — which really are carbon.

Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is a non-toxic, odorless, invisible gas essential to plant photosynthesis. It is no more pollution than is water vapor, by far the principal greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The EPA website is riddled with this “carbon” deception.

Leyland replied to the EPA chief:

It is shocking that McCarthy does not understand the difference between carbon dioxide — a harmless gas that benefits agriculture — and genuine pollutants like particulates, sulphur dioxide and the like emitted from old obsolete power stations. Modern coal-fired stations do not emit these pollutants.

McCarthy is not fit to head the EPA if she doesn’t know such basic science. Regardless, neither theory nor observations support the EPA chief’s claim that CO2 rise causes “more extreme heat, cold, storms, fires and floods.” Hyderabad, India-based Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy — formerly chief technical advisor for the UN World Meteorological Organization and author of Climate Change – Myths & Realities — said that McCarthy’s statement is “not true”:

Extreme heat, cold, storms and floods are part of natural variation. These are modified by local general circulation patterns existing over different parts of the globe over different seasons.

Nicol also contested McCarthy’s assertion:

Not only is the claim that CO2 is to blame [for increases in extreme weather] wrong, but the contradictory statements regarding these weather events, which are NO different from those of 200 years ago, demonstrates the desperation of lobby groups trying to maintain this myth.

If the world were to warm appreciably due to increasing CO2 emissions, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see weaker midlatitude cyclones in a warmer world — and thus fewer extremes in weather, not more.

Indeed, the lack of extreme weather increase with global warming is one of the few areas of agreement between the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). In 2012, the IPCC asserted that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated. In their latest assessment report (Sep 2013), IPCC scientists concluded that they had only “low confidence” that “damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity” as a result of global warming.

The Sep 2013 NIPCC report concluded the same, asserting:

In no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.

NIPCC report chapter lead author Dr. Timothy Ball, environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, explained that the EPA is taking the approach that American journalist Farhad Manjoo identified in his book True Enough: Learning To Live in a Post-Fact Society:

You create your theory then hire experts. The EPA agenda is political, not scientific.

Climate Change Is Normal

McCarthy then told the RFF Forum:

For farmers who are strained by the drought, for families with homes in the path of a wildfire, for small businesses along our coastlines, climate change is indeed very personal.

Nicol labeled these comments “utter rubbish,” writing:

Farmers do not believe in Global Warming or Climate Change as spruced by the human-caused global warming industry. Farmers have mostly been on their properties since they were children and have also been given detailed accounts of the weather and the seasons from when their great-grandfathers began farming.

This fact upsets those who try to claim that there are obvious changes. Farmers will tell you that the seasons come in cycles and any season we have now has been seen in the past — possibly 100 years ago.

Reddy also replied to McCarthy:

These [phenomena McCarthy lists] are associated with human actions on nature — land use and land cover changes, pollution (air, water, soil, and food) and adulterated foods, etc. For example, recent devastations in Jammu & Kashmir and Himalayan states of India were associated with occupation/building houses on river banks.

—————

McCarthy continued:

We all know that climate change is impacting us today and will continue to get worse if we don’t take action.

The EPA chief knows full well that this is not true.

After intense questioning from Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) at the September 18, 2013 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, McCarthy admitted that the CPP will have essentially no impact on climate. Hayden agreed:

Even if the restrictions were enacted, the effect on worldwide temperature would be too tiny to measure.

——————

McCarthy Suppresses Open Scientific Debate

McCarthy said:

We are way past any further discussion or debate.

Scientists are as sure that humans are causing climate change as they are that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. So, unless you want to debate that point, don’t debate about climate change any longer because it is our moral responsibility to act.

Comparing the science linking cigarette smoke and cancer with the science of climate change is ridiculous. Climate science is becoming more uncertain as the field advances — we don’t even know if warming or cooling lies ahead.

University of Western Ontario applied mathematician Dr. Chris Essex, an expert in the mathematical models that are the basis of the climate scare, explained:

Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.

The NIPCC reports list hundreds of peer-reviewed science papers that show that much of what we thought we knew about climate is wrong or highly debatable. In particular, the lack of global warming over the past 18 years, a period during which CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen 10%, shows there is something seriously wrong with the human-caused warming theory.

Reddy responded to McCarthy’s statement:

We still need to discuss global warming science since the IPCC is not sure of the correct sensitivity factor that relates anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases to temperature rise.

This is illustrated by the fact that they changed the sensitivity factor [the temperature rise in degrees Celsius forecast to occur due to a doubling of CO2], from 1.95 in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to 1.55 in their Fifth Assessment Report (2013).

They are merely employing trial and error, and not physical process paths.

Ball points out what the IPCC itself admitted in its Third Assessment Report (2001):

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

John Nicol said of the scientists who support McCarthy’s position:

They are mistaken since they do not have a proper understanding of the spectroscopic behavior of carbon dioxide or its interactions in a mixture of other gases — oxygen and nitrogen.

—————

McCarthy next told the audience that Obama:

… reminded us that, while we are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change, we are the last that can effectively do something about it.

Nicol answered:

We are not the first people to experience climate change. The Navajo in America, civilizations in the Middle East, and many others moved across continents to escape climate change-related events which were totally the responsibility of Nature and caused huge upheaval.

The changes claimed to be perceived today are, by comparison, trivial.

Carbon dioxide is not causing changes to the climate — Nature causes changes and always has, always will.

