Seeing as we are laying into Alarmism this week, here are a few questions which need to be answered, even if they refuse to accept that the 33 degree GHE is a massive great lie (based as it is on selectively ignoring clouds):
1. What is the optimum CO2 level to get an optimum climate?
2. In which earlier periods of at least a century was CO2 at this level?
3. Can you confirm that the weather was objectively better in most of those centuries - very few natural famines (this is the most important one), floods, droughts, hurricanes, forest fires etc, with steady rainfall patterns in most places, etc, or at least, a lot fewer/steadier than in the last half a century?
4. Can you also confirm that temperatures were stable throughout most of those centuries, varying by no more than +/- 1 degree per century?
I doubt whether the mantra "pre-industrial levels" is the right answer - during the last period when CO2 was this low was the Little Ice Age, which as far as we can tell was a global phenomenon. Mass famines and at least as many floods, droughts etc as nowadays. We don't want that!
And we know that temperatures have never been that stable; climate change is a constant and always has been. The ups and downs of the last 150 years are nothing unusual.
Another one bites the dust
1 hour ago
7 comments:
After Thomas Sowell's three questions:
What hard evidence do you have for those assertion?
Compared to what?
At what cost?
L, TS is a very perceptive man. But you knew that.
Exactly. A robust logical exercise. Regardless of what caused it, what are the costs/benefits of an action plan? There is a fascination that 'natural' is good and man made is bad. If a magical comet melted in our atmosphere and 'scrubbed' 300ppm of CO2 instantly, do we ignore it because it's natural, or do some analysis for a possible action plan? I bet you that if that happened and we started burning coal to increase CO2, the alarmists would oppose and suddenly start explaining the lapse rate and that CO2 greenhouse theory is bosh.
OTOH,
£ benefits of less reliance on imported oil and gas and reducing smog in cities - large but unknown. £ costs, large but unknown.
Impact of reducing CO2 emissions on CO2 levels - minimal.
£ Benefits - zero, nix, bugger all etc.
£ Costs - large but unknown, overlap with above.
Good point re them picking and choosing :-)
The problem with this absurd hubris that we puny humans cab affect the Earth's climate is that, while we are concentrating on the futile fight against climate change, we are not concentrating on other pressing problems, not the least of which is adapting to that same climate change. The Alarmists have it arse-about-face, they think that there is no point in adapting because we should be preventing and reversing, whereas the opposite is true. The other huge problem is that they are much keener on punishing those that they see are guilty, rather than actually ameliorating the effects, or doing something effective, like regreening deserts. This, of course, is supported by the widespread belief that it's for other people to do all the heavy lifting, meanwhile you, personally can continue to enjoy the fruits of civilisation that the consumption of fossil fuels have brought and continue to bring you.
B, the good news is, we are adapating, whether the Alarmists like it or not. Globally, food output goes up, life expectancy increases, the economy grows etc, plant and animals are migrating or sprouting earlier (or later, of whatever) all the important metrics look good.
My favourite charity, Practical Action, has always talked about mitigation and adaption, never about decarbonisation or any of that bollocks.
Post a Comment