Home/Blog
COP21 participants in Paris celebrate after the Earth was saved yet again.
But Obama still wants to send US energy use and living standards backward
by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek
Paris climate talks this week descended into madcap all-night negotiations, as delegates desperately tried to salvage some kind of agreement beyond empty promises to do something sometime about what President Obama insists is the gravest threat to our planet, national security and future generations.
He gets far more energized about slashing energy use than about Islamist terrorism, even after the Paris and San Bernardino butchery. Determined for once to lead from upfront, he took a 500-person greenhouse gas-spewing entourage to the City of Light, to call for preventing increasing droughts, floods, storms, island-swallowing rising acidic ocean levels and other disasters conjured up by alarmist computer models.
Legally binding carbon dioxide emission targets were too contentious to pursue. So was modifying the concept of differentiated responsibilities. It holds that countries that historically caused the recent atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up must lead in cutting their emissions, while helping developing countries eventually do likewise, by pouring trillions of dollars in cash and free technology into the Green Climate Fund for supposed climate change adaptation, mitigation and compensation. Developing countries had insisted on that massive wealth redistribution as their price for signing any binding document.
Although China now emits far more CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) than the USA or EU, it refused to fast-track reducing those emissions. China and wealthy petro-states also opposed paying into the Climate Fund. Other major bones of contention were likewise never resolved.
Thus, in the end, what we apparently got out of Paris is voluntary emission caps, voluntary progress reviews, no international oversight of any voluntary progress, and voluntary contributions to the Fund.
Of course, the entire climate cataclysm mantra is based on the claim that carbon dioxide has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history. Now, merely tweaking CO2 emissions will supposedly stabilize climate and weather systems.
President Obama fervently believes this delusion. He will likely use the voluntary Paris gobbledygook to say America somehow has a moral obligation to set an example, by de-carbonizing, de-industrializing and de-developing the United States. Thankfully, Congress and the states will have something to say about that, because they know these anti-fossil fuel programs will destroy jobs and living standards, especially for poor, working class and minority families.
The impacts would be far worse than many news stories and White House press releases suggest. Those sources often say the proposed climate treaty and other actions seek GHG reductions of 80% below predicted 2050 emission levels. The real original Paris treaty target is 80% below actual 1990 levels.
That means the world would have to eliminate 96% of the greenhouse gases that all humanity would likely release if we reach world population levels, economic growth and living standards predicted for 2050. The United States would likely have to slash it CO2 and GHG reductions to zero.
Moreover, current 2050 forecasts already assume and incorporate significant energy efficiency, de-carbonization and de-industrialization over the next 35 years. They are not business-as-usual numbers or extrapolations of past trends. Further CO2 reductions beyond those already incorporated into the forecasts would thus be increasingly difficult, expensive, and indeed impossible to achieve.
As we explain in a MasterResource.org analysis, there is a strong positive relationship between GDP and carbon-based energy consumption. Slashing fossil energy use that far would thus require decimating economic growth, job creation and preservation, and average per-person incomes. In fact, average world per capita GDP would plummet from a projected $30,600 in 2050 to a miserable $1,200 per year.
Average per capita GDP in 2050 would be less than what Americans had in 1830! Many futuristic technologies would still exist, but only wealthy families and ruling elites could afford them.
That would be catastrophic for jobs, health and welfare in developed countries and lethal to millions in poor nations, who would be denied the blessings of electricity and fossil fuels for decades to come. That is indefensible, inhumane and immoral. And for what?
Mr. Obama and the alarmists in Paris insisted that drastic GHG reductions will hold global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 F) and prevent climate and weather disasters. Now some even claim that the upper safety limit is actually 1.5 degrees C (2.7 F), which would require even more draconian energy and emission cutbacks. Otherwise, Earth could become uninhabitable, they assert. Nonsense.
EPAs own analyses suggest that its fully implemented Clean Power Plan would bring an undetectable, irrelevant reduction of perhaps 0.02 degrees Celsius (0.05 F) in average global temperatures 85 years from now assuming carbon dioxide actually does drive climate change.
In the Real World, climate changes regularly, and recent climate and weather trends and events are in line with historic experience. In fact, average global temperatures havent risen in nearly two decades; no category 3-5 hurricane has struck the USA in a record ten years; Greenland and Antarctic ice are at record levels; and still firmly alkaline sea levels (8.1 pH) are rising at barely seven inches per century.
Many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures, regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.04% (400 ppm). That would pose much greater threats to human health, agriculture and prosperity (and wildlife) than global warming.
We must never forget: Fossil fuels facilitated successive industrial revolutions and enabled billions to live better than royalty did a century ago, helped average incomes to increase eleven-fold, and helped average global life expectancy to soar from less than 30 in 1870 to 71 today.
Carbon-based energy still provides 81% of world energy, and supports $70 trillion per year in world GDP. It will supply 75-80% of global energy for decades to come, Energy Information Administration, International Energy Agency and other studies forecast. Carbon-based energy is essential if we are to bring electricity to the 1.3 billion people who still do not have it, and end the rampant poverty and lung, intestinal and other diseases that kill millions of people in poor countries every year.
Furthermore, thousands of coal-fired power plants are built, under construction or in planning around the world. China and India will not consider reducing GHG emissions until 2030, and even then it will be voluntary and dependent on how their economies are doing. That means atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb, greening the planet and spurring faster crop, forest and grassland growth.
President Obama and the 40,000 climate alarmists gathered in Paris largely (ignored) these inconvenient realities, and whitewashed the adverse consequences of anti-hydrocarbon policies. Even binding targets would have had minimal or illusory health, climate and environmental benefits.
Instead, they would have horrendous adverse effects on human health and environmental quality, while doing nothing to prevent climate change or extreme weather events. What alarmists wanted in Paris would have let unelected, unaccountable activists and bureaucrats decide which industries, companies, workers, families, states and countries win the Climate Hustle game, and which ones lose.
And its not just President Obama, who wants to slash Americas carbon dioxide emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050! Every Democrat presidential candidate demands similar actions: Hillary Clinton wants one-third of all US electricity to come from wind and solar by 2027; Bernie Sanders wants 80% by 2050; Martin OMalley wants 100% by 2050.
Obligating the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, and send billions of taxpayer dollars annually to dictators, bureaucrats and crony industrialists in poor countries would be disastrous. Thank goodness it did not happen. But we are not out of the woods yet.
Dr. Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc., in Washington, DC. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
..and if you doubt it, just see what the Godfather of Global Warming, NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, says of the Paris agreement: “..fraud…fake…bullshit”.
It’s all just green fluff.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
Thanks for posting this article Roy. It’s great to see a concise, definitive and point by point debate winning argument. I expect to be referencing it many times.
Politicians from other countries see AGW for what it is – BS – and thus Obama’s pretense becomes a way to take money for themselves. They do try. I’m sure Obama would have liked to have given them the money.
President Obama, elected to serve the people of the United States, does nothing of the sort, he attacks the people of the US. His policies intend to elevate government bureaucrats and hold the people down including and especially black people. I have come to believe Obama hates the US and all it has been and stood for and is seeking any method to hurt it.
His policies in general prove that.