Ball asked:

How on Earth did we ever survive the climate change that has gone on for five billion years?

Of course, the idea that we can do something about it speaks to the arrogant godlessness of Obama and the environmentalists. If you get rid of God, you have to play God, and Obama’s angels are the bureaucrats like McCarthy. It’s interesting that another McCarthy, Mary, said: “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, [is] the modern form of despotism.”

————

McCarthy concluded her comments:

Science has spoken on this. A low-carbon future is inevitable. We’re sending exactly the right signals on what, at least EPA believes to be, a future of lower pollution that is essential for public health and the environment.

Nicol replied:

Advocates for the destruction of society and world control of our societies are the actual offenders who have spoken on this.

Real and demonstrable science shows that a low carbon future will have no influence on the world’s climate and will destroy our ability to care for the world’s poor.

Energy is essential for the distribution of health and wealth to the poorer nations. This means that coal-fired power is essential, as recognized by the world’s largest economies, China and India.

Who are we to dictate the living standards of these and other nations?

Leyland added:

The main effect of the drive for a low carbon future is that energy will become more and more expensive and more and more people will die in the winter from the cold and in summer because they cannot afford to run the air conditioning.

The health effects would be seriously negative. The environmental effects will be a reduction in plant growth that could cost the agricultural economy trillions of dollars.

CPP’s Fictitious Health and Financial Benefits

McCarthy made numerous excited claims about the health impacts of the new climate rule:

As a result [of the CPP], in 2030, we are going to be avoiding thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions, tens of thousands of asthma attacks and hundreds of thousands of missed school days and missed work days.

But the CPP does not regulate pollution. It regulates CO2, which has no detrimental impact on human health.

Only by assuming that enabling the CPP will force the closure of coal-fired electricity stations – and that that will reduce pollution emissions – can one claim the health benefits claimed by McCarthy. As explained by William Yeatman, environmental policy expert and editor of the Cooler Heads Coalition:

[This is] an EPA scam, known as “co-benefits,” by which the agency has justified a number of recent highly politicized regulations.

[T]here are entire sections of the Clean Air Act given to the regulation of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. There is, therefore, neither a public health purpose nor a need for EPA to use a climate plan to regulate particulate matter and nitrogen oxides emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Furthermore, Yeatman demonstrates that the EPA’s methodology for estimating health benefits of the Clean Air Act “is based almost entirely on controversial, ‘secret’ science.” Not only do their forecasts of lives saved make no sense, but the agency refuses to release the data used to make these calculations. Carlin labeled the supposed health benefits of the CPP “dubious if not imaginary,” and asked:

If these benefits actually exist, why has EPA not already obtained them directly and more efficiently using “conventional” pollutant regulations?

McCarthy concluded her presentation by claiming that in 2030, as a result of the CPP:

The average American family will start seeing $85 in annual savings on their utility bills.

This is lunacy. Independent climate researcher Willis Eschenbach demonstrated on Watts Up With That that the CPP will almost quadruple U.S. electricity prices by 2030 if the Obama administration’s latest CO2 rule is fully implemented. As seen in Figure 1 below, Eschenbach calculated that “renewable” capacity per capita accounts for 84% of electricity cost variations between European countries (about €1 trillion has been spent so far in Europe on the installation of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation).

Figure 1: Electricity costs as a function of per capita installed renewable capacity. Wind and solar only, excludes hydropower.

Eschenbach explained:

We get about 4% of our electricity from wind and solar. He [Obama] wants to jack it to 28%, meaning we need seven times the installed capacity. Currently we have about 231 kW/capita of installed wind and solar (see Figure 1).

So Obama’s plan will require that we have a little less than seven times that, 1537 kW/capita. And assuming that we can extend the relationship we see in Figure 1, this means that the average price of electricity in the U.S. will perforce go up to no less than 43 cents per kilowatt-hour [the current average U.S. price of electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour] (This includes the hidden 1.4 cents/kW cost due to the five cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy paid to the solar/wind producers).

In January 2008, Obama, then a candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, told the San Francisco Chronicle that under his energy plan “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Eschenbach and other analysts (for example, here and here) show that the CPP will finally allow the president to fulfill this promise.

Climate Hoax Must Be Confronted

Dr. Jay Lehr, science director at The Heartland Institute, summed up the situation well:

There is no science behind the idea that man controls the climate. Yet, billions of dollars are being diverted from our taxes to scam artists for renewable energy, fallacious mathematical model research, and political rewards.

It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before. And this will continue unabated for years to come until the public rises up in dissent.

Rather than just go with the flow or try to game the system to their advantage, industry leaders, scientists, and ordinary citizens must speak out against the climate scare that threatens America. If they do not, operatives such as Gina McCarthy will have free rein to enable the president’s disastrous climate plans.

3 thoughts on “Climate Change Rhetoric is Nothing More Than a Cover for Wealth Redistribution.

