Here’s one. According to the sky is falling chicken little global warming fearmongers, global warming will be irreverisble in 10 years. The report linked to however has plans for action to be taken in 2025. Wait..global warming is doomsday in 10 years..2015..but some of their more critical actions are not scheduled for 10 years after doomsday?
If global warming is so bad and is going to doom us in 10 years..why are the urocrats pushing out the airbus A380? The world’s biggest jetliner? I mean if global warming is that much of an issue shouldn’t we all be puttering in hybrid Cessnas?
I, The Chief Diplomad and Internet Bloviator, have let the readers down. I made fun of the UN’s 3,000 page ACTION PLAN to save the world without actually reading it. That is something the MSM would do — well, not the “make fun” part, but the “not reading” part.” As a consequence, I have been cruising the internet for another stupid, vapid report that I could ridicule AND this time actually read. My lonely quest to ease my conscience was finally rewarded by these articles which pointed me to another Holy Grail of Left-Lib Stupidity,
Cabinet minister Stephen Byers has warned that Global warming could become irreversible within a decade. The US must be persuaded to act now or it will be to (sic) late to undo climate change, Mr Byers said. Tony Blair has made action on the issue a priority for his chairmanship of the G7 this year. That may represent a last chance to address the problem, according to the International Climate Change Task Force, which Mr Byers chairs.
Carbon dioxide concentrations will become so great within ten to 20 years that cuts will be futile, the task force says in a report out later.
Global Warming: Approaching Point of No Return
Global warming is approaching the point of no return, after which widespread drought, crop failure and rising sea levels will be irreversible, an international climate change task force warned Monday. It called on the Group of 8 leading industrial nations to cut carbon emissions, double their research spending on technology and work with India and China to build on the Kyoto Protocol for cuttings emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” blamed for global warming.
The independent report was made by the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Center for American Progress in the United States and the Australia Institute.
“An ecological time bomb is ticking away,” said Stephen Byers, who was co-chairman of the task force with U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. “World leaders need to recognize that climate change is the single most important long-term issue that the planet faces.”
I had to read that report (plus I’d heard that it was only 40 pages long, i.e., just over 1.3% as long as that, uh, UN report . . . the one, which . . .I . . . didn’t . . . read.) How could I not read a report dealing with the “the single most important long-term issue that the planet faces?” How could I pass up an “independent” report put out by a Taskforce (Homer Simpson voice: Mmmm, Taskforce . . . ) jointly “chaired” by a loopy British Labourite and an equally loopy American REPUBLICAN? Had to have it. And only 40 pages!
I found it at the website of the non-partisan [Must keep straight face, must keep straight face . . . ] Australia Institute which co-sponsored the thing — and probably wrote much of it. It’s a gold mine of loopiness! A treasure trove of vapidity and stupidity hard to equal in just 40 pages. [Note: Once you discount the several pages of puffery about the authors and the sponsors; the acknowledgments and the thank yous; and the footnotes and the introductions, the report is perhaps 28-30 pages long in big type and with lots of white space. Great!]
Check out the recommendations in the intro. Aren’t they original?
1. A long-term objective be established to prevent global average temperature from rising more than 2?C (3.6?F) above the pre-industrial level, to limit the extent and magnitude of climate-change impacts.
2. A global framework be adopted that builds on the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, and enables all countries to be part of concerted action on climate change at the global level in the post-2012 period, on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.
3. G8 governments establish national renewable portfolio standards to generate at least 25% of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025, with higher targets needed for some G8 governments.
4. G8 governments increase their spending on research, development, and demonstration of advanced technologies for energy-efficient and low- and zero-carbon energy supply by two-fold or more by 2010, at the same time as adopting near-term strategies for the large-scale deployment of existing low- and no-carbon technologies.
5. The G8 and other major economies, including from the developing world, form a G8+ Climate Group, to pursue technology agreements and related initiatives that will lead to large emissions reductions.
6. The G8+ Climate Group agree to shift their agricultural subsidies from food crops to biofuels, especially those derived from cellulosic materials, while implementing appropriate safeguards to ensure sustainable farming methods are encouraged, culturally and ecologically sensitive land preserved, and biodiversity protected.
7. All developed countries introduce national mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions, and construct them to allow for their future integration into a single global market.
8. Governments remove barriers to and increase investment in renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and practices through such measures as the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies and requiring Export Credit Agencies and Multilateral Development Banks to adopt minimum efficiency or carbon intensity standards for projects they support.
9. Developed countries honour existing commitments to provide greater financial and technical assistance to help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change, including the commitments made at the seventh conference of the parties to the UNFCCC in 2001, and pursue the establishment of an international compensation fund to support disaster mitigation and preparedness.
10. Governments committed to action on climate change raise public awareness of the problem and build public support for climate policies by pledging to provide substantial long-term investment in effective climate communication activities.
Are these the sort of actions you would take if the world were going to reach the POINT OF NO RETURN in ten years? According to the distinguished British “co-chair,” after ten years IT’S ALL OVER!!! Yet the report has suggestions for actions to take by 2025 — along with all the usual leftist bromides about more mone
y for this or that, form a group to discuss, raise public awareness, blah, blah, blah.
More nuggets come fast and furious. Page 1 tells us,
The international consensus of scientific opinion, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is agreed that global temperature is increasing and that the main cause is the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of human activities. Scientific opinion is also agreed that the threat posed will become more severe over coming decades.
It’s the “consensus of scientific opinion,” except for all those scientists who don’t agree, but never mind.