Best wishes,
Merry Christmas to all
Lewis Guignard
“President Obama and the 40,000 climate alarmists gathered in Paris largely … ignored (?)…..these inconvenient realities, and whitewashed the adverse consequences”
Please feel free to delete comment.
“…lethal to millions in poor nations…”
Or hundreds of millions.
As for the not so poor nations…
Energy intensiveness of the economy of the USA has fallen in the last thirty years.
The following figures from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis are interesting.
Real Median Houseld Income in the United States:
1989 $ 53,306
2013 54,462.
A small hole in the backyard awaits hamsters when they fall off the treadmiill.
A small correction to “atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.40% (400 ppm)” – it is 0.04%.
Funny. It is so minuscule, writers like this probably wrote .04 and can’t believe it is correct, then change it.
Obumma will brew a tea of the bitter ashes and palm it off as the Elixir of Life. The gullible types, meaning his devotees, will swallow it, but nobody else.
And the pause goes on.
Actually, there is a connection between the inability or unwillingness to do anything about terrorism, and the “threat” of global warming. As terrorism accelerates, the global economy decreases (people are fearful of the future and are unwilling to spend for one thing). So allowing terrorism to flourish has a side benefit of taking the world’s economy back to the stone age. And isn’t this where we want to be if the global warming problem is to be solved?
It physically grieves me that we have allowed the world’s new government, the UN, to hijack science in the name of environmentalism to pursue a blatantly Marxist socialist agenda. They knew fine well that the public would find it very difficult to argue with ‘scientists’ and how easy it would be attracting believers to the giant teat of state funding while labelling sceptics as “deniers”.
Although my government here in the UK has at last slashed subsidies to unreliables and is pursuing fracking, we are neck deep in the legally binding, and unbelievably stupid, ‘Climate Change Act 2008’ committing us to reducing emissions to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
Unfortunately, morons in the media – BBC, Guardian, Independent, etc – are committed to pursuing this folly, and it’s clear from my Facebook timeline that they’ve managed to brainwash plenty of sheeple. I fear it’s too late to turn this around because as time goes on they’ll claim it was their actions that saved us from ourselves.
*opens a beer & turns the heating up
Excellent roundup of the Paris talk fest Dr Spencer. I would wonder however, how much better off the planet would be, if the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being sunk into the whole global warming scam, were redirected into true scientific research and development of a realistic baseload green energy.
All countries will succeed in keeping warming under 1.5 degrees before 2100. The only warming we expect will be 100% natural and be about 0.4 to 0.6 degree between 2028 and 2058 before nearly 500 years of long-term cooling starts as shown here and viewed by nearly 14,000 in less than a year.
Lubos Motl cites this 1975 paper by William Nordhaus at thereferenceframe,
as the origin of the 2 degree limit. It’s interesting to see the effect of UN politics on his estimates and on the predicted consequences of increasing CO2, as well as on estimates of temperature sensitivity quoted from 1974 research; a 0.6 – 2.4 degree increase due to doubling 1975 CO2 concentration.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/12/stunning-scientific-illiteracy-behind.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29
http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/WP-75-063.pdf
But ROY you still have not admitted your error here despite the fact that experiments with centrifugal force PROVE YOU WRONG, ROY> when you wrote in the above-linked post …
“6) The tropospheric temperature lapse rate would not exist without the greenhouse effect. While it is true that convective overturning of the atmosphere leads to the observed lapse rate, that convection itself would not exist without the greenhouse effect constantly destabilizing the lapse rate through warming the lower atmosphere and cooling the upper atmosphere.”
That’s GARBAGE Roy and I’m betting you AU $10,000 you can’t prove yourself right.
The “tropospheric temperature lapse rate” most certainly WOULD exist (as it does in every planetary troposphere) even in an atmosphere of 20% pure oxygen and 80% pure nitrogen without any solar radiation reaching the lower troposphere. Only a very, very small portion of Earth’s lower troposphere gets warmed above its existing temperature by direct solar radiation anyway, as simple Stefan-Boltzmann calculations confirm. Most of the required energy reaches the surface by non-radiative processes that are maximizing entropy.
The reason the “lapse rate” (temperature gradient) exists in the troposphere is because the Second Law of Thermodynamics says entropy will be maximized, and that only happens when the sum of mean molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous even in a vertical plane, and so there is a temperature gradient.
Thus what Clausius said we now know is only strictly correct where gravitational potential energy (which affects entropy) is homogeneous, and that is only in a horizontal plane. Experiments with centrifuge machines and vortex tubes (which generate a radial centrifugal force) all demonstrate how this temperature gradient evolves and is, in fact, what we physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.
The significance of all this is that my hypothesis is the correct one and water vapor and carbon dioxide cause the surface temperature to be lower because (as we know for water vapor) they lower the magnitude of the gravitationally- induced temperature gradient by virtue of the temperature leveling effect of inter-molecular radiation – which they’re good at. So Lukes (like Roy) are also wrong.
And Roy, if (as you claimed about the greenhouse effect) it is “warming the lower atmosphere and cooling the upper atmosphere” then your greenhouse effect from water vapor would be making the temperature gradient (wet adiabatic lapse rate) steeper than the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
Make up your mind Roy because I’m right and you’re wrong.
Mr. Cotton,
Are you saying that the sun has nothing to do with the temprature of earth? Are you saying tha earths temprature (56 f 20 feet down ) is the major contributer to our surface temprature?
Climate Dunce:
I’m not saying any such thing regarding the Sun having “nothing to do” and I am not here to discuss quotes written about four years ago. I refer you to my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” linked from the ‘Evidence’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com because you have no understanding what-so-ever in regard to the “heat creep” hypothesis or entropy maximization.
Mr. Cotton, your documentation states, ”
” We must consider all forms of energy, remembering that temperature measurements do not reflect the total energy. The mean surface temperature of the Earth has had to be raised from 0 deg.K (absolute zero which is -273.15 deg.C) to about 294 deg.K. The energy from heat generated in the core does about 96% of the work (282 degrees) and the solar insolation just adds about 12 degrees on average.”
My question to you is what does the “ENERGY BUDGET DIAGRAM” shown on page 8 of 12 look like at night? Your diagram indicates that the clouds and the atmosphere absorb approximately 20% of the total daytime radiation of the sun. When it is cloudy on a Colorado summer night it is warmer usually warmer than a clear night. To me, this is evidence of a GHG effect. The clouds prevent cooling at night.
The photo fits like a glove: an assembly of clowns.
D:J:C says:
December 13, 2015 at 5:10 PM
All countries will succeed in keeping warming under 1.5 degrees before 2100. The only warming we expect will be 100% natural and be about 0.4 to 0.6 degree between 2028 and 2058 before nearly 500 years of long-term cooling starts as shown here and viewed by nearly 14,000 in less than a year.
——————————————————–
If this is true, then their will at least be some future benefits that will have resulted from the ‘so-called’ scam of AGW, and those benefits will be the well-developed and efficient methods of using alternative energy sources which otherwise would never have been developed, without the motivation of the ‘scam’.
It should be apparent to all inteligent people that one cannot rely upon the majority of the populations (the masses) to do the ‘right thing’ merely because it is sensible, ethical, and considerate to future generations.