  1. Pingback: Climate Change Rhetoric is Nothing More Than a Cover for Wealth Redistribution. | ajmarciniak

  2. Open Letter to IPCC/UNFCCC/WMO/UN

    Sub: Comments on IPCC’s 24th September 2019 Report on “The Ocean and Cryosphere in a changing climate: Summary for Policy makers”

    From: Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy Hyderabad/TS/India/28-9-2019

    Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on 24th September 2019, the 3rd Special Report “The Ocean and Cryosphere in changing climate: Summary for Policy Makers” [SROCC]. The 1st one refers to “Global Warming of 1.5 oC” [SR1.5] and the 2nd one refer to “Climate Change and Land” [SRCCL]. I submitted my comments on the 2nd report [Reddy, 2019a]. The 2nd and the 3rd are primarily the hypothetical outcome from the 1st report only, which is clear from ‘A1 – A3’.
    Earth’s climate is dynamic and it is always changing through the natural cycles. What we are experiencing now is part of this system only. It is beyond human control. We need to adapt to them [Reddy, 1993 & 2019b, c & d]. The fact is: global warming is not climate change but it is only small component of climate change [Reddy, 2008 & 2016].

    A1: Over the last decades, global warming has led to widespread shrinking of the cryosphere, with mass loss from ice sheets and glaciers (very high Confidence), reductions in snow cover (high Confidence), and thickness (very high Confidence), and increased permafrost temperature (very high Confidence).

    The inferences were made using model based “HOAX” Projections that are far from reality. This is not new, IPCC in its AR4 concluded that “Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035” and Al Gore concluded in his Inconvenient Truth that “Greenland would become ice free in 5 years”. We questioned these conclusions. R. K. Pachauri, the then Chairman of IPCC, dismissed the criticism, claim it as “voodoo science”. While this is going on IPCC & Al Gore jointly received Nobel Prize. After this event, both these conclusions were withdrawn by apologizing. IPCC says that the Himalayan Glaciers won’t melt by 2035 & expressed regret by saying that established standards of evidence not applied properly.
    According to a 2013 IPCC report “glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide” [about 8 out of 10 Chance] that Northern Hemisphere spring snow continues to decrease. Reddy (2016) discussed some of the results of different scientific groups. In 2014 a study of 2, 181 Himalayan glaciers from 2000-2011 showed that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding [this was also informed to Indian Parliament by the minister of forests & environment and climate change after his return from Paris meet in December 2015]. Heavy snowfall was reported in the latter two years in Himalayan zone.
    There are several local and regional causes for ice melt [Reddy, 2016]. In Arctic and Antarctic zones in addition there are several other activities like drilling for gas and oil and Earthquakes and volcano eruptions affect the ice melting or ice destruction. Also, natural cyclic variation plays the major role on sea ice extent over Arctic and Antarctic and thus on sea level rise or fall. They presented high seasonal variations — summer to winter — & annual patterns around the mean. Such variations of Arctic and Antarctic present opposite patterns similar to Atlantic and Pacific oceans temperature cyclic variations [Reddy, 2008, 2016 & 2019b]. Geological Survey of India monitoring few important glaciers in Himalayan region. Gangotri, is one of them, feed the main river Ganga. Due to formation of fault zone the ice started receding and now it started recovering. These are factual localized conditions but the present IPCC report talks of confidence limits based on poor quality model assessments based on the projected global warming.
    India Meteorological Department (IMD) brought out a meteorological monograph on “State level climate change trends in India” [Rathore, et al., 2013]. The report used 280 met stations data and 1451 rain-gauge stations data out of 500 and 2500 stations respectively for 48 years – 1951 to 2010, which forms the so-called global warming period. Annual mean temperature trend was zero in major part of central India. Even in other parts, some showed positive (increasing) trend and some others showed negative (decreasing) trend. The basic problem here is that majority of the met stations selected for the temperature analysis are from urban areas wherein urban-heat-island effect contributes to positive side. Average number of days per station in each year reaching or exceeding 100 oF in 982 stations of the USHCN data base (NOAA/NCEI, prepared by J.R. Christy) during 1895 to 2014 in US showed the highest around 1935.
    The Sun emits energy, which is constant, present a natural cyclic pattern in association with the Sunspots cycle. Sun’s energy reaching the ground [global solar radiation – short wave part] and balance after the Earth’s emittance of absorbed radiation [net radiation – longwave part] present the Sunspot cycle [Reddy et al., 1977]. They are 10.5±0.5 years and its multiples. Global annual average temperature anomaly presents 60-year cycle. After separating the natural variability {varying from -0.3 to +0.3 oC} from trend {0.3 oC per century or 1951 to 2100 is 0.45 oC} [WMO (1966); Reddy (2008)]. Unlike model projections presented by IPCC in its report they are far far less. This is with adjusted data series. Also IPCC in its reports showed decreasing trend in climate sensitivity factor [1.95 to 1.55] which indirectly suggests that the global warming component from 1951 to 2100 is practically zero or insignificant to influence nature.
    The rainfall data used present misleading results basically because it is a truncated data set of cyclic variation data series. To answer a question raised in Indian Parliament Indian scientists used one 60 year cycle data – Sine Curve of high to low – and said Indian rainfall is decreasing. If they would have shifted backward or forward by 30 years the trend would have shown increasing trend. All-India annual average rainfall presented 60-year cycle and thus Indian rainfall follows the natural variability with no significant trend [Reddy, 2019e & f]. These patterns influence temperature and thus the selected temperature period plays vital role on conclusions. Nobody bothers on this vital aspect.

    In ‘A2’ the report talks of — marine heat waves (frequency & intensity) —-, and in ‘A3’ the report talks of —- sea level rise. Also the report says that “Increases in tropical cyclones winds and rainfall, and increases in extreme waves, combined with relative sea level ice, exacerbate extreme sea level events and coastal hazards —.

