The IPCC Climate Change Failure

The previous blog post  detailed my intent to use the 2020 gubernatorial Candidate’s Statement in the Voters’ Pamphlet to refute the risks of Global Warming.  I still believe my 8 previous candidacies attempting to “derail” Sound Transit’s Prop 1 extensions were vindicated.    That it’s only a question of whether it's the Northgate extension operation in 2021 or the East Link operation in 2023 that will demonstrate they were part of the biggest transportation boondoggle in history, the Prop 1 extensions

However my "Global Denier" candidacy is an attempt to expose the billions wasted by Sound Transit incompetence are a "drop in the ocean" compared to that wasted as a result of the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) edicts.  Since 1988 the IPCC has been dedicated to “providing the world with objective, scientific  information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options”.

Since then IPCC edicts about the “risk of human-induced climate change” have resulted in hundreds of billions spent annually attempting to reduce C02 emissions into the atmosphere.  Large areas of the country have been devastated by the purported need to replace coal power with far more expensive and less reliable solar panels and windmills.  Oil and gas fracking to increase fuel supply and pipelines to supply users continue to be opposed.   Increasing car mileage standards and battery power continue to add to attempts to reduce CO2 emissions. 

However, despite those billions spent and the other devastating affects, carbon emissions have increased from 22,674 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 37,077 Mt in 2017. China emissions have increased from 2,397 million in 1990 to 10,877 in 2017, twice US level 5107 Mt.  That's 29% of total and they’ve no plans to stop current increases until 2030.  The IPCC edicts have clearly failed to limit fossil emissions.

Even more delinquent, the IPCC doesn’t seem to recognize or chooses to ignore the fact the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions hasn’t significantly increased CO2 in atmosphere. Plots show CO2 increased from 320 parts per million (PPM) in 1960 to 396 PPM in 2014. Yet the rate of change from 1970 to 1990 was essentially the same as from 1990 to 2014.  Clearly the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions has had little effect on CO2 PPM.

The whole basis for the fossil CO2 emission global warming concern is while CO2 allows the Sun to heat the earth if tends to block radiant heat transfer back to space.  Climatologists have used computer models to conclude increased fossil CO2 emissions have 10 times the impact on global temperatures as increased heating from the Sun. 

However if a 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions didn’t increase the rate at which atmospheric CO2 increased they could not be the reason for increasing global temperatures.  That the only rational explanation was increasing global temperatures, driven by the sun, were increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean surface.  That increasing global temperatures are the reason for increasing CO2 in atmosphere, not the result.  That fossil CO2 emissions are not an existential threat. The sooner the IPCC and those advocating spending trillions on the green new deal recognize that reality the better.  

What’s amazing is neither multiple prominent global warming alarmists nor deniers have responded to my emails detailing these concerns.  I finished 3^rd with more than 48,000 votes in 2016.  While I have no expectation or desire to be governor I am hoping to survive until the general election.  I’m dubious whether any of my fellow candidates will attract the funds needed for an effective campaign. Also, the number of candidates reduces the number of votes required to finish second.  

The press attacks on Tim Eyman would seem to limit his pro-I-976 candidacy.  My name familiarity from previous “perennially failed” candidacies in opposition to Sound Transit on the west side of state and this opposition to any carbon tax on east side increase my chances.  While as with my previous 8 candidacies, the media will probably ignore me, I’m optimistic I’ll be able to use this candidacy to rebut the incumbent, one of the most prominent advocates of the “existential threat” of fossil CO2 emission, in the general election.  The bigger the stage the better.