They often need to be cajoled and badgered, and presented with projections of alarming consequences if they don’t behave according to certain standards, such as the punishment of everlasting hell for bad behaviour, and the reward of everlasting heaven for good behaviour.
I presented some figures in the previous thread (about Greenpeace), which tend to indicate that the cost of roof-top solar-generated electricity in Australia is already on a par with the cost of coal-generated electricity, without subsidies. The continuation of the current subsidies is probably necessary in order to make the economic advantages of solar power more obvious so that the decision to install solar panels on one’s roof becomes a no-brainer.
If at some point in the future it becomes undeniable that CO2 levels have an insignificant affect on climate or global warming, and that the positive effects of CO2, helping to green the planet and increase food production, also become undeniable, then we will be in the marvelous position of having retained a greater quantity of those valuable resources of coal and oil which we can then use more effectively, in conjunction with alternative energy supplies, and use with greater diversity.
For example, coal and oil are also a major resources for the production of polymers and plastics, including carbon-fibre reinforced plastic which is as strong as steel and as light as aluminium.
I’ve often thought it rather dumb to burn and destroy a valuable resource for the sake of a one-time use of energy, if there’s an alternative. In the past, there wasn’t a competitive alternative. Now there is, or will be soon. Get used to it!
Vincent says: “I’ve often thought it rather dumb to burn and destroy a valuable resource for the sake of a one-time use of energy, if there’s an alternative. In the past, there wasn’t a competitive alternative.”
By definition a resource is something to be used. In that context your statement is illogical. Further, earlier on you state something to the effect that ‘sometimes people need to be told what to do by their betters’. Who, please tell us, are these betters and how do we know their decisions are better than those of the masses.
Left to their own devices, the people, through capitalistic practices, have increased their wellbeing. This includes the ability to make their own decisions about how to produce energy and spend their earnings.
Vincent, your point of view is that others know better than I how I should earn and spend my money. How can they possibly know?
The final analysis is that you support totalitarianism, which will lead to the people being poor and the elites taking the little bit of wealth they produce. You can see that in the Paris Party, where the invitees flew in, at your expense, ate well, at your expense, used lots of hydrocarbons doing it, then said ‘but you won’t be allowed to enjoy life as we do’.
“cost of roof-top solar-generated electricity in Australia is already on a par with the cost of coal-generated electricity, without subsidies”
GOOD.. then there will be no complaint when those subsidies are removed. 🙂
Hi Vincent,
“I presented some figures in the previous thread (about Greenpeace), which tend to indicate that the cost of roof-top solar-generated electricity in Australia is already on a par with the cost of coal-generated electricity, without subsidies.”
Really?
Uhmmm… Try to shut down all the Australian coal plants and then check your statement. I sincerely wish good luck to all the Australians.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“…the claim that carbon dioxide has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history.”
is a straw man devised by Dr Spencer.
This post reads more like the kind of rhetoric the lower echelons of critics apply to the debate. Myopia and cherry-picking. Completely one-sided, resting on minority views. The IPCC view, rightly or wrongly, is that CO2 emissions have become the dominant – not the ONLY – driver in recent decades.
There are alarmists and there are pollyannas, who are just as ‘certain’ that all will be well. Neither view is reasonable. We know from physics that the surface of the planet will warm with increased CO2. We don’t know how much or how fast, despite what the pollyannas and alarmists push.
R Pielke put it best when he said that it is not because we know, but because we don’t know what this uncontrolled experiment with the only atmosphere we have will bring, that we should mitigate the experiment. There are a range of possible outcomes. But we will not have the observed facts in time to do much about it. It is an exercise in risk management. Of course, if you think there is no risk, COP2 looks like a waste of time and money. But if you believe that there is no risk, then YOU are a waste of time. No one knows for sure, and uncertainty cuts both ways. Denying that is a political, not scientific, stance, and is not in the least bit skeptical.
Hi Vincent,
“I presented some figures in the previous thread (about Greenpeace), which tend to indicate that the cost of roof-top solar-generated electricity in Australia is already on a par with the cost of coal-generated electricity, without subsidies.”
Really?
Uhmmm… Try to shut down all the Australian coal plants and then check your statement. I sincerely wish good luck to all the Australians.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Why my comment has been posted here?
I’m almost sure I replied to Vincent above indeed.
Sorry.
Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial, the very foundation of life, and all life forms will benefit from increased levels.
The demonization of CO2 is absurd, a type of mass neurosis. It is a modern day witch hunt conducted by modern day witch hunters.
That is you, Barry.
You are a pollyanna, mpainter. I view the whole shebang – CO2 is a plant food, raises temps etc.
There is no scientific reason for your myopia, nor any wisdom in it.
I am a skeptic and I have no respect for the pseudo science that gets cranked out. I do not swallow one bit of the alarmism. Do you?
So where’s the increasing temperature? Not any in this century.
mpainter,
The surface will warm from increased GHGs in the atmosphere. That’s not alarmism, that’s physics. Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and other qualified critic of the IPCC and mitigation policy agree on this basic.
No one knows how much or how fast. No one. That’s not alarmism either.
Where I part company from you is accepting that the higher range of impacts (temps, sea level etc) is part of the risk analysis. That’s not alarmism, either.
You may have spoken to ‘alarmists’. I’m not one. But that does not mean my views align with yours. Can you see anything other than this tribal, binary view of the topic? I refer you to my post at the top of this thread. That’s not alarmism either.
If you think anyone who disagrees with you is an alarmist, you have little to contribute apart from factionalism.
Barry, you like to make things up. The surface is not warmed by the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is warmed by the surface. Nobody but foaming alarmists claim otherwise. I doubt that Roy Spencer agrees with you.
I asked you to show me increasing temperature. You did not; you have none to show.
You talk about risk and mitigation, alarmist drivel.There is no risk when climate sensitivity is under 2.
I stand on my science. I can demonstrate that increased GHE means moderation of temperature. I have studied the attenuation of LWIR in water. Have you?
SLR? There is none on stable coasts. Have you studied the NOAA Mean Sea Level Trends?
I have
If you spout the same misinformed and misinformed dogma of the alarmists, you can hardly disassociate yourself from them.
“…adding more CO2 still causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere…”
Roy Spencer – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker/
“…the net effect of greenhouse gases is to cool the upper atmosphere [stratosphere], and warm the lower atmosphere [troposphere/surface]…”
“…a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer stillas evidenced by putting your clothes on…”
Roy Spencer – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will case warming at the surface. Dr Spencer gets it, even if you do not. The analogy is with putting on a jumper. A jumper is colder than your skin temperature, but it becomes warmer from your body heat, and slows the rate of heat loss. This is analogous to the greenhouse effect.
Can I ask – do you deny the greenhouse effect?
What would be the temperature of the Earth’s surface at the equator at midnight if there were no GHGs in the atmosphere?
Barry, you don’t seem to know what a “surface” is:
barry says:
December 15, 2015 at 5:53 AM
mpainter,
The surface will warm from increased GHGs in the atmosphere.
###
You are a word-fumbler who causes tedious semantic snarls. Adios Muchacha.
You know perfectly well what I mean – the thin horizontal band of atmosphere where we live, from the surface up.
It’s not me who is resorting to semantics.
Can I ask do you deny the greenhouse effect?