    Reddy & Rao (1978) presented heat & cold wave phenomenon in India. The high pressure belt condition around Nagpur drives the western disturbances in summer and winter around Indian regions. They vary with year to year; zone to zone. Here the general circulation pattern existing at that time plays the major role.
    The coastal zone on the east coast has been destroyed to meet the human greed, under the disguise of tourism, commercial establishments within the SEZ zones that were encouraged by government’s environment ministry — Today a report presented that on the orders of Supreme Court of India illegally built structures in SEZ zone were demolished in Koch zone. The major casualty is destruction of mangroves that causes coastal erosion under high tides as this zone is prone to frequent cyclonic activity. Also, aqua culture farms also affecting the coastal zone in terms of erosion and polluting the coastal waters. Today’s Deccan Chronicle (Vizag Edition) of 26-9-2019 presented a report “Earth is running out of time: Intellectuals”. Above the text presented a photograph “Plastic waste accumulates on the shore near Lawson’s Bay in Visakhapatnam on Thursday”. This is the scenario that is affecting the life in the coastal waters in terms of quantity and quality. This is creating livelihood problem to fisherman. Coastal waters have been polluted with urban sewage, industrial effluents, etc. Mangroves provide shelter to rich sea food and as well act as protective wall to stop tidal fury. Here the basic problem is human greed and not fictitious global warming.
    Reddy (2018) presented the historical data on Texas major hurricane landfalls and western gulf of Mexico sea surface temperature, major land falling hurricanes in Florida since 1900; sea level rise at stations along the Gulf coast, etc. Over the last 150 years, the number of major hurricanes hitting Texas has been the same when Gulf of Mexico water temperatures were below normal or when they were above normal. Land subsidence has been creating sea level rise syndrome. For example it is seen along the Gulf coast due to several human greed related actions and natural phenomenon.
    Reddy (2000) studied Andhra Pradesh rainfall. The annual march of southwest monsoon and northeast monsoon rainfall for the coastal Andhra met sub-division presented reverse mirror images for the two seasons, though the magnitude in mm differs. They followed 56-year cycle but in opposite direction – similar to 60-year cycle in Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean temperatures –. The frequency of occurrence of cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal followed the southwest monsoon 56 year cyclic patterns with mean as 10 [Reddy, 2016].
    The report observed that “Climate change is likely to mean monsoon systems affect larger areas over longer timescales, and rainfall during monsoon season is likely to intensify while becoming less predictable. The largest effect, which is already being observed today, is an increase in the year-to-year variability of the monsoon strength and the associated extremes of rainfall”. This statement is not based on factual information but based on hypothetical imagination. Reddy (1993 & 2019b) presented the natural variability in rainfall and adaptation of agriculture to these over different parts of the globe. Here the basic problem is, misusing of the word “climate change” as de-facto global warming. See for more information Reddy (2019 b, c, d, e &f).

    Summary

    The IPCC special report on the 1.5 oC goal, for example, said it was possible to keep the rise in temperature to within 1.5 oC, but for that the world would need to bring down its greenhouse gas emissions to half of its 2010 levels by 2030, and to net zero by 2050. — Some countries have already announced their intention to achieve this target, but the most prominent emitters China, US, India have so far not done so. Yet, with this scenario Indian temperature presented heterogeneous pattern, some areas showed no change, some areas showed decreasing trend and some other areas showed increasing trend. Here we must remember the fact that majority of the met stations selected were in urban areas and thus urban-heat-island effect contaminates the temperature data. The intensive irrigated agriculture growth in Punjab and Haryana impacted by cold-island effect. The central Indian regions were affected by both. Even with number three in CO2 emission scenario [after China & US] there is no uniformity in temperature trend in India – same can be seen in Southern and Northern Hemispheres. That means whether you control emissions or not temperature trends were controlled by several other localized factors. Same is the case with US and China.
    The report was built on the false foundations, such as “There is already a lot of irrefutable scientific evidence to suggest that human activities have been altering climate in a way that would have disastrous consequences for the planet.” Though it is true but it is not due to global warming but due to direct intervention of humans on nature. For example, if we destroy the water flow system, flood intensities and frequencies will increase. This is a fact with urban flooding – in Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Srinagar, Uttakhand, etc. [Reddy, 2019f]. The important feature is Western Ghats: on wind-ward side heavy rains occur and on lee-ward side less rains [rain shadow zone]. But this is modified by cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal. So, if Western Ghats are destroyed the whole rain system collapses and thus the temperature pattern.
    The report says that the frequencies of extreme El Nino and La Nina events are the Pacific Ocean is likely to increase in the coming years that could possibly result in more intense wet or dry periods in India. This is erroneous conclusion (Reddy, 1993 & 2019b, c, d, e & f) as Indian rainfall follows natural cyclic pattern but varies with region and so is the case around the Globe. During 126 years [1880-2006] : Out of the 18 El Nino years, deficit in 7 years, below normal in 5 years, normal in 5 years and 1 year excess rainfall was received. Out of 24 La Nina years, 10 years received excess rains, 7 years above normal and 7 years normal. In 84 normal years [without El Nino or La Nina], 37 years received normal rainfall, 13 years below normal, 14 years deficit, 14 years above normal and 6 years excess. In 126 years, deficit rainfall was recorded in 21 years; excess rainfall was recorded in 17 years; and normal rainfall in 49 years. The excess and deficit years followed natural cycles.
    It also pointed out that the global food system, which would include activities such as agriculture, cattle-rearing, food processing industry, energy consumed in these processes, and transportation of food items, could account for as much as a third of all greenhouse gases. It said nearly 25 per cent of all food produced globally was either lost or wasted. And even the decomposition of waste food released emissions. I myself presented food-waste in India [radio talk in 2011] is around 30-40% and thus the inputs used to produce that [FAO reported this as 30% for the globe] (Reddy, 2019c). This does not consume energy. It is due to non-availability of storage facilities, unusual weather events, etc. But, IPCC forgot the major component of energy waste – IT sector and Multinational Companies agriculture technology which in addition created air, water, land and food pollution and thus health hazards and thus pollution due to drug manufacturing industries-hospitals and the vicious circle moves on. Stan Cox’s book of “Sick Planet: —“, highlighted this issue. Paris 2015 Agreement did not include these vital aspects [only temperature was included] in the Agreement document with MNCs lobbying even after Pope Francis, US President and as well UN Secretary General emphasised this aspect. Even in 60-70s environmental movement on pollution [carbon dioxide is not a pollution – we breathe air and use oxygen and release carbon dioxide] side lined with fictitious global warming with very poor quality data set at Rio Summit.
    With the human greed and apathy from governments caused the destruction of coastal belts and polluted the shore lines that affected the sea life in India.

