A new post up at WUWT by Lawrence Hamlin supports the recent Lindzen et al petition for the USA and others to leave the UNFCCC, and he draws attention to this phrase buried deep in the IPCC report (AR5), concerning outputs from coupled socioeconomic and climate models:
“The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. (12.3.1; Box 1.1)”
I’ll decide for myself what I find plausible, and fodder for CO2 Alarm would struggle to qualify, but I suspect such scenarios are seen as vivid portents of an all but inescapable doom-laden future by the victims and perpetrators of that Alarm. But why should more sensible members of society pay them much heed? And why on earth would anyone want to build major policy decisions around them? There’s more to this than the fledgling science of climate can account for, or support, that’s for sure. Let me follow Hamlin and reproduce the Lindzen et al petition and part of his supporting letter:
The February 25 Petition to President Trump requesting U.S. withdrawal from the UNFCCC states:
We urge the United States government, and others, to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We support reasonable and cost-effective environmental protection. But carbon dioxide, the target of the UNFCCC is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth. Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions.
In the letter supporting his withdrawal request Dr. Lindzen notes:
“We petition the American and other governments to change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases, primarily Carbon Dioxide, CO2 for harsh regulation. Since 2009, the US and other governments have undertaken actions with respect to global climate that are not scientifically justified and that already have, and will continue to cause serious social and economic harm—with no environmental benefits. While we support effective, affordable, reasonable and direct controls on conventional environmental pollutants, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. To the contrary, there is clear evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful to food crops and other plants that nourish all life. It is plant food, not poison.”
Hear, hear, and hear again!
Update 09 March 2017. Richard Lindzen makes it even clearer why the USA, and every other country, should leave the UNFCCC. This is by way of his response to MIT staff who recently wrote, ex cathedra, to President Trump to plead their special case.