Says David Evans,
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
What has the good doctor found on his quest to save the planet?
- The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
- There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
- The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980)….
- The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
Now, here's the punchline: "None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance." Evans goes on to say, "The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming." In other words, the facts don't fit the Alarmists' agenda (keeping their jobs, political power, etc.) so they set them aside and call them irrelevant. If that's the kind of science that the supposed consensus is built upon, you can keep it.
The alarmists might be right about one thing, namely that we have to act before it's too late. We can continue to throw billions of dollars at this fairy tale goblin, effectively consigning the planet's poorest citizens to perpetual poverty and hunger, or we can start to make rational decisions about being good stewards of the Earth and its resources while, at the same time, helping the world's developing nations to care for their people.
The headline: Gore's Mansion Uses More Energy After 'Going Green'
Enviro-crusader Al Gore just finished up renovating his home in Tennessee to make it more eco-friendly. After spending more than $16,000 on improvements that will surely save this soon-to-be-melting planet, "the former vice president uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month — 1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations."
Some perspective; according to the Energy Information Administration's website, the average American household uses 920 kilowatthours (kWh) per month. In other words, Al Gore uses 1,900% (19x) more electricity per month than the average American household. In fact, the additional amount of electricity Gore uses each month since the renovation is nearly double the amount a "normal" family uses each month.
Frankly, the High Priest of Hype wouldn't be any more hypocritical if he were actually having polar bears flown in from the Arctic and throwing them into a bear-burning stove to heat his humble abode all winter long. I've said all along that I'd be more inclined to believe the global warming hype if the people proclaiming our impending doom actually believed it.
By the way, this article over on Snopes is kind of fun, too.
I've heard this list attributed to one source or another, but I found it here today. It's a list of questions that need to be answered before we do anything drastic about global warming.
(1) Is it occurring?
(2) If it is occurring, is it bad overall?
(3) If it is occurring and is bad overall, is it caused primarily by human factors?
(4) If (1) , (2), and (3) are true, can humans do anything significant about it that is not overbalanced by detrimental factors?
(On global warming, see the chapter on global warming in Tom Bethell's delightful book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.)
After talking about this issue with Jared, I'm willing to concede that #3 isn't critical to the logical cohesiveness of the list1, but I would suggest that most folks that are truly concerned with this issue haven't answered (even in their own minds) #4. I would further suggest that many of them have barely answered #1 (can you say "scientific consensus" ten times fast?), and have used this as a launch pad for crusades involving funny-shaped light bulbs and unplugged cell phone chargers.
Anyway, back on track. Consider the following scenario: The earth is really getting warmer, and every one degree increase in the temperature will lead to the extinction of one endangered species. Our nasty addiction to internal combustion has been proven to be the cause, and the only way to turn the tide is to stop pumping oil out of the ground and instead to run cars on pure ethanol. While this course of action would guarantee the reversal of an increasing greenhouse effect, it would also lead to the collapse of any vestige of civilization in the Middle East, leading to civil wars and terrorist acts that would kill nearly a billion people throughout Europe, Asia, and northern Africa. One other byproduct would be for the U.S. to invest all surplus corn, wheat, soybeans, and any other food crop into clean fuel production, instead of exporting them, leading to the starvation of 750 million starving people in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia.
Now, I'll admit that this scenario may be far-fetched. However, humor me for a second. If the "cost to cure" global warming would be the death of 1.75 billion people, would it be worth fighting in order to save polar bears? What if the number was *only* 1 billion? Would that be any different? What if coastal flooding, induced by the complete disappearance of the polar caps, would kill or displace 100 million people, while global warming counter measures would kill or displace 200 million? No matter what you believe, you would have to admit that efforts to combat global warming come with a price tag.