    Few Suggestions for Consideration

    Here are few suggestions to UN:
    • IPCC must be disbanded and the money spent for IPCC may be transferred to upliftment of downtrodden people in developing countries.
    • Also, UN must think on how to bring down the population growth and how to save energy. One of this is urban planning.
    • Give top priority to bring down pollution [air, water, land & food].
    Here are few suggestions for India:
    • India should dump the “GARBAGE” reports of IPCC which are speculative that create fear psychosis among public and use this to get billions of dollars.
    • It is clear from IMD monograph that there is no global warming threat to India.
    • FLOODS, DROUGHTS, HEAT-WAVES & COLD-WAVES were there in the past, are there now and will be there in future. However, they vary with location to region (Reddy, 2019d & e). The Paris agreement has no role on these.
    REFERENCES
    1. Reddy, S.J., 2019a: “Comments on IPCC’s 7th August 2019 Report on “Climate Change and Land”, Acta Scientific Agriculture, 3.9 (2019):147-150.
    2. Reddy, S.J., 1993: ‘Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries’, (JCT, Secunderabad, India), 205p – Book Review appeared in Agric. For. Meteorol., 67, pp. 325-327 (1994) — http://www.scribd.com/.Google Books.
    3. Reddy, S.J., 2019b: ‘Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries [2nd Edition]’, “Brillion Publishing”, New Delhi, 372p.
    4. Reddy, S.J., 2019c: “Workable Green Revolution: Agriculture in the perspective of Climate Change”, Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 221p (2019).
    5. Reddy, S.J., 2019d: “Water Resources Availability in India”, Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 224p.
    6. Reddy, S.J., 2008: “Climate Change: Myths & Realities”, http://www.scribd.com/Google Books, 205p.
    7. Reddy, S.J., 2016. Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities. BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, 276p.
    8. Rathore, L.S., Atri, S.D. & Jaswal, A.K., 2013: “State level climate change trends in India”, Meteorological Monograph No. ESSO/IMD/EMRC/02/2013, Government of India, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Earth System Science Organization, India Meteorological Department.
    9. Reddy, S.J., Juneja, O.A. & Lahore, S.N. (Miss), 1977: “Power spectral analysis of total and net radiation intensities”, Indian Journal of Radio and Space Physics, 6:60-66.
    10. WMO [World Meteorological Organizations], 1966: “Climate Change”, Tech. Note 79, Prepared by J.M.Mitchel, et al., Genewa, Switzerland, 81pp.
    11. Reddy, S.J., 2019e: “Climate Change and it’s Impacts on Water Availability in Rivers and Crop Productivity”, Acta Scientific Agriculture, 3.10 (2019):155-163.
    12. Reddy, S.J., 2019f: “Climate change & Urbanization: a threat for urban flooding & water quality”, Invited Talk presented at All India Seminar on “Water and Sanitation Management”, on the occasion of Centenary celebrations of IEI, March 19-20, 2019, Hyderabad, pages:xxv-xxxvi.
    13. Reddy, S.J. & Rao, G.S.P., 1978: “A method of forecasting the weather associated with western disturbances”, Indian J. Meteorol. Hydrol. Gephys., 29:515-520.
    14. Reddy, S.J., 2018. Role of Climate Change on Recent Weather Disasters. Acta Scientific Agriculture 2.4: 22-29.
    15. Reddy, S.J., 2000: “Andhra Pradesh Agriculture: Scenario of the last four decades”, 104p.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
    Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
    Fellow, Telangana Academy of Sciences
    Convenor Forum for a Sustainable Environment
    Jeevananda_reddy@yahoo.com

