Say, Can We Avoid Climate Apocalypse?

One would think this kind of outright over the top unhinged climate hysteria (climasteria?) would be someplace like Grist, Climate Progress, etc, not at one of the world’s premiere news organizations, CNN

Can we avoid climate apocalypse?

It’s probably the most important number you’ve never heard of: 2 degrees Celsius.

That’s when climate change starts to get especially dangerous. Nearly every country in the world has agreed that 2 degrees of warming, measured as an increase in global average temperature since the Industrial Revolution, is too much to tolerate. Yet there’s less agreement about how to achieve the ambitious goal of keeping the increase below that threshold, and how economies can switch quickly enough from dirty fuels like coal and oil to cleaner sources of energy like solar and wind.

World leaders will meet in Paris starting on November 30 to discuss all of this at the COP21 meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Before that gets going, we invited authors, experts and activists to weigh in on the 2-degree target. What’s at stake? And how can we actually get there?

Of course, the world has only seen a minuscule .85C since 1850, around 1.5F. During that time period there have been decades with increases, and others with pauses and even reductions. Despite Warmist objections (they’re objecting to actual science and facts, let’s be clear), there has been an 18+ year pause in statistically significant warming. According to their cultish beliefs, the world will suddenly warm 2C (3.6F) in just over 80 years. Science says otherwise. But, they want to push the doom. First up is Mark Lynas

Call it the nightmare scenario. First, world leaders meeting in Paris this December fail to agree on a plan to cut back global greenhouse gas emissions. Renewables like solar power remain too expensive, and people stay irrationally scared of carbon-free nuclear. The world shifts back to burning coal.

Then we find out that the Earth’s “climate sensitivity” — how quickly and drastically the planet responds to carbon emissions — is at the upper end of the range scientists predicted. Tipping points are crossed: Methane starts to belch out of the melting permafrost in huge quantities, and the ice sheets respond with what experts euphemistically call “nonlinear disintegration.” Sea levels begin to shoot up.

In the latter part of this century we find the planet’s temperature rise pushing not 2 degrees, as is the current internationally agreed maximum target, but 4, 5, even 6 degrees Celsius of warming. Large areas of the subtropics become biologically uninhabitable to humans: It’s simply too hot to go outside. Food crops in breadbaskets wither in searing heatwaves, and extreme cyclones pummel coastal cities already under threat from the rising seas.

Could human civilization survive? We don’t know — but this nightmare scenario is surely a risk we should not take. We know how to make the shift away from fossil fuels. The time to act is now.

Stephen King, Mark Tufo, and TW Brown do horror much better. And it’s entertaining.

Of course, then we have someone yammering on about the number being 1.5C. Like Lynas, Kathy Kijiner offers no solutions.

Van Jones supports Obama’s energy killing/cost of living increasing power plant plan. Surprisingly, CNN actually allows a disenting view from Bjorn Lomborg

For 20 years, governments have tried to cut carbon emissions. The result has been two decades of failure with ever-increasing global emissions.

Governments have already revealed the carbon cuts they likely will commit to in Paris. All of these combined will reduce temperatures by a tiny 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Yet the cost is likely to be more than $1 trillion annually.

He then makes a good point, one I’ve noted numerous times

We should end fossil fuel subsidies and invest much more in green energy research and development. This would be much cheaper and more effective than our current approach. We need to innovate the price of green energy down to where everyone wants to buy it. And we should acknowledge that wasting $1 trillion annually on minuscule temperature reductions is immoral and wasteful when there are major needs today — from malaria to nutrition to family planning — where small investments could achieve a great deal more.

But, Bjorn needs to remember that this is not about science or anything noble, it’s about political control. Progressivism. Nice fascism. His voice, though, is about the only non-Warmist one.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

8 Comments

Comment by drowningpuppies
2015-11-24 12:47:31

President skinny black guy just said the UN Climate Conference will be a “powerful rebuke to terrorists.”

Yeah, solar panels and windmills, not bombs and bullets will defeat ISIS.

What a fooking clown.

 
Comment by john
2015-11-24 12:58:32

Teach how is putting solar panels on your own roof some sort of governmental power play ?? Becoming less dependent on electrical power that is already regulated by government somehow gives them more control??????????
Residential electric costs went DOWN in NC in 2015 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a
Since Obama has become POTUS residential electric costs have increased less than 1% per year under Bush they went up 5% each year
http://www.statista.com/statistics/183700/us-average-retail-electricity-price-since-1990/
Teach YOU GOTTA start fact checking from PRIMARY sources, not Newsmax or Rush. They don’t tell you the truth, they only tell you what you want to hear.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2015-11-24 14:35:50

William

So you support eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and subsidizing renewable sources to make green energy attractive.

Good idea. Deniers such as lomberg are coming around to reasonable solutions without admitting they were wrong about AGW. Whatever it takes.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2015-11-24 14:37:47

Republican candidate fat white guy said something stupid about everything.q

 
Comment by Hank_M
2015-11-24 15:03:40

“Republican candidate fat white guy said something stupid about everything”

Great. He’ll fit in nicely with skinny black guy in White House and old white democrat hag running for his job, both of whom lie about everything.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2015-11-24 15:13:35

Fat white guy is being called the first “post truth” candidate, since all he does is lie, without repercussion.

We are careening toward an Idiocracy.

 
Comment by Hank_M
2015-11-24 15:46:38

“We are careening toward an Idiocracy”

Already there thanks to skinny black guy in white house, addled old white democrat candidate hag and plagiarizing blooper prone veep. Toss in botoxed pelosi and black-eyed Reid and you have quite the winning hand.

 
Comment by Jl
2015-11-24 21:26:11

Again, fossil fuels by and large receive tax breaks, not subsidies. “So you support subsidizing renewable energy sources to make green energy attractive.” Renewable energy sources are already massively subsidized. And they still aren’t attractive. “Since Obama became president electrical costs have increased less than 1% percent year….” Thanks, John, for showing us how incompetent Obama is, as he said electrical costs would “skyrocket” under his watch.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9916 access attempts in the last 7 days.