CoRev on Global Warming (again)
This one is by CoRev. My brief response is in comments.
Dr Roger Pielke Sr. maintains a site of mostly peer reviewed papers that are even handed and fair on the subject of “climate Change.” He is not a skeptic, except of the science surrounding the subject, and often has to defend himself from the zealots in the “CO2” and “Global Warming” alarmists community.
He has an article which explains some of reasons the politics is so important to these alarmists.
There was a candid admission in the newspaper Colorado Daily on February 22 2008 with respect to why the global warming issue is being promoted so vigorously in the media and in articles published in science journals.
It also provides the reason that the actual diversity of human climate forcings, are being ignored by most policymakers and even USA Presidential candidates. The text from the article “Carbon dioxide: friend or foe? by Evan Sandsmark” has the relevant excerpt
”Many individuals, including a large portion of environmentalists, believe that a purely technological approach to stablizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to social apathy towards climate change.
Ted Parsons, a professor at the School of National Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, writes that the promises of air capture could carry a ‘moral hazard’ because political pressure for near-term efforts to curtail climate change may be reduced.
Air capture also addresses one of many factors adversely affecting the environment. The climate crisis is a powerful tool to motivate change – like checking the ever-expanding global population and excessive resource consumption – and if the urgency of climate change is compromised, other environmental projects may fall by the wayside.”
Thus we have the reasoning as to why the science issues on Climate Science have been mostly ignored – the issue is not about climate science. The goal is to use the term “global warming” (with “climate change” used to make the concept cover all aspects of climate) not to ”motivate” change, but to force the public and policymakers to adopt specific policy and political actions that promotes particular agendas.
Clearly, this narrow approach is doomed to produce poor policy decisions. Unless the media starts to recognize this inappropriate use of climate science, we will continue down the road to many actions that will have unanticipated and undesirable consequences.
It’s seldom about the science. It is usually about the politics, and the surrounding goals of the alarmists. Polar Bears? Pshaww!!!
UPDATE!!! Just finished the above portion, when I pick up the WaPo and find this article, Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say. Yup! It claims:
The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
So, how would this be done? No fires by those who rely on them for heat and cooking? No manufacturing? No electricity generation? No human activity! Maybe even NO HUMANS at all!
Sheesh! How many more irrational warnings is it going to take, before we get a clue that the whole argument is irrational.
Let me remind you. We are undergoing, this year, the greatest drop in Global temperatures seen in many decades. These drops, yes plural, are not caused by human creation of CO2. in fact are not caused by CO2, at all.
The mechanisms are well know. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a current shift in the Pacific. The ADO, a similar shift in the Atlantic. A relatively large La Nina. And, finally, a Sun Spit minima.
Note, none are man created!!!
This post was by CoRev. My response are in comments.