Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

April 13, 2014 - 9:49 am

What’s even more dubious than claims of catastrophic warming? Claims that scientists know what to do about it.

The IPCC released a report warning that unless a “rapid shift” to green energy is undertaken, we’re all going to die…or, something.

And even that may not be enough. The group is saying that we “might even need to enlist controversial technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

We’ll get started right away on those gigantic atmospheric scoops to remove all those offensive greenhouse gases.

It’s more of the same from the IPCC, with a little more hysteria to get our juices flowing.

USA Today:

“There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual,” said Germany’s Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who co-chaired the IPCC report, the third in a series released in the past year. The Working Group III report, written by 235 scientists from 57 countries, looks at myriad ways to fight climate change and serves as a potential road map for policymakers who plan to negotiate a new climate treaty next year in Paris.

“If we do nothing, temperatures will continue to rise,” co-author Leon Clarke, a scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said from Berlin after wrapping up a week of discussions there to finalize the report’s wording. “It’s not necessarily a phaseout of fossil fuels,” he said, but rather “a phaseout” of power plants and other facilities that don’t capture the carbon they emit.

Holding emission increases to 3.6 degree Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels — a goal sought in international agreements — will require “heroic efforts” and a “massive” shift in the energy sector, says another U.S. co-author, David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego. “It’s doable in theory … but it will be extremely difficult.”

Despite efforts to mitigate climate change, the report says global greenhouse gas emissions rose 2.2% annually in the past decade — nearly twice the annual rate of 1.3% from 1970 to 2000. It says fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes, which rose as the global population and economy grew, accounted for 78% of the emissions’ increase between 1970 and 2010. It says about half of cumulative man-made carbon emissions since 1750 has occurred in the last 40 years.

The IPCC report says delaying action will only escalate the costs of transitioning to energy that emits less or zero greenhouse gases. It doesn’t endorse any single approach but cites the value of planting forests, boosting energy efficiency and — by 2050 — at least tripling the share of energy from zero-carbon sources such as nuclear, solar and wind.

It also points to more ambitious measures such as “bio-energy with carbon capture and storage” or BECCS, in which power plants produce fuel by burning biomass — trees, plant waste, wood chips — then capture and store the CO2 emissions underground. Victor says BECCS holds appeal for the future because it produces energy while actually reducing emissions.

So we denude the planet of trees to save us from global warming? What’s not to like?

In truth, there is no proof — experimental proof, mathematical proof, or proof via any known scientific process — that any of these “solutions” will work. Models may be suggestive that reducing emissions will mitigate climate change, but do we invest trillions of dollars into marginal technologies based on modelling? Given the IPCC’s track record of models predicting temperature rise, perhaps we ought to try a little harder to gather hard evidence of possible success before going off half-cocked.

Besides, reducing man’s imprint on the climate may not be enough. Perhaps the scientists could invent a machine that shuts down volcanoes. It would probably be easier than trying to run a modern economy on solar and wind power.

But this is not about the economy. It’s about control — and enriching people like IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri who is massively invested in green energy schemes.

All in a day’s work for the IPCC.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Okay, so I'm spamming this.

After reading Jonah Goldberg’s recent explanation of his recent column, the essence of which is that when religion is excised idols take its place; specifically in the West, ‘science’. Now I have a profound respect for science: not only is it the out-growth of Biblical and Christian thought, but, more personally, my father was a scientist, and if there was one thing I got from him was a reverence for the truth, and the reality-based observation of natural reactions and the theorizing about the nature of reality that comes out of consistently observing repeatable identical experiences – the so-called empirical method. (I would also add that my father held the view that his supervisor, while being a relatively good supervisor, was less capable as a scientist, despite his PhD; and would often publish papers with known errors, so that he could later publish a correction, giving him another published paper to his credit, according to which his pay scale rose.)

And I wondered where this drive to fill the void left by rejecting religion might ever come from, if in fact there is no God and there never was one to ponder. Religionists will say it came from the nature of man as God created him, and is inseparable from man’s existence; and yet atheists will say that religions, and all individual religious impulses, are the result of attempts of the mind to mitigate the emotional and mental pains of life, or other psychic attempts to distill the juice of hope to enjoy in our off moments. One may ask: Why must the human mind defend itself from anything? And Christians would respond, because human life has value and emotions matter; and the atheist would say that emotions just happened that way, sort of like the Big Bang, out of nothing and with no design or overarching purpose; or otherwise put, religion produced an evolutionary advantage, to continuing the species, and making it more successful – it must have provided such an advantage, since it seems ubiquitous in all cultures.