What would be the temperature of the Earths surface at the equator at midnight if there were no GHGs in the atmosphere?
No barry. CO2 cools but by less than 0.1 degree, and you can’t prove otherwise with any correct physics. Don’t link me to AGW garbage rags – write out your own explanation complete with Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, if and where applicable, with allowance for typical variations in flux. Prove, if you can, why the Earth’s mean surface temperature is whatever you claim it is – but use correct physics or I’ll demolish your argument.
What would the temperature of the planet’s surface be at night-time if there were no ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere?
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
“Many scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming because of basic physics, or rather its application to climate, the conventional basic climate model.1 But this pen-and-paper model, which dates back to 1896, contains serious architectural errors.2
Fixing the architecture, while keeping the physics, shows that future warming due to carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of current official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.”
No CC Reader
The AGW fictitious, fiddled physics is completely wrong. There’s NO warming due to CO2 at all – not “a fifth to a tenth” which you have determined by also being fooled into thinking a planet’s surface temperatures are determined by radiation. You, like them, ignore the entropy maximization which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will tend to occur. Water vapor cools because its inter-molecular radiation has a temperature-leveling effect on the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient which is the state of maximum entropy for “dry” air. CO2 cools for the same reason. The overall state of maximum entropy has the “environmental lapse rate” (ie temperature gradient) as is observed in all planetary tropospheres. To talk about the rate of cooling is totally irrelevant when you don’t (or can’t) explain the correct mechanism which supplies the required thermal energy to the surface in the first place. It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com
Thank You,
I have placed the article that you have referenced in my iBooks app.
By this theory, the moon night-side would be hotter than the Earth at night, having no GHGs to cool it. The Earth should have cooled since the industrial revolution, with a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2.
This theory fails macro-scale observation.
Unless the dark side of the moon is warmer than night-side earth Earth.
The concept, that man made CO2 is responsible for climate change, is now greatly disputed by the scientific community who are brave enough to speak out. Climate change is a religion for folk who don’t believe in God. It has all of the hallmarks of a religion including blind faith by those who take “the science is settled” on face value.
Just where did this claim that 97% of scientists believe in climate change/global warming come from? Who knows the genesis that that claim?
To understand the big picture you need to know that the theory of climate change, caused by man made CO2 emissions, was a theory/political invention by British PM Margaret Thatcher. She had a science degree in chemistry and dreamed up the theory which she promoted as a means of driving the British Coal unions out of business. The plan was to replace coal fired power stations with nuclear, driving thousands of unionised coal workers out of the UK. She created the Hadley Centre whose initial mandate was to prove her theory that man made CO2 caused global warming. She was a champion of the UN controlling everything using climate change as the lever.
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108102
She spoke at the UN on the subject:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hwh4txzYlE&spfreload=10
What Thatcher did not anticipate was that the greenies and the financial sector would join in an unholy alliance to redistribute wealth and take a cut of the transaction. The concept of reducing carbon by taxing it, created a whole new global industry that could be controlled by bureaucrats, the banks and by the UN.
I understand that MIT’s climate scientist Richard Lindzen summed it up perfectly in March of 2007 when he said, “Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.” “With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, man made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
Al Gore did not invent this fake religion; Margaret Thatcher did.. Anyone who speaks against it is treated like a heretic and run out of town. In early 2015 Bjorn Lomborg was run out of Perth Western Australia before he even arrived.
It is clear that the global warming debate was never really about saving the world, it was, and is about controlling the lives of every citizen as religion did in the dark ages. The UN will be the new Pope and the IRS acts as the local priest, collecting tribute
Exactly so!
Massimo PORZIO says:
December 14, 2015 at 2:49 AM
Hi Vincent,
“I presented some figures in the previous thread (about Greenpeace), which tend to indicate that the cost of roof-top solar-generated electricity in Australia is already on a par with the cost of coal-generated electricity, without subsidies.”
Really?
Uhmmm… Try to shut down all the Australian coal plants and then check your statement. I sincerely wish good luck to all the Australians.
Have a great day.
Massimo
——————————————————–
Hi Massimo,
Why would anyone want to shut down all the Australian coal plants? That really would be totally foolish, and I’m sure it’s not going to happen for severel decades, if ever.
The sensible thing to do is to capitalyze on, or taken advantage of the mass hysteria about CO2 pollution, and do something for the future benefit of mankind and for a cleaner environment in the present.
Whilst this transition to renewable energy is taking place, there is certainly a place for coal-fired, and oil and gas-fired power plants. For us to be able to totally rely upon solar, wind, hydro, and tide power etc. for all our energy needs, would require a very extensive network of UHVDC transmission lines, which are expensive to construct and would take many decades to construct.
Burning coal to produce cheap electricity in order to construct UHVDC transmission lines, and to power robots to produce low cost and durable solar panels, is quite acceptable to me, because I believe that once the network of UHVDC power lines is in place, the power produced by these renewable methods will be both cheaper and cleaner than coal and oil ever were.
Instead of eventually exhausting this valuable resource of coal and oil, we will be able to use it for other purposes, such as the production of various types of modern plastics that can replace steel and aluminium and can also be recycled.
Hi Vincent,
I very like your optimism indeed.
I read about UHVDC in the past and when I seen how the voltage converter stations are made, I really had serious doubts about their reliability just for a question of number of components involved which reduces the MTBF. But as already said let’s see what happen, I agree in part with you about that.
Anyways read my reply here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/greenpeace-founder-reports-it-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/#comment-204112
The problem with solar is avoiding random up and down of the grid voltage, accumulation and release of energy is the early days solar plants problem and it is still unsolved.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo,
There are always problems to be overcome in the development of any technology. When we hit a problem, we don’t just give up and declare, ‘It’s not feasible.’ There are also different solutions that might be effective depending upon the different circumstances. It’s not an issue of ‘one size must fit all’.
I find in these discussions that often both opposing sides tend to dismiss the entire validity of an opposing view on the basis of just one or two negative factors which haven’t yet been overcome.
For example, the fact that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere tend to encourage the growth of most agricultural plants, as well as forests and natural habitats, is a very significant benefit of elevated levels of CO2.
I imagine it’s difficult to calculate the monetary value of the world-wide increase in food production that can be directly attributed to rising CO2 levels, but I would expect it to be of the order of several billion dollars worth of food each year, compared to what could have been grown in pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2, using the same amount of water and fertilizers.
However, the alarmists tend to dismiss this obvious benefit of elevated levels of CO2 on the grounds that certain staple foods such as wheat and rice do not contain as much protein.
Now this fact is obviously something to take note of, but it would be foolish to dismiss the entire benefits of elevated levels of CO2 on the grounds that certain food sources, such as wheat and rice, which at best contain very small quantities of protein, now contain even smaller quantities of protein when grown in elevated levels of CO2.
If anyone is suffering from a deficiency of protein in his diet, I don’t think any doctor or dietician would recommend to eat more bread and rice, even if the wheat and rice were grown in pre-industrial levels of CO2.
The solution is to eat more meat, fish, eggs, cheese, beans and nuts etc.
Hi Vincent,
You state:
“There are also different solutions that might be effective depending upon the different circumstances. Its not an issue of one size must fit all.”
