Can you say “desperate’?
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) — President Obama joined other world leaders Tuesday in calling for immediate and substantive steps to combat climate change, saying failure to act now would bring “irreversible catastrophe.”
As the world gets cooler the rhetoric gets more desperate.
Matt Rogers is a meteorologist for the Washington Post, an unusual place to find a sceptic of “Global Warming”. Yet, nonetheless, there he is giving ten reasons he thinks it’s wise to question the “concensus” on GW.
But first he starts by setting the stage with how difficult the topic is:
…I frequently say that weather forecasting is a humbling endeavor, and I have learned to respect its challenges. From this perspective, you might be able to better understand why I wince when hearing pronouncements such as “the science is settled”, “the debate is over”, or even the “the temperature in the 2050s is projected to be…” I realize that forecasting climate and weather are different, but both involve a large number of moving parts.
With respect for the topic and the state of the science he lists his top ten reasons, David Letterman style, for questioning the orthodox view:
(10) Hurricanes: …Since the 1990s, this activity has been decreasing, which goes against what we were told to expect on a warming planet.
(9) Ice Caps: In 2007, the Northern Hemisphere reached a record low in ice coverage and the Northwest Passage was opened. …What you were not told was that the data that triggered this record is only available back to the late 1970s.
(8) El Niño: …we are now about to complete an entire decade without a strong El Niño event (three occurred in the 1980s-1990s). So the more recent 2007 IPCC report backtracked from Hansen’s prediction, noting that there were too many uncertainties to understand how El Niño will behave with climate change.
(7) Climate Models: To be blunt, the computer models that policy-makers are using to make key decisions failed to collectively inform us of the flat global land-sea temperatures seen in the 2000s…
(6) CO2 (Carbon Dioxide): …Over the summer, CO2 reached almost .04% of our total atmosphere as reported here. Because CO2 is but a sliver of our atmosphere, it is known as a “trace gas.” We all agree that it is increasing, but is there a chance that our estimate of its influence on the Greenhouse Effect is overblown given its small atmospheric ratio?
(5) Global Temperatures: …Three of four major datasets that track global estimates show 1998 as the warmest year on record with temperatures flat or falling since then.
(4) Solar Issue: …The second half of the twentieth century (when we saw lots of warming) was during a major solar maximum period- which is now ending. Total solar irradiance has been steady or sinking similar to our global temperatures over much of this past decade…
(3) But what about…? …”But what about all this crazy weather we’ve been having lately?” …Very few statistics are available that correctly show an increase in these “crazy” events.
(2) Silencing Dissent: …several times during debates individuals have told me I should not question the “settled science” due to the moral imperative of “saving the planet”. As with a religious debate, I’m told that my disagreement means I do not “care enough” and even if correct, I should not question the science. This frightens me.
(1) Pullback: Does climate change hysteria represent another bubble waiting to burst? From the perspective of the alarmism and the saturation of the message, the answer could be yes. I believe that when our science or economic experts tend to be incorrect, it usually involves predictions that have underperformed expectations (Y2K, SARS, oil supply, etc). Can we think of any other expert-given, consensus-based, long-term predictions that have verified correctly? Not one comes to mind.
All are good but I like No. 1 the best. Because that, my friends, describes hubris.
The attack on kids as culprits in “global warming” goes on.
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
…The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary method of emission reduction…
Preventing kids should be the “PRIMARY method of emission reduction”! Not having kids is five times more effective than green technologies!
I thought we needed “cap and trade” to save the planet. What happened to reusable grocery bags? What about hybrid cars and riding your bike to work? Recycling? Is Algore’s carbon offset venture just a feel good scam? It would appear so.
Turns out the only thing we need to do is remove humans, at least in great numbers, from the Earth. Who needed them anyway? (You might want to ask the Europeans what happens to societies with declining populations.)
The Kyoto Protocal called for a 5% reduction in emissions over a five year period. The U.S. Senate unaninously refused to approve it and President Clinton refused to sign it because of it’s severe effect on the U.S. economy. But now we’re being told that that was chicken feed. Now it’s so bad that nearly nothing we can do short of living a caveman-like existence will work:
The research is published on the day that the Government’s climate change advisers, the Climate Change Committee, warned households and industry that a planned 80 percent reduction in emmissions are likely to prove insufficient.
Because the true believers have the ears of our politicians, we can expect them to react to such dire predictions. How long before suggested contraception use becomes mandatory sterilization in pursuit of the gospel of “Climate Change”? Don’t bet that it’s too far off.
If you plan to have children do it now before you’re told you can’t.