< meta name="DC.Date.Valid.End" content="20050827">

Catastrophic Success

As if there weren't enough political opinionating out there, I, too, now sing the body bloglectric. Let me FEED you![XML]

Location: United States

Monday, January 24, 2005

I'm shovelling out of a blizzard! Where the hell is global warming?

Apparently, Michael McCarthy of the Independent has not read State of Fear by Michael Crichton.

He buys hook, line and sinker a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK, the Center for American Progress in the US, and The Australia Institute (not exactly the most moderate organizations) that won't be released until tomorrow.

Among other things, it calls for the G8 and Australia to move 25% of their electricity production to "renewable energy" sources by 2025 and a CO2 share-trading scheme first proposed in the failed Kyoto treaty.

Steven Den Beste went to great lengths to explain why it was not possible, at this point in time, with the knowledge we have today or can expect in the future, to reduce dependence on petroleum (which is what a move to "renewable energy sources" means) in any significant amount. It just won't happen. Because it can't happen.

In addition it claims that ten years from now we will likely pass the point of no return, beyond which global warming is sure to cause drastic climate change is unavoidable, ranging from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet (unlikely) and the Western Antarctic ice sheet (while the remainder of Antarctic ice gets thicker as it has been for years) causing ocean levels to rise 10 meters or more (even though it doesn't appear to have moved much more than centimeters, not that anyone can get a solid fix on it now).

It states that by 2015, "Global Temperature" will likely have risen to the crucial 2 degrees Centigrade above the 1750 median (used as a benchmark since meteorology was at its peak of knowledge then and its attendent instrumentation has never been improved upon ... - actually because that is dubbed the end of the pre-industrial era, somewhat arbitrarily I think) necessary to cause the world to end, essentially. Currently we have already raised the temperature .8 degrees from 1750 levels, leaving only 1.2 degrees until global shutdown. Why it took 255 years to raise it .8 degrees and will only take a little more than ten (as claimed in the pre-release press release) to raise it 1.5 times that, I'm uncertain. See that's not explained. They just issue the dire threats and hope everyone throws their hands up and says "Oh Lawdy, Massa Enviahmentalist! Please don't let me die, suh! Take all my cars and money and whatevah you needs, suh! Just let me live!"

Here is the same nihilism we heard all throughout the eighties as Ed Begley, Jr. and Ted Danson were on TV announcing that by 1998 there would be no fish left in the ocean.

Also, CO2 will probably reach the dangerously high concentration of 400 parts per million, up from 379 parts per million. Raising CO2 concentrations to 0.04 percent from .0379 percent, in ten years. Which will usher in Ragnarok. Personally, I'm willing to wait them out. I'm calling their bluff. I don't think they know what the hell they are talking about. Why not? Did I mention they are not scientists?

IPPR says they "ha[ve] over 40 in-house policy specialists. We regularly contribute pieces to national and specialist press and are used frequently on radio, television and in print as commentators on public policy and social trends."

American Progress has this on their About Us page:
The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all. We believe Americans are bound together by a common commitment to these values and we aspire to ensure our national policies reflect these values. Our policy and communications efforts are organized around four major objectives:

• developing a long term vision of a progressive America,
• providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals,
• responding effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals and rhetoric with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives, and
• communicating progressive messages to the American public.

Non-partisan... riiiiight. Today's headlines include: "Rumsfeld's Dirty Little Secret," "Conservative Rhetoric or Reality," "Abortion as a Moral Decision." It's funny, I don't see "Barbara Boxer: Nutjob or Moonbat" or "How the War on Terror is Good for the Environment."

TAI operates with this philosophy:
The Institute was launched in 1994 to develop and conduct research and policy analysis and to participate forcefully in public debates. In addition, the Institute undertakes research and analysis commissioned and paid for by government, business, unions and community organisations. Those involved in the Institute have each, from different viewpoints, been concerned about the impact on Australian society of the priority given to a narrow definition of economic efficiency over community, environmental and ethical considerations in public and private decision making. A better balance is urgently needed.

Private markets, while effective at encouraging efficiency in many circumstances, frequently fail to reflect adequately the ethical, social and environmental priorities of the community. Governments must provide the appropriate institutional framework in which private markets operate so as to ensure that they contribute to justice, equity and sustainability as well as efficiency. Market outcomes are not value free and the Institute reasserts the place of ethics in making public and private decisions.

That last is their money graf. Government knows better than the people. We intend to see that this is borne out through as much restriction and regulation as the market can bear, plus ten percent.

This is a fluff piece to give the looney left more hay for their "Bush and Co. are EVIL and bad for the environment and women and puppies!!!" strawmen since Kyoto has gone away for good. The article is full of dire warnings (using phrasing like "More ominously still...") and depressing statistics. It's also full of crap.

From the article: "The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union."

This is key to me right here. The report is aimed at policy makers to get them to MAKE POLICY to enact this hare-brained pseudo-science without the benefit of scientific peer review to vet any of their claims. This article makes the case for the need of scientific review when it states that the report is the first to put any timeline on the point of no return (10 years or 1.2 degrees C hence). It is telling that they aim the report at politicians who are more likely to fall for the breathless prose rather than scientist who just want to see the data. To make this case more they had politicians Senator Olympia Snowe-Flake (R-INO) and former transportation secretary Stephen Byers chairing the "task force" and using words like "timebomb" and "stable climate" (a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one).

I don't know why I wasted so much space on it. Maybe I'll come back in ten years as the flesh is melting from my bones and Pestilence rides his lathered horse through my home and I'll cry out "Why didn't I listen? Why was I a fool?" Or maybe I will just laugh as I swim in my inground pool as I live it up at the mansion I built with the money that poured in once my blog was discovered and Hollywood beat a path to my door begging me to write them trite syrupy romance movies and explosive laden action flicks and exploding-syrup-laden action romance flickies. Sorry. I got distracted by my French maid! What was I saying? Oh yeah, treehuggers are nutty.

UPDATE (1/26/05): I beat The Diplomad to the story, but he beats the crap outta me with his analysis. Open the windows and crank the AC!!!