Exactly, which remains why a market price allocation model works best. Millions of consumers choosing independently which energy resource makes the most sense will inevitably make wiser decisions than you or any bureaucrat. You go on:
“However, the alarmists tend to dismiss this obvious benefit of elevated levels of CO2 on the grounds that certain staple foods such as wheat and rice do not contain as much protein.”
David Appell brought this point up several times and linked to a pay-walled article, that as a teaser provided conflicting graphs showing plant protein apparently enhanced and detrimentally effected by increased atmospheric CO2. Which is curious. If David or anyone else wants to provide the research without a pay wall we can discuss it in de;path, but from the graphs presented the data was far from consistent which suggests factors other than CO2 concentration may be effecting plant protein formation. Consider that you mentioned wheat and rice. Common commercial wheat varieties are agriculture industry hybrids. There exists many varieties of wheat. Have they all been tested? Many varieties may respond positively to more CO2. The same with rice. The desire for some to exercise their minds by leaping to conclusions is sad. However, it seems to me much more research needs to be done by many people across a wide spectrum of the industry.
Have a great day!
John KI states:
“Exactly, which remains why a market price allocation model works best. Millions of consumers choosing independently which energy resource makes the most sense will inevitably make wiser decisions than you or any bureaucrat.”
——————————————————–
Hi John,
A market price allocation model has proved to be very successful in relation to the production of general consumer products, which the Communist model has failed to match, but people in general are rather poor at changing their behaviour and are not particularly wise.
If a government wishes to create a paradigm shift, a combination of subsidies and penalties is often effective and necessary.
Consider the problem with tobacco smoking. Despite a high tax on cigarettes and the widely publicised health dangers of smoking, people continued to smoke and young people continued to take up smoking. To get smoking down to the levels they are today, it was necessary to also ban smoking in most public places, on planes and in hotel rooms etc, and to ban all advertising of cigarettes. In Australia we’ve also introduced plain packaging.
A similar problem exists with obesity. Two thirds of all Americans are overweight, as well as the majority of the populations of many other countries. Smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, tasty junk food, a poor diet in general, and a lack of exercise, all contribute to what are known as Non-Communicable Diseases, or NCDs.
According the World Economic Forum it is estimated that the economic cost of these NCDs during the next 20 years could total $47 trillion, world-wide.
Do you think the ‘market price allocation model’ can solve this problem, John KI? Even if it were to cost as much as $47 trillion over time, to fix the problem, with no net economic gain, it would be worth it for the sake of the health, happiness and longevity of hundreds of millions of people.
Have a healthy day!
Hi Vincent,
You stated:
“… but people in general are rather poor at changing their behaviour and are not particularly wise.”
Which only proves they can’t be trusted in government positions to allocate resources for everyone else! You go on:
“If a government wishes to create a paradigm shift, a combination of subsidies and penalties is often effective and necessary.”
Why are you so anxious to help a government create a “paradigm shift” when the government is composed of people who as you say are “poor at changing their behavior and not particularly wise?” One could add that legislative cronies and other governmental officials fit this description to a tee. After all their failed programs they keep insisting on duplicating the same failed results, like the current attack on an element CO2 after the Kyoto debacle. You state:
“To get smoking down to the levels they are today, it was necessary to also ban smoking in most public places, on planes and in hotel rooms etc, and to ban all advertising of cigarettes. In Australia weve also introduced plain packaging.”
Yet people still smoke. Such bans exist in the US for many illegal items like Cocaine, Heroin, etc. Yet there always exists a population of individuals who obtain them anyways often with government help. While they ban them in one situation they may allow them to flow through the prison system and look the other way. Government officials are notorious for graft. Pot was banned in the US now the government licenses special sellers as “medical marijuana” and the resource scam continues. Some state realizing how imbecilic the entire process is simply legalize it, like Colorado. Even though in many states the drug has various sanctions against it, people are rarely if ever punished for possessing it anymore. This occurs while many sit in prisons with long jail sentences for drug related crimes from the past. As to the plain packaging, that reminds me of rummy’s hiding their liquor in brown paper bags. It seems humorous. You go on:
“A similar problem exists with obesity. Two thirds of all Americans are overweight, as well as the majority of the populations of many other countries. Smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, tasty junk food, a poor diet in general, and a lack of exercise, all contribute to what are known as Non-Communicable Diseases, or NCDs.”
Look if you don’t like the bad habits of some, why do do many of you apparent lefties seek so hard to make everyone pay for their long term care and medical expenses? Perhaps if you stop treating them like children some will find better behavior patterns. If they can’t manage that why do expect everyone else to pay their tab. If your concern is valid how much have you ponied up to help these individuals? You state to clinch the deal:
“According the World Economic Forum it is estimated that the economic cost of these NCDs during the next 20 years could total $47 trillion, world-wide.”
Fine, so let those unfortunate people with bad habits you mentioned earlier pick up their own tab. Why should everyone else? Do you think if they were more often than not forced to pay for their way the bad habits might start to fall off? People often stay in a rut until circumstances increase their discomfort level. Financial comfort is a good warning sign. Nanny laws designed to arbitrarily punish people for personal behavior you don’t like will often only make things wores.
You ask:
“Do you think the market price allocation model can solve this problem, John KI?”
For some it will. Probably not for everyone. There are people who may proved far too self destructive in the pursuit of their habits and pleasures. Frankly, for those people a nanny government isn’t likely to do much except annoy everyone else. In addition, habitual addicts can be very clever at fooling those around them that they’re not indulging until the bottom falls out and reality hits them. Besides none of us are perfect when it comes to some habits. My guess is you probably ate junk-food yourself in the past. I know I have. Many often eat candies during the Holidays, and many people consume alcohol. There exists no reason to pretend anyone is pure in this regard. The best solution to the 47 billion dollar cost is to stop making everyone else pay it. It’s no final solution. We live in a fallen world. Nanny laws will not and have not changed that fact or ended the practices they seek to prevent. However, they’ve made a few statists very well off indeed at everyone’s expense.
Have a great day!
Correction:
My post should have stated:
“After all their failed programs they keep insisting on duplicating the same failed results, like the current attack on a compound CO2 after the Kyoto debacle.”
Correction:
I should have stated 47 trillion supposedly, not 47 billion.
C’mon, what’s not to like about an agreement to move the Earth inward and outward from it’s present orbit when it gets too hot or too cold? 😉
All we have to do is get everybody out and push. We’d need some co-ordinating body for that…
Hi Dr. Roy Spencer,
You stated:
“Many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures, regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.40% (400 ppm).”
Well, I like your blog and your work, but your math could use improvement ( .40% = 4000 ppm, .040% – 400 ppm ).
I’ll write more later.
Have a great day!
Hi Roy,
You stated:
“Obligating the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, and send billions of taxpayer dollars annually to dictators, bureaucrats and crony industrialists in poor countries would be disastrous. Thank goodness it did not happen. But we are not out of the woods yet.”
