This is reminder just how
completely the attempt to link rising CO2 which is very real with a theory that
rising global temperatures are somehow linked is discredited. A decadal 28.5 percent increase in CO2 is met
with an apparent decline from the 1998 temperature peak throughout that same
decade. Temperature wise, nothing really
changed although conditions are presently warmer than perhaps the period of
Medieval Warming.
The point is that the jump in CO2
is massive as compared to the previous increase stretched over a far greater
time period.
The Left as so well noted here is
still organizing around other doubtful causes that include attacks on Israel and I guess
even the Keystone Pipeline.
Just once I would like to see the
political left get on side in support of a constructive solution to anything.
Global Warning: Trust Scientists, Not Shamans
Posted: 10/12/11 04:32 PM ET
Historian, publisher, author
A couple of years after the academic and statistical skullduggery of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other promoters of the
global warming scare, and the shabby attempt at a comeback by the
eco-centimillionaire, Nobel laureate and Oscar-winner, Al "Settled
Science" Gore, it should be possible to develop a consensus for a less
hair-raising (and harebrained) notion of climatic developments.
In the first decade of the new millennium, carbon emissions rose by 28.5 per cent without any discernible change in world temperature. The main ingredient in the carbon emission increase was a 47 per cent jump in coal consumption, the chief source for electricity generation in the largest carbon-footprint country of all,
The whole cap-and-trade, tax-and-limit movement has collapsed, just
four years after the now thoroughly discredited IPCC announced that "most" of the world's
average temperature increase in the last 60 years was "very likely
due" to "anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions." The increase
in that time is one centigrade degree, and the evidence of the last decade,
which is the period when the connection to such emissions has been sought, debunks
the notions that there is any increase and that there is any relationship to
human-generated carbon emissions.
The incontestable need for increased energy production has overwhelmed
the brief and delusional consensus behind the deranged boondoggle of
cardigan-clad builders of windmills and solar panels. (Both business
administration and psychiatry faculties of the future will want to know what
possessed T. Boone Pickens to bet $1 billion on windmills.)
The effort to turn ecological alarms into another club applied to the public
policy cranium of the United States, including by such eminences of the
Ecopraetorian Guard as Barack Obama and Tom Friedman, has also collapsed. In
the past decade, American carbon emissions have declined by 1.7 per cent, (largely because of a heavy
American transition from coal to shale-derived natural gas), while Chinese
carbon emissions have risen by 123 per cent. The Chinese will be a good deal
less indulgent of the eco-flagellators than the U.S. has been. One of the most
delicious ironies of this turn of events has been the fact that Europe, despite
all its self-regulation and Gadarene charge into the Kyoto environmental
fantasy and its obsessive-compulsive fault-finding opposite, supposed American
eco-insouciance, have earned substantially larger carbon footprints over the
last decade.
The charlatans and zealots who promoted or allowed ecology to become
the ultimate broad church gathering together everyone from the bird-watchers
and butterfly collectors with their binoculars and nets, to the loopy militants
chaining themselves to trees and trying to climb the anchor chains of visiting U.S. Navy
vessels, should be allowed to subside without a sadistically prolonged stay in
the pillory. (The amiable Tom Friedman can retrofit himself to redoubled
agitation for the right of every newborn babe to an iPad.)
We can all agree that pollution is bad and must be curbed, that environmental vigilance is essential and must be made more scientifically rigorous, and that more abundant energy is desirable to create jobs and generalize prosperity and not just mindless consumption. The exposure of the IPCC excesses cannot be allowed to mask complacency, profligacy, and humbug.
In the aftermath of the gigantic meltdown of the international left in
the 1990s, the environmental movement suddenly became the great shelter for all
who wished to assault the triumphant West, including the domestic carriers of
what Malcolm Muggeridge described prophetically as "The Great Liberal
Death Wish." The pastoral, the faddish, the iconoclasts, all set up a cry
like a mad scrum of fox-hunters, cockahoop. As they disperse, we should be on
heightened alert against some new reassembly under new and deceptively false
colors. The West should drill for oil, convert to natural gas, (including
automobiles), and pursue energy efficiency and cleaner air and water in ways
that are not neurotic or sociopathic.
You claim to be a scientist, but your statement about a 10 year decline in temperatures is contrary to how scientists normally interpret data that is subject to wide fluctuations
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_%28Fig.A%29.gif
Perhaps you are just a person with a science degree.
Name calling: and you see a lot of that in this article, the rhetorical technique used by those who have neither facts (see any citations?) nor logic to support their position. If they had either or both, it is likely that they would not have the mental ability to use them. Hence they resort to name calling, like unruly school children.
ReplyDelete