I saw one estimate the other day that said it would take $45 trillion to effectively fight global warming. The Global Warming Zealots will tell you that this "investment" would actually have a positive effect on the global economy, but that can't possibly be true. Every dollar that is invested into the science of "carbon capture and storage", for example, is a dollar that won't be invested into the production of something that would actually be useful. Look at it this way; I could pay you $45k a year to walk in circles in my back yard all day, and that would impact the economy because you now have a job, you pay taxes, and you spend that money on "stuff," which keeps the economy rolling. Or, I could pay you $45k to tend a garden in my back yard, producing $10 a week in vegetables that wouldn't exist if not for your hard work. In scenario 1, the "investment" of $45k yields less per year in productivity, because in scenario 2 I still have all of the benefits of scenario 1, plus $520 in fruits and vegetables.
Now, think about the effect of pulling $45 trillion out of the global economy to produce goods and services nobody really wants, nobody really needs, and that will likely decrease global production instead of increasing it. You think high gas prices are hitting the economy hard?
Here's the bottom line. Global warming may or may not be happening. Global warming may or may not be bad. Global warming may or may not be caused by man. That's not the point. Even if these three things are true, before we start taking action we first need to realize that such actions will have consequences. And, if these consequences outweigh the initial threat proposed by global warming, then the best course of action would be to just get out of the way and to try not make things worse by starving people and shipwrecking economies in the name of environmentalism.
From When Evil Prospers:
US to add polar bears to "threatened" species list
–and–
Polar Bear numbers are increasing in the eastern arctic
…and I thought a "scientific consensus" would have to include scientific facts. I guess just don't have enough "blind faith" to believe in global warming.
SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) - In response to the eruption of Chile’s Chaitén Volcano earlier this week, environmental experts are asking the international community to step up its efforts to prevent volcanic eruptions. A group of the world's most respected climatologists have convened in Chile this week to discuss strategies to combat alarmingly high emissions of CO2 and other known greenhouse gases from the world's most irresponsible volcanoes. Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Sheryl Crow, Bono, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright were among those attending the summit.
According to climate computer models, this cloud of ash will raise the earth's temperature by 10^57 degrees Fahrenheit by 2004The problem of volcanic eruptions has vexed environmentalists for years because, while harmful to the environment, eruptions cannot be directly blamed on humans. According to Chairman Al Gore, "We always knew there must be some connection between the irresponsible actions of industrialized nations and volcanic eruptions, but we weren't able to connect the dots. However, with the research done earlier this week, all that has changed."
While Gore was traveling on his private jet from the U.S. to Chile to join the summit, he presented the findings of a study conducted by researchers at the University of California - Berkeley that shows a direct link between Big Oil and volcanic eruptions. In what Speaker Pelosi labeled "a breakthrough similar to that of the invention of the Prius," the study concluded that Big Oil companies in the Middle East have caused what they are referring to as a "sucking/spewing phenomenon." By pumping millions of gallons of oil out of one side of the planet, a pressure imbalance is created under the surface of the earth, resulting in violent volcanic eruptions on the exact opposite side of the globe. Based on the results of this "scientific consensus," Gore is calling for the immediate impeachment of George W. Bush and a 97% tax rate on the Super Rich, which includes anyone with an annual income of $37,000 or more.
Under Pelosi's plan, Chileans could either walk, bike, or utilize "natural" means of transportation.Addressing the people of Chile, Pelosi declared, "The time for discussion is over. We need to begin taking meaningful steps toward volcanic eruption reductions." When asked what those steps might be, Pelosi said that a number of options were being discussed. One such option would involve taking 75% of the world's corn supply and dumping it into the five volcanoes that are most likely to erupt in the next 5,000 years. Bono explained that "the scientists told me that dumping all that corn into the top of these volcanoes would plug them up really good. Something about the intense heat and corn syrup…. We all know how sticky corn syrup is, so I think it would really, you know, be really good. Good, and loving. And good. We need more loving, and more good."
Rev. Wright was concerned about the possible ramifications of such a plan. At the top of his list of concerns was the possibility that if the supply of corn was insufficient to plug the most dangerous volcanoes, the U.S. government would instead throw African Americans into the volcano. "We've seen-ah what they done with the H-I-Veee Virus-ah. What's next-ah? Blacks versus the Volcano-ah!"