Frankly, part of the problem to convincing may people to not panic and adopt anti-hydrocarbon legislation is the term “fossil fuel.” They’re deluded by the notions of quacks like M King Hubbard and the peak oil alarmism. Many people convince themselves will soon run-out and must quickly find alternatives, even though as I’ve mentioned many times much if not the vast majority of the Earth’s hydrocarbons are geological chemical products, including and especially CH4 ( methane ) which is a volcanic gas and found in very large quantities throughout much of the Earth’s crust and from what I can tell in likely in increasing concentrations where it is not now being extracted. Even in areas where it is being extracted, geologists have reported that subterranean gas pressure remained unchanged even after extraction suggesting that where such phenomenon is found that deep sources of natural gas feed those pockets. Iron oxide, calcite, and water will form CH4 (methane) at very high heat and pressure. The Earth likely produces CH4 as a chemical reaction deep within the Earth in very large quantities.
In any case, the abandonment of theoretical and often inaccurate terms like “fossil fuel” would help the logic, clear thinking and rational policy among the public.
Have a great day!
JohnKl says:
December 15, 2015 at 3:00 PM
Btw, by subsidizing low-cost electricity to the smelter you will inevitably increase the price other un-subsidized market participants must pay for a shrunken supply of electricity now reallocated to your Australian friend with the bauxite smelter! Thanks, but no thanks.
———————————————
Hi John,
Sorry! I wasn’t clear enough in my description of the circumstances. The state government had just recently completed a new coal-fired power station because the old one had almost served its days, was a bit old-fashioned, and wasn’t meeting the increasing demand for electricity. The intention was to close it down in the near future, after the new plant was fully operational.
However, when the government received the proposal from the aluminium mining company that it would be economically feasible to process the bauxite in Australia if the government were to guarantee a subsidy for the cost of the smelter’s electricity consumption, the government accountants got to work and calculated that the increased electricity load that a large aluminium smelter would require could be easily met by keeping the old power plant in service, at least part of the time, and specifically during peak hour consumption.
Furthermore, because the initial capital cost of the construction the old plant had been fully amortised over the years, the subsidy, although substantial in relation to market prices for electricity, was not so great in relation to the continuing operational cost of the old power plant.
The additional revenue generated through the construction of the aluminium smelter (investment coming into the country, instead of going elswhere) and through it’s operation (taxes on profits, income tax and sales tax etc), the net benefit to the Australian economy, and the government coffers, was several times the monetary value of the subsidy.
I hope that is now clear and that you now have some insight into the potential benefits of subsidies.
Have a great day!
Hi Vincent,
You stated:
“The additional revenue generated through the construction of the aluminium smelter (investment coming into the country, instead of going elswhere) and through its operation (taxes on profits, income tax and sales tax etc), the net benefit to the Australian economy, and the government coffers, was several times the monetary value of the subsidy.”
While you’ve made a small case for increasing governments take (coffers) you provided no evidence it benefits the Australian economy as a whole. That subsidy must come from someone’s pocket to finance the low cost electricity for the aluminum smelter. What would have been done with those funds had they been left in the hands of those who earned them? Again, you simply assert that the aluminum smelter provides benefits without addressing the opportunity costs involved. Which by the way we may never fully know. In addition, even a clean running modern aluminum smelter has pollution abatement and environmental costs associated with it’s operation. Do they justify the subsidy? The US government encouraged coal miners in the past to stip-mine large land areas to extract coal and fill there tax coffers. The environmental costs proved enormous, including the devastation of land and water resources. The private companies didn’t care, they had limited liability and the government mainly sought to fatten the tax collection. My many criticisms of subsides stand.
Have a great day!
JohnKl states:
December 16, 2015 at 3:01 PM
“While youve made a small case for increasing governments take (coffers) you provided no evidence it benefits the Australian economy as a whole. That subsidy must come from someones pocket to finance the low cost electricity for the aluminum smelter. What would have been done with those funds had they been left in the hands of those who earned them? Again, you simply assert that the aluminum smelter provides benefits without addressing the opportunity costs involved. Which by the way we may never fully know.”
——————————————————–
Hi John,
I’m not sure if you are arguing merely for the sake of arguing or whether you really are confused.
All money for all expenditure, on everything without exception, good or bad, wise or foolish, comes from someone’s pocket (figuratively).
All governments require compulsory donations from all members of the public who are able to afford such donations. They are called taxes. Without taxes, governments could not exist, modern developed societies could not exist, and we’d all be back to the Stone Age, or at best, some primitive tribal system.
How such taxes are spent by a government determines the success of the government, its chances for re-election in a democracy, and determines the general prosperity of the nation as a whole, at least in the long run.
Now you ask, “What would have been done with those funds had they been left in the hands of those who earned them?”
Good grief! How could anyone possibly answer such a question with any precision? The issue is more complex than climate change.
Let’s say the electricity subsidy to the aluminium smelter was equivalent to an average 0.1% reduction in income tax for the population at large. How could one possibly calculate how each individual would spend those extra few dollars a year?
Some would put the extra money into savings for their retirement. Some would smoke more cigarettes and/or drink more alcohol. Some might buy more illicit drugs. Those whose main pleasure in life is eating would probably eat more hamburgers and icecream, become even more obese, and incur additional future medical bills far greater in cost than the amount of the slight reduction in taxation they received.
Some might even decide to buy the latest UHDTV set, made overseas, and increase their personal debt as a result, whilst also increasing their country’s trade deficit.
Hope all that is clear.
Try your best to have an unconfused day!
Hi Vincent,
You’ve gone a little over-the-top when it comes to evading the issues. You state:
“Im not sure if you are arguing merely for the sake of arguing or whether you really are confused.”
No, I’m not confused but you’ve ignored the opportunity costs brought up before. You state:
“All money for all expenditure, on everything without exception, good or bad, wise or foolish, comes from someones pocket (figuratively).”
So what? You’re still evading the fact that other people, likely with far more on the ball then your aluminum smelting friend, have seen a reduction in funds to subsidize the location of an aluminum smelter which by your own admission could be located elsewhere for less money. You further assert:
“All governments require compulsory donations from all members of the public who are able to afford such donations. They are called taxes. Without taxes, governments could not exist, modern developed societies could not exist, and wed all be back to the Stone Age, or at best, some primitive tribal system.”
Again, so what? Government claims a monopoly on the use of force. It’s primary purpose under the US constitution is to protect the lives and property of it’s citizens. If instead it merely confiscates it to parlay resources from one favored group to another it becomes no better than a common thief. In fact, likely much worse. Why? The common thief doesn’t have a large tax base and military to enforce their edicts. You use the term “modern developed societies” pretty loosely. Which do you mean? Historically, the Nazi’s were fairly modern. Like the results? How about the Soviet Union? Do you like Isis? They’ve received US support you know. Do you find these a wise use of resources? It seems “modern developed societies” provide a great deal of support to the “primitive tribal system” you seem to be-little. You go on:
“How such taxes are spent by a government determines the success of the government, its chances for re-election in a democracy, and determines the general prosperity of the nation as a whole, at least in the long run.”
This all assumes the government is a democracy and/or that if posing as a democracy it actually functions as one. We are not in the Athenian sense any kind of democracy. The US was created as a representative Republic. Btw, democracies are not exactly known historically necessarily for creating prosperity. It’s only ever one election away from the public voting in a dictator and loosing the whole thing. If you don’t believe me just ask the Egyptians who had a taste of Obama’s idea of democracy, voted in the Muslim Brotherhood and found the new leader wanted to cancel any further elections. Undaunted you state:
“Now you ask, What would have been done with those funds had they been left in the hands of those who earned them?