Of course, atheists would say that there is no longer any need for such a thing now that science has progressed so far and has taught us so much; but this does not explain the deviation from scientific explanation of things, in which for example, we are told, not by a scientist but by a politician, that global warming (global cooling, global climate change) is settled science, and it is a fact (period).

Science says that many of the world’s species are endangered due to man’s industrial activities, and so we respond with appropriate obedience and stop what we are doing and devise laws and geographic safe zones, and curtail industrial activity to protect them. But when science tells us that various birds, from the bald eagle to the woodpecker, are so endangered that to possess a century-old stuffed eagle is illegal, or to rescue and rehabilitate a woodpecker in a bird cage will bring the state police banging on your daughter’s bedroom to stop it; yet wind farms and solar energy complexes bludgeon and incinerate these very same birds in vast number, and we excuse it entirely. And science tells us that the desert turtle is endangered and so we throw the cattle off of the turtle reservations that the cattle have grazed for millennia (without endangering the turtle), all the while we are slaughtering the very same species elsewhere for overpopulation. The delta smelt is potentially endangered in one far-off bay, and so we close down centuries of agriculture to protect it (I wonder what the dried and dying plants are saying about that).

It is said that we must not reject a religion because of the misuse of it, but science seems a fickle god indeed when we use it as the reason for shaping our human culture and society rather than as a means to perpetuate it.

And I’m still waiting for the 10-page irrefutable evidence-based foot-noted report on how we know without a doubt that the earth is warming; that it is anthropogenic; how we know the computer models are accurate; and how we know that one policy or another will produce any results and will in the end benefit mankind.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Amidst the Bundy ranch thing I read that Dingy wants to re-purporse Yucca Mountain from nuclear waste storage to CO2 storage.

What an absolute moron.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is impossible to provide a mitigation effort to something that is not measured.

Since the problem/risk/threat is not measured and a propaganda farce, the steps taken against it cannot be measured either.

I would like to see the measurements and actual numbers of how the closing of 19 power plants in Ohio reduced c02 emissions, cleaned the air, stopped asthma, saved the children and stopped climate warming.

Meanwhile, I am being asked to go to DC to assist in defining a plan to address the rolling brown outs and interruption of power supply. I'm not going.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (43)
All Comments   (43)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
During the nattering about global cooling in the 1970s, some scientists pointed with alarm to ice buildup at the South Pole and claimed that all the added weight could knock the Earth off its axis. The buildup had a serious kernel of truth because flagpoles planted at the pole during the International Geophysical Year in 1957–1958 had indeed been almost buried in ice over the intervening 20 years—10 feet of buildup.

One solution these scientists proposed was to sprinkle loads of soot over the ice at the pole to allow the sun to melt as much of it as possible. Please don't laugh too hard.

How many of these same scientists later jumped on the global warming bandwagon...?
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
solar activity , earth wobble , human contribution is minor
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
Meanwhile, all the people that work in Unified Nutland (UN) are jetting around, driving around, burning lights, running computers, etc., on an industrial scale.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA: A RETROSPECTIVE
At the Telegraph, Christopher Booker provides a succinct narrative of the rise and fall of global warming alarmism:

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group.

Booker notes how the IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers–the only parts of the IPCC’s reports that journalists read–have been wholly unscientific, political documents:

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.

Each time it would emerge just how shamelessly these Summaries had distorted the actual evidence, picking out the scary bits, which themselves often turned out not to have been based on proper science at all. The most glaring example was the IPCC’s 2007 report, which hit the headlines with those wildly alarmist predictions that the Himalayan glaciers might all be gone by 2035; that global warming could halve African crop yields by 2050; that droughts would destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest. Not until 2010 did some of us manage to show that each of these predictions, and many more, came not from genuine scientific studies but from scaremongering propaganda produced by green activists and lobby groups (shown by one exhaustive analysis to make up nearly a third of all the IPCC’s sources).

