I wonder how many trees are killed and how much CO2 the Washington Post puts out daily in order to bring us such doom and gloom, the world is going to end type stories such as this
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.
I’m assuming they mean that the output has to be a net zero, since it would require all life on Earth to be dead to stop CO2 output completely. Anyhow, yeah, it would be hard, especially since all the chicken little climahysterics refuse to live the life they advocate for everyone else. Why would I change my life when they won’t change theirs?
“The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore?” asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.”
The danger in that is that the climate of the Earth is an extremely complicated and dynamic system, which is certainly not understood fully by any scientist. There are too many parts too it, and not understanding how they all operate, then screwing with it, is rather dangerous, particularly since we have had that whopping 1.4 degree F or so rise since the end of the Little Ice Age. You remember the LIA, right? It was cold. It was preceded by a very warm period. But, somehow, the chicken littles say it can only be Man’s fault (why can’t it be Woman’s fault?).
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings “make it clear we must act now to address global warming.”
“It won’t be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling,” she said. “It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves.”
Why? They should be able to live with themselves just fine, as all the other climahypocrites do. Like Boxer does. It appears as if Boxer is turning this in to some sort of moral issue, which is really ironic due to her massive support for abortion on demand.
Caught in all the consensus, hysterical rhetoric, and computer models, is the reality that an uptick in CO2 in the atmosphere followsan uptick in temperature, rather then the reverse. And consensus is not science. And, again, the fact that most of the chicken littles do not follow their own talking points. So, why should the rest of us believe what they are peddling?
That is not to say that we should not find alternative, and cleaner, energy sources, as well as do what we can to protect the environment. I am all for that. I am all for getting polluters to stop. I am also heavily in favor of divorcing climate change from all the true environmental issues, and letting them stand on their own importance.
McQ at Q and Ohas a great breaking down of the gasses and costs, providing something the chicken littles do not. Facts.
Tigerhawk: Of course, reducing carbon emissions nearly to zero would also constitute a global catastrophe, so if these guys are right we are actually completely and unavoidably screwed.
See more at Memeorandum.