Paris Climate Accord: Politics, Not Science

By Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr., J.D.

Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr., J.D., the editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, brings his 30 years of experience in government and professional writing and broadcast journalism to your audience. Vernuccio provides insights that captivate listeners.

**To schedule an interview, please respond to this e-mail message or contact Don Bischoff at (813) 792-2181. Or reply to this pitch to don@mediaproductions.tv

The recently adopted Paris climate agreement is based on political considerations, not science. Indeed, an objective view of scientific data concerning alterations in the global climate would indicate that concerns over man-made planetary warming don’t have a solid foundation in objective facts. In a survey of 1800 scientists, only 43% agreed with the UN’s ‘95%’ certainty’ about global warming.

Dr. Steve Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term, noted the lack of scientific agreement in a Wall Street Journal article:

“The idea that ‘Climate science is settled’ runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future…The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades…Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.”

A purely scientific debate would have featured significantly different facts. Astronomy Now discusses the potential of exactly the reverse of global warming:

“The arrival of intense cold similar to the one that raged during the “Little Ice Age”, which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in the years 2030—2040. These conclusions were presented by Professor V. Zharkova (Northumbria University) during the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno in Wales by the international group of scientists, which also includes Dr Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University and Dr Sergei Zharkov of Hull University”.

The goals appear to be more in line with a traditional leftist objective of transferring wealth from developed, capitalist nations to other countries. Among the scientific questions scrupulously avoided in Paris:

* Earth was warmer both in the 10th century A.D. and during part of the Roman Empire period. How does this compare with the concept of man-made global warming?

* During the period when Earth was warming during the past decades,other planets in the solar system were also warming. Doesn’t this indicate that it is solar activity, not human activity that is the major factor? (LiveScience noted in 2007: “Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.”

* Antarctic ice cover reached its greatest level ever in 2014. Forbes reports:“Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar icecaps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

* There has been virtually no global warming for close to two decades.This should be reviewed more carefully before making drastic plans.

There appears to be considerable attempts to prevent a truly scientific discussion of global climate matters. William O’Keefe, writing at Marshall.org reports that “In recent months, climate advocates have stepped up efforts to silence and intimidate organizations that question the climate orthodoxy that human activities involving the use of fossil fuels are leading to a climate catastrophe. Their tactic is to urge that organizations expressing any skepticism be investigated under RICO—Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They have been championed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse who claims that“fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.”

President Obama’s enthusiasm for the 31-page agreement follows a pattern set in other matters. He has employed international accords (carefully crafted not to be treaties which require Senate approval) to get around a Congress reluctant to agree with his domestic agenda. As noted in The Hill“ Obama has also used the climate deal to bolster major controversial climate regulations. He’s argued that rules like the Environmental ProtectionAgency’s (EPA) carbon dioxide limits for power plants and its methane emissions rules for the oil and natural gas sectors are necessary to obtainthe 26 to 28 percent greenhouse gas reduction he pledged to the UN…Sincethe accord does not commit the United States to anything with legal force that it has not already agreed to in previous treaties, the Obama administration will argue that it does not require Senate ratification as atreaty.”

President Obama has pledged (without the consent of Congress) $3 billion as just a start to fund the $100 billion goals of the Paris agreement.Transferring wealth to developing countries appears to be the primary but unspoken goal of the Paris deal. The agreement’s Article 9, as reported by CNS notes: “Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.”

Bloomberg reports that Mr. Obama’s $3 billion pledge “would make the U.S. the largest donor to the newly established fund.”

• Tweet
• Pin It