"America In Longest Warm Spell Since 1776: Temperature Line Records A 25-Year Rise" (March 27, 1933)
"Major Cooling Widely Considered To Be Inevitable" (May 21, 1975)
Via Steyn, who--using the Kyotophiles' own math--writes:
"Climate change" isn't like predicting Italian coalition politics. There are only two options, so, whichever one predicts, one has a 50 percent chance of being right. The planet will always be either warming or cooling.
By now you're probably scoffing: Oh, come on, Steyn, what kind of sophisticated analysis is that? It doesn't just go up or down, it could sorta more-or-less stay pretty much where it is.
Very true. In the course of the 20th century, the planet's temperature supposedly increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius, which (for those of you who want it to sound scarier) is a smidgeonette over 1 degree Fahrenheit. Is that kinda sorta staying the same or is it a dramatic warming trend?
And is nought-point-seven of an uptick worth wrecking the global economy over? Sure, say John Kerry and Al Gore, suddenly retrospectively hot for Kyoto ratification. But, had America and Australia signed on to Kyoto, and had Canada and Europe complied with it instead of just pretending to, by 2050 the treaty would have reduced global warming by 0.07C: a figure that would be statistically undectectable within annual climate variation. And, in return for this meaningless gesture, American GDP in 2010 would be lower by $97 billion to $397 billion -- and those are the U.S. Energy Information Administration's somewhat optimistic models.
And now Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says "it might take another 30 Kyotos" to halt global warming: 30 x $397 billion is . . . er, too many zeroes for my calculator.
So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people.
Or we could do what man does best: adapt.
4 comments:
No matter what you read or believe about global warming or global chilling, the lesson to be learned is simple, and one that we could all live by. Try to limit your footprint on the planet.
Do you really need to drive the biggest SUV available? Could you walk to the store instead of drive? U.S. power plants burn a lot of dirty coal, so how about switching to energy efficient lightbulbs? Just do your best, make a few sacrifices and Mother Nature will take of the rest.
It also wouldn't hurt to reduce the United States dependency on foreign oil if you know what I mean. The middle east is a ticking time bomb.
Respect Mother Earth or she will come back and bite you in the ass.
REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE.
Or better yet, you can use the theory of global warming as a political chess piece. Moving it around the board in the interests of those support your campaign.
Nancy Pelosi could try to introduce a bill to "stop" global warming, while choosing to fly back home 3500 miles on a 737 with only 12 people aboard, instead of a much smaller, lower smog producing plane that the former Speaker of the House flew. Or is that an INCONVIENT TRUTH?
Or better still, mind your own damn business.
As far as the "footprint":
I carpool to work. I walk to any destination a mile or less. I used to recycle all bottle and papers, but they shut down the recycling bins in our city. Screw 'em.
I encourage the environmentalist Larry Davises to abandon their mansion, move to a 1500 square-foot apartment, and stop consuming Mother Earth's resources to light, heat, and cool a house far beyond their needs.
I propose a ban on all private jet flights.
Dependence on foreign oil? Fine. Drill ANWAR, set up wind turbines in Nantucket, and construct nuclear power plants across the fruited plain--do these three, or, sorry, just shut up.
There will always be idiots running the asylum. Whether it's the White House or the Waffle House there's always an idiot somewhere, sometimes two or three.
So when it comes to the enviornment just do your part and pray your vote does the rest.
-Blue
Post a Comment