Let’s cool all those hot jets for a hot second. Besides, we are freezing our butts off, up north.
And the sun is definiitely not cooperating.
One of environmentalists’ favorite past-times includes whipping up a certain amount of global-warming frenzy as an excuse to implement their central-planning pipe dreams, but as a new study out of Norway attests, all of the doom-and-glooming might be just a tiny bit exaggerated.
After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in astatement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”
As we have seen time and again throughout history, a top-down government trying to dictate people’s behavioral patterns is a reliable recipe for disaster — if we’re sincere in our efforts to get more efficient with our energy habits, why is more regulation, government, and taxpayer spending almost always the proffered solution? Bjorn Lomborg did the topic justice in last week’s WSJ: All of the radical hysterics informing us of the ostensibly terrifying immediacy of calamitous consequences misdirects our time, money, and attention away from finding affordable, practical alternatives that actually do stand a chance at achieving some of the goals environmentalists are always claiming they’re after.
But if the main effort to cut emissions is through subsidies for chic renewables like wind and solar power, virtually no good will be achieved—at very high cost. The cost of climate policies just for the European Union—intended to reduce emissions by 2020 to 20% below 1990 levels—are estimated at about $250 billion annually. And the benefits, when estimated using a standard climate model, will reduce temperature only by an immeasurable one-tenth of a degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
Even in 2035, with the most optimistic scenario, the International Energy Agency estimates that just 2.4% of the world’s energy will come from wind and only 1% from solar. As is the case today, almost 80% will still come from fossil fuels. As long as green energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, growing consumer markets like those in China and India will continue to use them, despite what well-meaning but broke Westerners try to do. …
When innovation eventually makes green energy cheaper, everyone will implement it, including the Chinese. Such a policy would likely do 500 times more good per dollar invested than current subsidy schemes. But first let’s drop the fear-mongering exaggeration—and then focus on innovation.
No word on Obamo and his new carbon taxing plan and the EPA unnescessarily shutting down power plants, which are laying off people. You will pay for that.
Has Obama even noticedthe Europeans pulling out of all the unworkable silliness associated with green???
Short term weather is not climate, so unless you span hundreds of years,you are just making myst for your face. Any real scientist knows that, as well as computer predictions are meaningless the way they are currently run. You might want to know how I know that with such certainity. My former job required alot of Computer modeling. And there is a very simple way to determine if the computer models have been programmed correctly. It’s simple because we have the data. Just set the climate models to model the already completed past, and see how they do on there models vs reality.
And why don’t they do this already? Because they no the results, and they will convice few people if they knew the results as well. They are all just political bunk, designed to try and scare you into new taxes.
Did you know that more scientist have come to the conclusion that the warming we had, was do to … wait for it … the big nuclear furnace in the sky. You know the one, you get sunburns from it.