Page 1 charges on with more. Now here, I must warn you: the math is VERY precise and VERY complex. I am not sure that just ordinary folks will be able to follow the complex calculations laid out below. Try to keep up,
The cost of failing to mobilise in the face of this threat is likely to be extremely high. The economic costs alone will be very large: as extreme weather events such as droughts and floods become more destructive and frequent; communities, cities, and island nations are damaged or inundated as sea level rises; and agricultural output is disrupted. The social and human costs are likely to be even greater, encompassing mass loss of life, the spread or exacerbation of diseases, dislocation of populations, geopolitical instability, and a pronounced decrease in the quality of life. Impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity are also likely to be devastating.
Preventing dangerous climate change, therefore, must be seen as a precondition for prosperity and a public good, like national security and public health. By contrast, the cost of taking smart, effective action to meet the challenge of climate change should be entirely manageable. Such action need not undermine standards of living.
Hope that you could follow the math. Notice the great precision, the exactitude, the complex calculations? And there’s more! Just in case you had the impression from page 1 that we should only oppose “dangerous climate change,” page 3 will set you right,
While no amount of climate change is safe and many communities, such as those in Arctic regions and low-lying island states, are already experiencing adverse impacts, scientific evidence suggests that there is a threshold of temperature increase above which the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change increase sharply. No one can say with certainty what that threshold is, but it is important that we make an educated judgment at this time based on the best available science.
NO CLIMATE CHANGE AT ALL! The world’s climate has NEVER EVER changed — until evil man showed up and started doing stuff. And while “scientific evidence suggests a threshold of temperature” we have no friggin idea what it is, but we’re not going to be deterred from doing something just because we don’t know what we’re doing!
Now the part that has gotten the most media attention,
On the basis of an extensive review of the relevant scientific literature, we propose a long-term objective of preventing average global surface temperature from rising by more than 2?C (3.6?F) above its pre-industrial level (taken as the level in 1750, when carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations first began to rise appreciably as a result of human activities). (footnote#10)
Interesting. Let’s go see what footnote number 10 says. You’ll find it on page 15,
Other influences on climate were much more important than the rising greenhouse gas concentrations for at least the next hundred years, and the global average surface temperature in 1850 was probably a bit cooler than in 1750. But thermometer measurements ? which first became widespread enough to directly determine the global average temperature only around 1860?show that between then and 2004 the temperature has risen by about 0.8?C or 1.4?F, and is expected to rise further still due to climatic inertia.
There appears to be no scientific rhyme or reason for picking 1750 as the base year — political, yes, scientific, no. Apparently, according to the report, nobody knows what the temperature was in 1750, but whatever it was, after 100 years of “human activity,” by 1850 the world was COOLER. Why? “Other influences” is the cryptic answer. So are those “other influences” now gone? What were they and what happened to them? If they’re not gone, wouldn’t they act to cool the earth again rather than let it warm up?
Just as I was getting warmed up to continue my assault on the report (sigh), I ran across this from Tim Worstall,
Allow me to translate We have decided to take an arbitrary number, 2?C, set the baseline at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, immediately after the Maunder Minimum, mix in every scare story we can think of to scare the fecal matter out of you rubes and if you don’t listen carefully to us important people we’ll hold our breaths until we turn blue. (We might also note that no one, no one at all, thinks that human influence on the climate started in 1750 AD. Try 8,000 BC with the invention of agriculture.)
Allow me just to recapitulate this argument. A modest number of the international great and the good get together to bemoan the way the world is running to rack and ruin, identifying the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and not coincidentally, the beginning of capitalism) as when our forefathers began to cause our problems, come up with a series of recommendations on how to reduce carbon emissions, lots of international action, international aid, international spending, international regulation, in short, lots for the international great and good to do, and in the process they take no position on nuclear energy? None at all? Not even a “Tsk, tsk, that will allow capitalism to survive?”
Sheesh. Who cares what they think?
Darn. He ruined that for me. He demolished the whole thing.
But I have two recommendations to the EU as they fight Global Warming. The first is something they should immediately stop doing,
If the new Airbus A380 is the commercial success its European makers hope, the big loser — apart from Boeing — will be the environment, a French expert
says But French expert Jean-Marc Jancovici author of numerous books on climate change and who runs a well-regarded website(manicore.com) on global warming phenomenon, says that if Airbus’ business plan is right, “the number of air passengers will triple in the next 20 years. ” Even if planes get bigger, there will still be a lot more of them in the skies in order to meet demand and this will cancel out the benefits in improved fuel efficiency, he told AFP.
In addition, because aircraft emit their pollution at altitude rather than at ground level, the effect as an amplifier of global warming can be five times worse than that of a truck. Compounding the problem is that the aviation business is so far immune from global-warming regulations demanding higher fuel efficiency or lower pollution, and kerosene, a highly polluting fuel, is untaxed.
Stop building that Airbus — or, more EUish, tax it to death.
The second recommendation is for the EU to keep doing what it’s doing now . From the lads at EU Referendum comes this observation,
Latest of the long line of critics, the government?s own “red-tape czar” is calling on t
he EU to improve its business regulation or face long-term economic decline, according to The Times today. Asked what would happen if red tape continued to grow, Mr Arculus said: “I think the consequences for Europe are extremely serious.” Europe?s economy could decline to half the size of the US over the next 20 years if the tide of regulation was not stemmed, he said.That, of course, it the way it is going to be ? if the EU lasts that long. Regulation is not primarily a matter of procedures but of attitude and culture. The EU commission regulates in the way it does because that is the only way it knows. It is incapable of doing it any other way.
What better way could the EU show its commitment to fighting Global Warming than by letting its economy stagnant and decline? Once the EU matches, oh say, Ghana’s economic performance, then it will prove beyond all doubt how genuinely committed it is to dealing with “single most important long-term issue that the planet faces.” Keep at it EU!