    Misnomer on Climate Change

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    Now a day, every day we find reports on the “impact of climate change” in media. Unfortunately, man on the street to reputed Scientific Institutions using the word climate change as an adjective or as de-facto global warming. People are shy of using the word “global warming”. IPCC & UNFCCC clearly defined the word “climate change” but rarely followed this. IPCC published several reports. I presented my observations on IPCC Synthesis Report [AR5] released on 1st November 2014 and as well “IPCC’S WG-II AR5 with reference to India” – my observations were posted on line by several websites on December 7, 2013 and later. The presentation in Synthesis Report of AR5 is quite different from the previous two reports of AR5. This report was filled with ambiguous statements. However, to avoid the confusion particularly in relation to the impact aspects instead of using the generalized word climate change, used the specific part of climate change, namely global warming, ecological changes, natural variability, etc. This gave clarity to public on the issue of global warming. However, this was not followed while presenting IPPC’s 7th August 2019 report on “Climate Change and Land”. The following are my comments on this report submitted through an open letter [given below]:

    Open Letter to IPCC/UNFCCC/WMO/UN
    Sub: Comments on IPCC’s 7th August 2019 Report on “Climate Change and Land”
    From: Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy Hyderabad/TS/India/11-8-2019
    Under “Summary for Policy makers”, the report states that “This report addresses greenhouse (GHG) fluxes in land-based ecosystem, land use and sustainable land management in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation, desertification, land degradation and food security”. That is, tried to link all these to global warming/GHG. However, all these factors are localized and regionalized but not globalized. Mississippi River in USA receives heavy doses of chemical wastes from farm field runoffs and created Gulf of Mexico a dead zone, etc., etc. Destruction of nature to meet human greed, the “same extreme weather event’s” impact is amplified” multi-fold. Decades back a WMO report brought out some such facts.
    As usual, this is one another “Time-pass Report – Wasting Public Money” from IPCC a UN body. Most of the descriptions in the report are of hypothetical in nature derived from the Air with the pre-conceived notions and are not based on physics/Science. Unfortunately, they even did not take note of what they said in their earlier reports such as AR4 & AR5 in terms of definition of “climate change”, climate system, climate sensitivity factor, etc.
    The main fallacy in declaring an event as unusual is based on the past few years’ records. The meteorological records started only around 1850s and that too at fewer locations. With the progression of time they increased in number covering wider space. Prior to 1850 only some documents-folklores narrated unusual weather events but they are rarely available to public to consult like data. The modern politicians-UN agencies-some scientific groups-NGO groups have been attributing the unusual weather events to global warming for the lapses committed by the government bodies-public; and the media gives them hype (Reddy, 2018a& b). In all the unusual weather events they used invariably the word “climate change” but while discussing the events they talk of impact of “temperature”, which refers indirectly to “global warming, a component of climate change. However, such people avoid using the word global warming.
    “We cannot expect the Paris Agreement to solve the crisis associated with these extreme weather events. The way was to minimize their impact is through the mechanism in which they occur by quantifying the agro-climate of the region” – Ecologise.in, 6th June 2016; “Precautionary measure for natural calamities: A letter to the Prime Minister” – such analysis was carried out for few countries and the summaries were included in Reddy (1993, 2019a)
    The traditional agriculture was soil and climate driven farming systems that encompasses the animal husbandry (Reddy, 2019b). It provided socio-economic, food and nutrient security with the healthy food. Those were the “Golden Days” in the history of farming. Traditionally farmers adapted to this based on their forefathers hundreds of years of experiences. Now, quality milk & Aqua products have become rare commodities. To achieve food security, we need sustainable agriculture system under variable soil and climate conditions wherein the soil is static and the climate is dynamic (Reddy, 1993 & 2019a). Climate is beyond human control and thus needs to adapt to it. Climate is always changing through the natural cycles. What we are experiencing now is part of this system only. The two main climatic parameters that play vital role in agriculture are temperature and precipitation. Temperature presents high seasonal and annual variations. Table presents the Hyderabad Temperature Extremes from climate normal book. The range shows more than 10 oC. At all India level 2002 & 2009 were drought years. This resulted raise in temperature (0.7 & 0.9 oC).
    Month Temperature (oC)
    Tw Tmax Tmin Thm Tlm Th Tl
    Highest 23.7 38.7 26.2 42.4 22.5 44.4 19.4
    Lowest 17.2 27.8 13.4 30.6 09.9 33.3 06.1
    Range 06.5 10.9 12.8 11.8 12.6 11.1 13.3
    Tw = mean afternoon wet bulb, Tmax = mean maximum, Tmin = mean minimum, Thm = highest mean, Tlm = lowest mean, Th = highest in a day, Tl = lowest in a day,
    Agriculture was/is adapted to such variations in temperatures. However, in the last two decades groups are polluting agriculture research under the disguise of global warming, a component of climate change (Reddy, 2016). Moisture is the limiting factor in tropical warm countries where most of the developing countries are located. Moisture is expressed by rainfall/snowfall.
    CLIMATE CHANGE
    The term “climate change” was defined by IPCC & UNFCCC. However, at local and regional levels they are affected by Climate Systems & General Circulation Patterns (Reddy, 2016). These are part of natural variability. Also, with the population growth and their action on nature are adding new twists to climate change. This is termed as human induced trend. Trend is a permanent feature. In rainfall, only natural variability is present. However, in temperature both trend and natural variability are present. Let us see these in brief [see references at the end].
