Media interest in global warming appears to have declined somewhat after it had peaked in 2009 when the UN Copenhagen Conference was held. Except for a spike before and after the UN Paris conference in November, the graphs below show a declining number of news articles on the subject.
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
The diminishing media interest appears to correlate with the majority of public opinion who now agree the planet is warming but believe it is a natural phenomenon. The IPCC policy of exaggerating the consequences of global warming and blaming mankind, appear to have backfired. In an attempt to get the world’s attention its advocates have been competing with each other on who
can come up with the most dire of outcomes.. e.g. Melted polar ice caps, polar bear extinction, major cities inundated and Australia’s dams will never fill again etc etc .
The following is an excerpt alleged to have come from a IPCC document justifying its policy “Our key result– that over pessimism alleviates the under participation problem–implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to society”
When asked to explain why 48 of the last 100 years showed no warming at all the IPCC explained that the world had been gradually warming throughout the century and the long “pauses”, when land temperatures readings were stable, was because heating was being absorbed deep into the oceans.
David of Doncaster sent us the following excerpt from an IPCC document.
Section 14 2.2.2. 2001 IPCC assessment report
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise 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. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present and is gravely to be regarded”.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite”…. Dwight Eisenhower
There was the Global Cooling scare in the seventies which was perpetrated by a number of scientists who were later to embrace Global Warming in the eighties. Scientists had looked at world temperature readings from 1940 and were convinced there was definitely a cooling trend. The link below includes propaganda, letters and statements seeking government funding for the cooling concept during the seventies.
Cooling or Warming
If carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming why had the Paris conference not fully addressed the problem of deforestation which is occurring at the rate of 20 football fields per minute. According to some studies the amount of deforestation so far is equivalent to adding 20% to the total of the world’s CO2 emissions. It was announced that some countries had pledged that they would employ measures to limit deforestation and in return receive rewards from wealthy countries but no details have been published.
If we are to reduce deforestation we must also address overpopulation because they go hand in hand.. Huge tracts of land would have to be cleared for agriculture and housing to accommodate the 8.5 billion people expected to be living on the planet by the year 2030.
Article below by Stephanie Fox
No Mention of Human Overpopulation in Paris at the U.N. Climate Conference.
I wondered how much of that discussion, IF any, deals with human overpopulation.
So…I did some more online searches.
This write-in question to The New York Times asks about just that, and the only response was that SCIENTISTS aren’t ignoring the issue.
It doesn’t answer the question. The link below contains various aspects of the Paris agreement.
How Important Is Population in the Climate Change Discussion?
Click to enlarge
This next link points out that unless and until the people who focus on lifestyle changes work together with those who work to halt growth, the train wreck of ecosystems collapse due to human overpopulation will soon catch up with us. (It doesn’t put it quite like that, but it says it similarly enough.)
Population Growth: The Elephant in the Room at the Paris Climate-Change Conference
Finally, I went onto the United Nations website itself looking for something about human overpopulation. Guess what I found? It was a definition of the term!
||exceeding of certain threshold limits of population density when environmental resources fail to meet the requirements of individual organisms regarding shelter, nutrition and so forth. It gives rise to high rates of mortality and morbidity. See also carrying capacity.
This is ridiculous. They aren’t bothering with this topic at all.
The United Nations isn’t facing it – it is avoiding the issue altogether.