Good grief! How could anyone possibly answer such a question with any precision? The issue is more complex than climate change.”
Exactly, but unless you can answer the question you have no idea if your subsidy benefits society as a whole! You assert:
“Lets say the electricity subsidy to the aluminium smelter was equivalent to an average 0.1% reduction in income tax for the population at large. How could one possibly calculate how each individual would spend those extra few dollars a year?
Some would put the extra money into savings for their retirement. Some would smoke more cigarettes and/or drink more alcohol. Some might buy more illicit drugs. Those whose main pleasure in life is eating would probably eat more hamburgers and icecream, become even more obese, and incur additional future medical bills far greater in cost than the amount of the slight reduction in taxation they received.”
The problem doesn’t just exist with those who get the subsidy, but with those who have to pay it. What will the individual do that now have less disposable income because more of their tax dollars go to fund your aluminum smelting friend’s electric bill? Where will they cut expenditures? Moreover, what will happen to businesses that wanted to start up in the same area as the aluminum smelter, were willing to pay the higher electric bill because there more profitable, and now must go elsewhere because Vincent wants to lord it over the business community as to where they site their facilities? What if Intel wanted to build a semi-conductor plant at the same location that would have employed many more people for better wages and greater skill sets? How are the people in the community better off with an aluminum smelter? If you can’t think outside your own desires and those of your aluminum smelting friend, your contribution on this topic must be small.
Btw, as to those who misuse the subsidy as you suggested, that’s only one more reason not to give it.
You close:
“Some might even decide to buy the latest UHDTV set, made overseas, and increase their personal debt as a result, whilst also increasing their countrys trade deficit.
Hope all that is clear.
Try your best to have an unconfused day!”
Again, it’s very clear you have no idea why the subsidy should exist and I’m not the one confused!
Have a great day!
JohnKl says:
December 17, 2015 at 3:08 PM
“So what? Youre still evading the fact that other people, likely with far more on the ball then your aluminum smelting friend, have seen a reduction in funds to subsidize the location of an aluminum smelter which by your own admission could be located elsewhere for less money.”
———————————————
Hi John,
I’ll just address this one point, otherwise the post would be far too long. I don’t have a friend in the aluminium smelting industry. I provided this scenario merely as an example of the beneficial effects that a subsidy could have. Without such a subsidy, on electricity costs in this example, there would not be any aluminium smelting industry in Australia, because smelting aluminium is such an electricity-intensive process, and because labour costs in Australia are relatively high.
Furthermore, since Australia is a major supplier of aluminium ore, in fact the largest supplier in the world, I believe, producing 81 million tonnes of bauxite last year, it makes sense to process the ore in Australia if possible, rather than ship it half-way across the globe.
As I understand, such smelters are built by the same international mining companies in various countries around the world, and each country will probably provide an incentive to attract investment and create jobs, including China.
Such incentives will often take the form of a subsidy or a tax break, but tend not to be widely publicised because they are seen as private, contractual agreements, so it’s not possible for me to engage in specific comparisons.
However, in general, it does seem that the aluminium smelting industry in Australia is now ‘out of favour’ because of the current mania about CO2 emissions, and certain countries that have an abundance of unused or potential hydro-electricity, such as Canada and Iceland, are now attracting investment in aluminium smelters.
Whether such countries also provide a subsidy in the form of reduced electricity costs, I simply don’t know.
Have a great day!
There is a mistake in the article. 400ppm is not 0.4% of the atmosphere, it is 0.04%. Just saying. Here is the paragraph.
Many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures, regardless of whether atmospheric CO2 rises above 0.40% (400 ppm). That would pose much greater threats to human health, agriculture and prosperity (and wildlife) than global warming
Hi Neville,
You should also have addressed the logic of the argument as well as pointing out the mathematical typo mistake.
A major problem that humanity faces with climate change is the uncertainty regarding the contribution that rising CO2 levels might have, and the possibility that some tipping point might eventaully be reached if CO2 levels continue to rise.
Now, the basis for such concerns might, in reality, be totally fictitious. Who knows? Only certain authorities on the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, appear to know, as advised by God.
Whatever the truth about the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, we all know that climate is continually changing for better or for worse, depending on one’s location. There are always winners and losers in any change of circumstances. This is the normal process of evolution.
Supposing the public were to accept the view that CO2 levels have no bearing on climate change, there would still be the scare that the climate, changing through natural processes, might result in an increase of droughts, floods and hurricanes etc, and rising sea levels.
Could we fix this problem? Well, we could certainly fix the problem of extreme weather events by constructing all dwellings above previous known flood levels, protecting airports and low-lying cities by building dykes around them, building flood-mitigation dams in areas subject to excessive rainfall (which would also help during periods of drought), strengthening the construction of dwellings in areas subject to hurricanes, and so on.
We could use our cheapest and dirtiest fuels to achieve this end; but we haven’t in the past. We had the opportunity to do this long before the scare of AGW, but we never took serious action.
This is the real problem. The inability of mankind to act sensibly in relation to known historical facts, known past weather events which occur with approximate regularity. We dysmally fail to learn from history.
Supposing we went all out to protect ourselves from natural, extreme weather events by using as much coal, oil and gas as possible to provide the energy to relocate vulnerable dwellings, raise the height of new dwellings, build lots of new dams and dykes, raise the living standards of people in poor countries, and so on.
There might still be a problem of ocean acidification, but let’s ignore that. As long as the coal and oil burning had adequate emission controls for the noxious gasses of CO, SO2, No2 and particulate carbon etc, I would not object. I’d take the risk on the basis that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an asset for plant growth in general.
However, I do learn from history; and history tells me that people are more motivated by immediate concerns than long term concerns, unless of course those long term concerns are related to current concerns, as climate change alarmism tends to promote, with every extreme weather event being attributed to AGW.
If the world wants to saturate the atmosphere with CO2 (up to a reasonable level of, say 7 or 800 ppm), I have no objection, provided there are adequate emission controls for noxious gases.
However, the prospect of limitless, clean, cheap power from the sun, eventually as research progresses, represents a much brighter future for mankind. Let’s embrace this future.
I’m tempted to offer a $20,000 reward for anyone who can fault my reasoning. (wink).
Hi Vincent,
You suggest:
“This is the real problem. The inability of mankind to act sensibly in relation to known historical facts, known past weather events which occur with approximate regularity. We dysmally fail to learn from history.
Supposing we went all out to protect ourselves from natural, extreme weather events by using as much coal, oil and gas as possible to provide the energy to relocate vulnerable dwellings, raise the height of new dwellings, build lots of new dams and dykes, raise the living standards of people in poor countries, and so on.”
Interesting proposition Vincent. The problem remains that few will sign a blank check on the future. At this point in time the US for example allows untold number of people from foreign lands to invade the country and possibly take control. Few know how we will even accommodate the ever increasing numbers of individuals ( to numerous to reliably estimate ) with adequate food and shelter, let alone secure them from any potential environmental harm. Your reasoning like so much arm-chair theorizing in this country fails to even begin to address issues that must be addressed in order to secure a rational and achievable result.
