DGS49
Diamond Member
Copied & pasted from the Wall Street Journal:
Human influence extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century, was the headline from Fridays release of the first instalment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes fifth assessment report. Extremely likelyindicating a 95%-100% likelihoodwas ratcheted up one notch from the 2007 fourth assessment reports very likely. Yet compared to 2007, the IPCC widened its estimate of the responsiveness of the climate system to carbon dioxide by reducing the lower band to a 1.5°C increase from 2°C, qualifying the new estimate as only likely.
This is a glaring discrepancy. How can the IPCC be more confident that more than half the temperature rise since the mid-20th century is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions when it is less sure of the climatic impact of carbon dioxide? The explanation is that IPCC reports, especially the summaries for policymakers, are primarily designed for political consumption. And as if on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the IPCC report, If someone said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that doesnt agree with it, you still take out the insurance.
But poke beneath the surface of the IPCCs latest offering and the confection is revealed for what it is. The IPCCs quantification of the separate components of the warming since 1951 (greenhouse gases, cooling from aerosols, internal variability) is deemed only likely (66%-100% likelihood). Only at the IPCC could the sum of these components be given a greater likelihood than the individual building blocks. Perhaps the most revealing aspect is that none of the climate scientists involved seems embarrassed at this nonsense or protests at the manipulation of science for political ends.
This time around, the greatest difficulty faced by the IPCC was explaining the ongoing 15-year pause in atmospheric temperature increases. The body estimates that between 2011 and 2005, there has been a 43% rise in human-induced radiative forcingthe difference between solar radiation entering the atmosphere and infrared radiation leaving the atmosphere, whose balance is supposedly greatly disturbed by heat-trapping man-made emissions. But there has been little warming for 15 years. [end quote].
For the following reasons, I think the rational thing for the United States to do is...ignore this whole thing.
Let's assume that "global warming" science is generally correct and unimpeachable. We are generating more CO2 than the trees can absorb, it's exacerbating the "greenhouse" effect, and things are going to get warmer. But not for many decades.
It is very suspicious that the people who are promoting large-scale, dramatic changes in our energy-generating and industrial activities are focused on the supposed bad aspects of a warming planet, but are ignoring the positive aspects (longer growing seasons in temperate zones). They also keep repeating phrases like "renewable energy," but ignore the fact that their pet sources of energy (wind and sun) are sporadic and unpredictable. Specifically, the wind doesn't blow all the time, nor does the sun shine all the time - it has a troublesome habit of going away when the sun sets every day. Even the most wildly optimistic prognosticators concede that wind and solar can never generate more than 10-15% of our electrical needs. Hydro is basically tapped out, and is not favored by the tree-huggers because it tends to mess with existing species. The remainder ("baseline") of power generation will be either generated by burning carbon or nuclear. That's it. There is no way around it. And of course, Fukushima has forever ended any rational discussion about Nuclear. It is dead.
They also ignore the several BILLION people in places like China, India, and Africa, who now consume only a fraction of the per capita electricity that the Western world does, but who also want eventually, things like cars, air conditioning, televisions and computers in every room, artificial light, and so on. And like it or not, they are building coal and gas-fired power plants like crazy. Enough new plants to render the EPA's assault on coal-generation nothing more than meaningless foot-shooting.
I personally have confidence in science and technology. While I recognize that capturing and storing CO2 is one of the dumbest ideas ever created by Man, I also recognize that there are armies of scientists the world over who are trying to figure out some way of converting CO2 into something either inert or harmless, and it will be a long time before this situation become acute - if it ever does, so intentionally hindering our production of energy and goods in the hope that it will "slow down global warming" is a exercise in stupidity.
Mind you, I don't doubt the science of it (even though I'm a card-carrying Republican), I just think taking drastic measures to reduce our production of CO2 is stupid. If you really want to do something meaningful, stop breathing. At the very least, stop eating beans.
Remember that wise "scientists" at the turn of the last century predicted that by 1950, Manhattan would be covered with 50 feet of accumulated horse manure. And they had the figures, and charts and graphs to prove it. Didn't expect the advent of the automobile, you know.
My fear and suspicion is, the issue of "global warming" has become so politicized that it really has nothing to do with rational concern about climate change. It is an attempt by the World Political Left to take over control of the means of production and power generation, while claiming that they are only trying to save the planet. A pox on those bastards who try to save us from ourselves.