One mask per person, please. And don't forget to recycle.Gore assured the Reverend that his concerns were unfounded, but said Wright had given him an even better idea. Gore suggested that instead of slowly starving the Earth's poorest residents to death by converting their food supplies into bio-fuels, a new policy could be adopted that would give the world's hungry another option. With funding provided by higher taxes on Big Oil and the Super Rich, the U.N. could airlift hundreds of thousands of starving people out of their deprivation and drop them directly into the mouths of volcanoes. "It's like killing two birds with one stone, " quipped the former Vice President.
While cleanup efforts continue in Chile, Sheryl Crow reminded Chileans effected by the eruption that they should consider protecting the environment by only using one dust mask each.
Be sure to call your senator or representative to urge them to resist costly and nonsensical climate change legislation based on biased science and a former vice-president's lust for the limelight. I guarantee that the enviro-gestapo will be calling today. Hopefully their voice won't be the only one that's heard.
The Hagel Hound puts a new spin on the term "War on Poverty."
From the article:
California’s gasoline prices are 10-15% higher than the rest of the country. Why? It costs more to produce the highly regulated gasoline in California, and there is less flexibility to obtaining supply. In Nebraska today, the ordinary person fills up their tank for $3.45 a gallon. Next time you do that consider that a poor mom trying to get across Los Angeles every day to clean a motel to put food on her table, is paying $4.25 a gallon for her gas that day. And on her way home, by the way, she will pay about 20% more for each bite of food she buys for those kids, because the truckers that haul the food to market pay that 20% premium on fuel costs as well.
Plain and simple: press the environmentalist agenda, and poor kids eat less.
…
In the end, the environmentalist movement implies a class war. Environmentalism at once resists job development and simultaneously encourages increase in the prices of basic human needs: food, heat, transportation. And the poorest among us are hit the hardest. Environmentalists claim to protect the most vulnerable species in nature. When are they going to account for their own attacks on the most vulnerable among us?
Go read the rest of the article, and then come back and tell me where he's wrong. (And please give me something better than "it's the evil corporations, especially Big Oil, that are keeping the poor down.")
According to CNN, Condoleezza Rice says that nations must fight climate change like terrorism.
The folks over at Jihad Watch help us understand what she meant by that:
1.) Being afraid to name the activities and people who are part of the problem.
2.) Insisting that only a tiny minority of vehicles on the road are belching greenhouse gases. Make no effort to verify for fear of offending motorists and car companies.
3.) Continuing to aid parties who pay lip service to helping, but do either nothing, or as little as possible in order to keep up appearances.
I would also add that we need the President to remind us that our cars are "vehicles of peace" with a noble history of peaceful and noble transportation, deserving our respect and admiration. Oh, and prominent senators should start urging us to have negotiations with automobiles to convince them to start emitting daisies instead of CO2.
A Y2K bug has been found in NASA's climate data, sling shotting 1934 to the top of the charts as the hottest year on record in the United States. Political activist/climatologist James Hansen:"(The same James Hansen that accused the Bush administration of trying to silence him for his stance on greenhouse gas emissions.)": was forced to revise his data once the bug was identified by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org. DailyTech reports that "1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II."
So much for Al Gore's oft-repeated quip from 1992: "Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled." I'm left to wonder along with the folks over at Hot Air, "Can we at least get some peer review before we build the ark?" If this is the sort of "science" that's being done, I might finally be able to agree with the statement that global warming is cause by humans. That is, by their calculators and not their cars.
Of course, this little statistical setback won't be enough to keep the global warming zealots from continuing to proselytize the known universe for the sake of their sanctimonious cause. They will keep flying around in private jets and driving SUV's to events where they chastise the Cretans who are killing our environment by flying around in jets and driving SUV's. They will continue to warn us that the world's most impoverished populations stand to be wiped out by global warming, so we must immediately implement government programs that will guarantee that the world's most impoverished populations will always be impoverished. Remember, people… if we're going to do something about climate change, it's all gotta start with some really serious (though completely ineffective) symbolic actions and highly charged rhetoric. Think of the children!
I think Instapundit sums it up best: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."
RSS 2.0