You state:
“However, I do learn from history; and history tells me that people are more motivated by immediate concerns than long term concerns, unless of course those long term concerns are related to current concerns, as climate change alarmism tends to promote, with every extreme weather event being attributed to AGW.”
All long-term concerns must in some way be connected to immediate concerns unless we are all completely ignorant of them. There will likely be concerns that will arise in the future for which we have no clue about today. The problem for CAGW is that the long terms concerns seem based on faulty science, myths and/or exaggerated claims and future scenarios that few believe. This will remain the case since the CAGW set of believers have for some time produced model projections that almost inevitable prove far too warm.
$20K sounds very nice. I prefer my cash in large denominations. Thanks and…
Have a great day!
P.S. – As to energy from the sun, cheap power, clean energy etc. progress has already been made. Solar cell prices drop with COMPETITION (note subsidies unneeded). In addition, fuel cell technology looks promising as GE developed a lower cost solid-oxide fuel cell that can likely accommodate multiple fuels. Toyota and a Korean company already market H-fuel cell vehicles. Engine performance on existing models continue to improve. Moreover, the contribution of many people continuously offers promise while government solutions seem simply designed to benefit a few at the expense of many.
JohnKl says:
December 18, 2015 at 2:51 PM
“Interesting proposition Vincent. The problem remains that few will sign a blank check on the future.”
————————————————–
Hi John,
I don’t see the problem as being equivalent to signing a blank cheque, but rather one of denial about the high degree of probablity that past patterns of extreme weather events will continue, at varying intervals, regardless of the CO2 issue.
This denial is assisted by governments and local authorities tending to keep silent on the issue in case it discourages economic growth in a particular area.
For example, imagine what would happen if a local building authority were to always take into consideration the levels of past floods when approving the plans for a new dwelling in a particular location which was prone to serious flooding every few decades.
Let’s suppose that the building authority were to insist that the new dwelling be raised at least 1 metre above the worst floods that had occurred within the past 50 years, which might require that the floor level of the new building be raised on concrete piers to a height of 4 metres.
What would be the consequences of such a requirement? Let’s use our imagination.
The owners of the proposed dwelling might be put off for a number of reasons. First, they might not like the hassle of having to climb many steps whever they entered their new house. Secondly, they might decide that they cannot afford the additional cost of such a structure, which would result in the house never being built.
However, perhaps a much more serious consequence, would be the effect that such a new requirement would have on the owners of existing homes in the vicinity. The message would be clear that their homes were at risk of flood damage at some point in the future. The insurance companies would no doubt hear of this and raise insurance rates for such dwellings, and the resale value of such properties would fall drastically. There would be a lot of angry home owners as a result.
Investment in the building industry in that particular area would probably decline and the local government would likely be voted out of office during the next elections, unless there was a strong campaign to praise their honesty in putting the safety of its citizens ahead of the personal wealth of its citizens.
I’m using this example because I’ve had personal experience of a major flood in Brisband and Ipswich, Australia.
The Burea of Meterology has records going back to the early 19th century, of the recurrence of floods in the Brisbane area. You might find the following link an interesting read.
The last major flood in Brisbane occurred in January 2011. It was initially described as the worst flood on record, or a Once-in-a-Hundred-Years flood, and at least partially blamed on AGW. However, the following record of previous floods in the area, which I believe is a reliable record, claims that the January 2011 flood was the sixth worst since 1841, when gauges were first installed in the city centre.
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
Have a great, disaster-free day!
1ķӶô㣿
źҪĹؼʻӣɽ롰ԱġѡӦĶڡҪ޸ġֱڱҳн°µҪзϵͳὫйʣֱתС
2ٶӶſ֣
ƽ̨ӶһԪ
3ֺܵˣ
ֺ24СʱὫӶֵ˺С
4ַʽļ֣
Ŀǰƽֻ̨֧֧Ƹͨ֡
http://www.pugongcao.com/?t=1421
Like I always ask alarmists who claim warmer and wetter are somehow “bad”, where do most of earth’s species like to live – on snow and ice at the poles or with lush plant life in tropical rain forests?
It seems clear that the main worry for people who believe in the AGW-alarmism narrative is the prospect of an unmanageable and unprecedented change in the climate which might have the effect, for example, of flattening the family home which will be inherited by the current owner’s child or grandchild, as the result of an unprecedented storm due to climate change, or which will reduces the prosperity of a farming region due to drier conditions prevailing in the future, and many other changing situations which might adversely affect humanity as a whole, such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification.
Creating the illusion that societies can prevent such effects from occurring, by reducing their CO2 emissions, probably provides great comfort to many people, just as religious beliefs also provide comfort to many people.
No-one likes to feel at the mercy of unpredictable, unmanageable and poorly-understood forces, even though the reality is that sometimes we are.
I’m reminded here of the collapse of the Khmer civilization at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, which was invaded by the Thais in the 14th and 15th centuries, resulting in the Khmer population deserting the entire region. The ancient ruins, which became overgrown with dense forests, were rediscovered by the French in the 19th century.
For a long time it was a puzzle as to why the population had so completely deserted the region after that invasion by the neighbouring Thais. In the areas surrounding the numerous temples there was a vast network of irrigation canals and lakes feeding an extensive farming industry which supported the civilization. It’s understandable that some people would temporarily flee when confronted by an invasion, but one would expect them to return later to their homeland.
However, as a result of recent studies of tree rings in the area, and the examination of varying depths of sediment deposits in the lakes, it now seems clear that climate change was a major factor causing the population to completely desert the place.
During that transition from the MWP to the LIA in Europe, which caused the Vikings to leave Greenland, a similar cooling effect occurred in the Himalayas, causing a reduction of the annual melting of the snows which feed into the Mekong river and flow down to the Angkor Wat region.
It seems that the Khmer civilization was severely weakened by a number of droughts during this time. The Thais took that as an opportunity to invade and one might reasonably deduce that the fleeing population saw no reason to return later to a drought-stricken land.
There are many other more ancient civilizations which have been destroyed by drastic changes in climate, but what I find particularly relevant to the current AGW debate is that the fall of the Khmer civilization coincided, approximately, with the transition from the MWP to the LIA, which some AGW alarmist believe was a regional phenomenon confined to the Northern Hemisphere in the West.
http://www.livescience.com/17702-drought-collapse-ancient-city-angkor.html
׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510
׬̫ˣ֪ȺͳŶҲܸߣע5000ң2Ԫܶ֡Ҹ2Ԫϵˣ2Ԫ֣ҿעԣעַ:http://www.youzhuan.com/tg/?u=73356ee510
̳,Щ̳Է棿̳Էѹ棬һԷĹר̳ÓλҵվseoerÇ°ÒµSEOŻϢ http://www.zuiailuntan.com/
Hello Dr. Spencer,
I’m not sure if I’m flattered or offended by your use of the World Clown Association 2015 convention photo with your article. Yes sir, I am a professional clown and the President of this international organization. You may be aware that your usage of this photo may be considered copyright infringement. Though I understand the point that you’re making by placing a photo of stereotypical “goof balls” (us) with discussion of the Paris COP21 group, we respectfully do ask that you refrain from using our organization’s photo. We reserve the right to use our own promotional materials in ways that encourage laughs, smiles, comic relief and good will.