    TEMPERATURE:
    The carbon dioxide levels in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) are far lower than those in the Northern Hemisphere (NH). It is also true with country to country. Same is the case with the temperature. That means it is not global phenomenon but it is a regional phenomenon and averaged. We must not forget the fact that wild animal dominated the world before industrial revolution. Domesticated animal replaced the wild animal population globally. Methane gas has short life while carbon dioxide (CO2) has long life in the atmosphere. So, methane gas contribution to greenhouse gases is not an important component. Same is the case with other air pollutants that have very short life but have direct impact on life forms on the Land and in the Oceans (Reddy, 2013 & 2014). The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are linearly related to population. By bringing down the population growth drastically, CO2 will also comedown drastically.
    IPCC report showed 1.53 oC changes for land. This cannot be called as global warming but it is only an average. Also, it is contaminated by urban-heat-island effect factor. — And 0.87 oC for land + ocean from 1850-1900 to 2006-2015. The second fallacy is, all those presented in 1st para at global level has no meaning and on the contrary they should be calculated those parameters at local, regional, national and thus global level instead of harping on global warming a non-existed parameter. The temperature anomaly estimates have large limitations. For example:
    (1) The network of met stations has been increased with the time and with the satellite era they have been gradually coming down on land surface. Though oceans occupy two-thirds of globe, the network is dismal low and accuracy is big question. Also, there is no balance between urban [densely distributed over smaller area] and rural [sparsely distributed over the large area] met network. This makes imbalance contribution to global anomaly by overemphasizing the urban heat island component and underemphasizing the rural cold island component; and thus as a result positive contributions to average.
    [2] According IPCC, 1951 was the starting year of global warming; and in human impact component [trend] more than half is contributed by greenhouse effect and less than half by non-greenhouse effect. So, the changes in temperature presented above are not global warming. If we assume that in more than half, 50% is due to global warming, then they are: 0.765 oC & 0.435 oC.
    [3] Reddy (2008) presented the natural variability and trend using the data series of 1880 to 2010. The moving average suggested the natural variability follows the 60-year cycle, varies between -0.3 and +0.3 oC & the trend showed 0.6 oC/Century. Thus the global warming is 0.6 x 0.5 = 0.3 oC/Century. Then from 1951 to 2100 it is 0.45 oC. This is for linear trend. IPCC presented climate sensitivity factor gradually coming down. That means it follows the non-linearly, gradually coming down in entire greenhouse effect as the energy emitted by the Sun is constant with natural variability associated with the Sunspot cycle; and net radiation from the ground followed the same (Reddy, et al., published this in 1977)). Also, night temperatures are showing higher rise over the day temperatures, which is primarily associated with the urban heat-island effect. So, urban factor is contributing to higher rise in average land temperatures. This would have countered by the rural factor but this is missing.
    [4] By taking all these factors in to account, we can safely say that practically there is no global warming – original satellite data supported this but this was removed from the internet (Reddy, 2008). However, urban heat island effect is going up and up with bulging of unplanned urban areas. Rise in temperature is not confined to ground level but also to higher layers of the atmosphere depending up on the vertical structure [distribution/density]. This is affecting power consumption [more CO2 — not a pollution; we inhale air, use oxygen and release CO2 — is released]. This is the major issue to be talked by governments on priority basis. Now Indian Government made Ladak as UT and this may lead to unplanned/reckless growth, which will severely change the climate and destruction of natural resources [water bodies/rainfall/snowfall], etc. Thus, what IPCC said in 1st para may be possible in Ladak in near future due to human greed but not due to GHG.
    [5] Heat & Cold waves are part of natural system. In India, they are associated with Western Disturbances, a general circulation pattern, in the northwest India. Reddy & Rao published in 1978 how the heat or cold waves move over different parts of India. Even today there is no change. Unfortunately UN agencies don’t care to look in to such systems as their agenda of climate change is different. Under the general circulation pattern, low pressure system in West Bengal creates dry conditions in Hyderabad.
    IPCC reported that Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035 and Al Gore reported that Greenland ice will melt in five years. On our questioning on the veracity of such conclusions, IPCC & Al Gore waited for Nobel Prize and withdrew their conclusions but did not return the Nobel Prize money. After returning from COP21 Paris summit on climate change in 2015 the environment minister informed to the Indian Parliament that 86.6% of Himalayan Glaciers are stable out of 2181.
    If sea levels are rising, why Al Gore acquired Beach House? That means, really speaking there is no sea level rise associated with global warming; but in some areas these are associated with sinking of coastal zones due to extraction of water, oil & gas [southern parts of USA] and destruction of coastal protective walls [mangrove forests], etc. (Reddy, 2016 & 2018a).
    [6] WMO Press note on extreme weather events on the occasion of WMO Day (23-3-2014) it was observed linking global warming to droughts in SH nations. I sent a reply saying they are part of natural variability in rainfall and has nothing to do with global warming [which is non-existing] and suggested to refer my book available in WMO Library for verification on facts.
    RAINFALL:
    In rainfall, there is no trend but there is shift associated with changes in localized or regionalised Climate System. WMO in 1966 brought out a manual on climate change. This manual presented methods to separate natural variability from human induced trend. It also presented methods to characterize the cyclic nature in rainfall data series. This manual was prepared by eminent meteorologists from met departments around the globe.