Save your own fucking planet; leave mine alone.
Human influence extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century, was the headline from Fridays release of the first instalment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes fifth assessment report. Extremely likelyindicating a 95%-100% likelihoodwas ratcheted up one notch from the 2007 fourth assessment reports very likely. Yet compared to 2007, the IPCC widened its estimate of the responsiveness of the climate system to carbon dioxide by reducing the lower band to a 1.5°C increase from 2°C, qualifying the new estimate as only likely.
This is a glaring discrepancy. How can the IPCC be more confident that more than half the temperature rise since the mid-20th century is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions when it is less sure of the climatic impact of carbon dioxide? The explanation is that IPCC reports, especially the summaries for policymakers, are primarily designed for political consumption. And as if on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the IPCC report, If someone said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that doesnt agree with it, you still take out the insurance.
But poke beneath the surface of the IPCCs latest offering and the confection is revealed for what it is. The IPCCs quantification of the separate components of the warming since 1951 (greenhouse gases, cooling from aerosols, internal variability) is deemed only likely (66%-100% likelihood). Only at the IPCC could the sum of these components be given a greater likelihood than the individual building blocks. Perhaps the most revealing aspect is that none of the climate scientists involved seems embarrassed at this nonsense or protests at the manipulation of science for political ends.
This time around, the greatest difficulty faced by the IPCC was explaining the ongoing 15-year pause in atmospheric temperature increases. The body estimates that between 2011 and 2005, there has been a 43% rise in human-induced radiative forcingthe difference between solar radiation entering the atmosphere and infrared radiation leaving the atmosphere, whose balance is supposedly greatly disturbed by heat-trapping man-made emissions. But there has been little warming for 15 years. [end quote].
For the following reasons, I think the rational thing for the United States to do is...ignore this whole thing.
Let's assume that "global warming" science is generally correct and unimpeachable. We are generating more CO2 than the trees can absorb, it's exacerbating the "greenhouse" effect, and things are going to get warmer. But not for many decades.
It is very suspicious that the people who are promoting large-scale, dramatic changes in our energy-generating and industrial activities are focused on the supposed bad aspects of a warming planet, but are ignoring the positive aspects (longer growing seasons in temperate zones). They also keep repeating phrases like "renewable energy," but ignore the fact that their pet sources of energy (wind and sun) are sporadic and unpredictable. Specifically, the wind doesn't blow all the time, nor does the sun shine all the time - it has a troublesome habit of going away when the sun sets every day. Even the most wildly optimistic prognosticators concede that wind and solar can never generate more than 10-15% of our electrical needs. Hydro is basically tapped out, and is not favored by the tree-huggers because it tends to mess with existing species. The remainder ("baseline") of power generation will be either generated by burning carbon or nuclear. That's it. There is no way around it. And of course, Fukushima has forever ended any rational discussion about Nuclear. It is dead.
They also ignore the several BILLION people in places like China, India, and Africa, who now consume only a fraction of the per capita electricity that the Western world does, but who also want eventually, things like cars, air conditioning, televisions and computers in every room, artificial light, and so on. And like it or not, they are building coal and gas-fired power plants like crazy. Enough new plants to render the EPA's assault on coal-generation nothing more than meaningless foot-shooting.
I personally have confidence in science and technology. While I recognize that capturing and storing CO2 is one of the dumbest ideas ever created by Man, I also recognize that there are armies of scientists the world over who are trying to figure out some way of converting CO2 into something either inert or harmless, and it will be a long time before this situation become acute - if it ever does, so intentionally hindering our production of energy and goods in the hope that it will "slow down global warming" is a exercise in stupidity.
Mind you, I don't doubt the science of it (even though I'm a card-carrying Republican), I just think taking drastic measures to reduce our production of CO2 is stupid. If you really want to do something meaningful, stop breathing. At the very least, stop eating beans.
Remember that wise "scientists" at the turn of the last century predicted that by 1950, Manhattan would be covered with 50 feet of accumulated horse manure. And they had the figures, and charts and graphs to prove it. Didn't expect the advent of the automobile, you know.
My fear and suspicion is, the issue of "global warming" has become so politicized that it really has nothing to do with rational concern about climate change. It is an attempt by the World Political Left to take over control of the means of production and power generation, while claiming that they are only trying to save the planet. A pox on those bastards who try to save us from ourselves.
Save your own fucking planet; leave mine alone.