    In Indian Parliament a question was asked on Delhi normal date of onset of monsoon. We were assigned to respond on this. In that connection, I collected the dates of onset and withdrawal for all met sub-divisions in India from DWR, WWR, & MWR – no data was available in electronic systems. I worked out a method for forecasting the onset of SWM [linking with Stratosphere winds over Singapore]. As part of it, time series of onset dates for Kerala were platted. The 10-year moving average showed a 52 year cyclic pattern; I published this in 1977. Same was also seen in Fortaleza rainfall in northeast Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere around the same latitude; I published this in 1984. I studied the rainfall of Mahalapye in Botswana in 1981; also studied the data series of Mozambique and Ethiopia {published in 1986 & 1990). These are presented by Reddy (1993 & 2019a). They all showed systematic rhythmic variations. Recently there was a hue- &- cry on drought conditions in Cape Town in South Africa and wet conditions [Idai Cyclone] in Beira in Mozambique. I predicted them and published in 1986 – for Beira with the average rainfall of 1480 mm: the wet 2012 to 2038 with 2023-2027 dry periods; and for Durban with the average rainfall of 1050 mm: the dry 2010-2042 with 2024-2028 wet periods.
    In 2000 in a book I presented the cyclic nature of Indian rainfall and Andhra Pradesh Rainfall. Now in all India annual rainfall started below the average 30 year part of the 60-year cycle. These were linked to water availability in Godavari River, etc. (Reddy, 2019a, b & c). Andhra Pradesh state annual rainfall presented 132 year cycle. One full cycle completed and the second cycle started in 2001 starting with below the average 66 year cycle part. In this part more drought years are possible – it is already experienced by the states. Krishna River water followed this pattern. However, SWM and NEM rainfall series showed 56 year cycle but in opposite direction [similar to Atlantic and Pacific Ocean temperature 60 year cycle]. The cyclonic activity in Bay of Bengal showed similar to SWM 56-year cycle. At local level in Kurnool, the analysis showed drought in 45% of the years. This followed the SWM rainfall pattern of 56 years cycle and thus during below the average period the drought condition will be in 70% of the years and in the above the average period, it is only 30% of the years.
    These play vital role to achieve sustainability – however scientists-institutions are misleading governments on rainfall and water availability issues — in agriculture and food security issues (Reddy, 2019b & 2019c). However, both quantity and quality of foods are important both on land and in water/oceans. The quality is affected by pollution (Reddy, 2013, 2014 & 2019b & c). On request submitted my suggestions in this regard to “Food Security and Nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030”, From 3 December 2018 to 28 January 2019, http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/cfs-hlpe/discussions/global_FSN_narrative, on online. My suggestion is 13th in the list [www.fao.org/fsmforum]. One of the ten points under this is:
    How and why do diets change?
    “One is associated with the food production through farming systems practices in agriculture and the other is non-agriculture system – animal meet and sea food. Under traditional agriculture farmers used to produce nutrient rich food including milk. With the chemical input agriculture technology this is drastically modified and now people get poor quality polluted diet including adulterated food. Even the sea/river/pond foods are contaminated with pollution. Cereals and pulses were important food components under traditional system. Now vegetables are consumed more but they are contaminated with polluted water use in producing them.”
    In 1985 presented and published the analysis results of rainfall data of India, Upper Volta [Burkina Faso], Senegal & North Western Australia — included water balance simulations to North Western Australian stations [Pine Creek, Argyle Downs, Derby, Atherton, Mt Surprise, Woodstock, Clermont, Marlborough, Mitchell] and Niger stations [Niamey Ville & Maradi]. This study brought out the fact why commercial agriculture failed in the North Western Australia. Also a bulletin was brought out in 1981 presenting the rainfall condition in West Africa [Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta, Niger and Tchad]. In all these there was no GHG impact.
    REFERENCES
    Reddy, S.J., 1993: ‘Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries’, (JCT, Secunderabad, India), 205p – Book Review appeared in Agric. For. Meteorol., 67, pp. 325-327 (1994) — http://www.scribd.com/.Google Books.
    Reddy, S.J., 2008: “Climate Change: Myths & Realities”, http://www.scribd.com/Google Books, 205p.
    Reddy, S.J., 2013: “Impacts of pollution on environment: Myths & Realities!!”, Compendium, Platinum Jubilee Celebrations of Andhra Pradesh State Centre (1938-2013), The Institute of Engineers (India), 9-16pp.
    Reddy, S.J., 2014. Water-logging and water productivity in Agriculture. Proc. 4th International Conference on ‘Hydrology and Watershed Management [ICHWAM-2014], Vol. II, pp. 683-692.
    Reddy, S.J., 2016. Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities. BS Publications, Hyderabad, India, 276p.
    Reddy, S.J., 2018a. Role of Climate Change on Recent Weather Disasters. Acta Scientific Agriculture 2.4: 22-29.
    Reddy, S.J., 2018b. Impact of “Climate Change & Human Interference” on Water Resources Availability in India. Presented at AICE’18 Total Water Solutions held at Hyderabad on 16-17th November 2018 by American Water Association [AWWA].
    Reddy, S.J., 2019a: ‘Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries [2nd Edition]’, “Brillion Publishing”, New Delhi, 372p.
    Reddy, S.J., 2019b: “Workable Green Revolution: Agriculture in the perspective of Climate Change”, Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 221p (2019).
    Reddy, S.J., 2019c: “Water Resources Availability in India”, Brillion Publishing, New Delhi, 224p.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
    Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
    Fellow, Telangana Academy of Sciences
    Convenor Forum for a Sustainable Environment
    Jeevananda_reddy@yahoo.com

Leave a Reply to Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s