The warmmongers’ con game continues, but most people aren’t falling for it. If Gallup is to be believed, global warming is low on the list of Americans’ environmental concerns. That’s a good thing: the Democrats had hoped to ram cap and trade through Congress on the basis of hysterical predictions, and then, when those predictions didn’t come true, claim credit for having forestalled disaster. But that hope has been frustrated, and the models’ predictions have been falsified with no faux contribution from statist environmental policies.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/global-warming-hysteria-a-retrospective.php
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
“might even need to enlist controversial technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

You mean planting a tree?
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
Removing useless breathers?
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
I invoke the precautionary principle. None of these "solutions" should be implemented until they have been proven with absolute certainty to be 100% safe.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
The question being are the solutions cover for a more insidious root cause. We have hacks stating that this is 200 year old proven science....what science stands for that long....only the most obvious. Living near the great lakes, one gets an appreciation for the role that water ( as a heat sink) plays in local climate. Forests, not so much as a carbon sink but also as a natural air conditioner under the canopy (not to mention transpiration)....yet it is CO2 that is the go to villain these days, mainly because the Malthusians can blame it in light of the naive public, and their desire to change the global economic order of things. Examine the premise, and then look at what warmers ignore or summarily dismiss (largely because its outside their pay grade) and you're likely to stumble onto clues that elude us in the disinformation age. ( Now that the securitization of intellectual property has begun, its likely we will soon enter a modified Fahrenheit 451 scenario ...where one may have to pay to speak as well as breathe.)
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
I beg your pardon. The solution is obvious: Have anti-nuclear activists tarred and feathered.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
If it weren't for water and plant life, the global warming alchemists would've been on to something.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Okay, so I'm spamming this.

After reading Jonah Goldberg’s recent explanation of his recent column, the essence of which is that when religion is excised idols take its place; specifically in the West, ‘science’. Now I have a profound respect for science: not only is it the out-growth of Biblical and Christian thought, but, more personally, my father was a scientist, and if there was one thing I got from him was a reverence for the truth, and the reality-based observation of natural reactions and the theorizing about the nature of reality that comes out of consistently observing repeatable identical experiences – the so-called empirical method. (I would also add that my father held the view that his supervisor, while being a relatively good supervisor, was less capable as a scientist, despite his PhD; and would often publish papers with known errors, so that he could later publish a correction, giving him another published paper to his credit, according to which his pay scale rose.)

And I wondered where this drive to fill the void left by rejecting religion might ever come from, if in fact there is no God and there never was one to ponder. Religionists will say it came from the nature of man as God created him, and is inseparable from man’s existence; and yet atheists will say that religions, and all individual religious impulses, are the result of attempts of the mind to mitigate the emotional and mental pains of life, or other psychic attempts to distill the juice of hope to enjoy in our off moments. One may ask: Why must the human mind defend itself from anything? And Christians would respond, because human life has value and emotions matter; and the atheist would say that emotions just happened that way, sort of like the Big Bang, out of nothing and with no design or overarching purpose; or otherwise put, religion produced an evolutionary advantage, to continuing the species, and making it more successful – it must have provided such an advantage, since it seems ubiquitous in all cultures.

Of course, atheists would say that there is no longer any need for such a thing now that science has progressed so far and has taught us so much; but this does not explain the deviation from scientific explanation of things, in which for example, we are told, not by a scientist but by a politician, that global warming (global cooling, global climate change) is settled science, and it is a fact (period).

Science says that many of the world’s species are endangered due to man’s industrial activities, and so we respond with appropriate obedience and stop what we are doing and devise laws and geographic safe zones, and curtail industrial activity to protect them. But when science tells us that various birds, from the bald eagle to the woodpecker, are so endangered that to possess a century-old stuffed eagle is illegal, or to rescue and rehabilitate a woodpecker in a bird cage will bring the state police banging on your daughter’s bedroom to stop it; yet wind farms and solar energy complexes bludgeon and incinerate these very same birds in vast number, and we excuse it entirely. And science tells us that the desert turtle is endangered and so we throw the cattle off of the turtle reservations that the cattle have grazed for millennia (without endangering the turtle), all the while we are slaughtering the very same species elsewhere for overpopulation. The delta smelt is potentially endangered in one far-off bay, and so we close down centuries of agriculture to protect it (I wonder what the dried and dying plants are saying about that).

It is said that we must not reject a religion because of the misuse of it, but science seems a fickle god indeed when we use it as the reason for shaping our human culture and society rather than as a means to perpetuate it.

And I’m still waiting for the 10-page irrefutable evidence-based foot-noted report on how we know without a doubt that the earth is warming; that it is anthropogenic; how we know the computer models are accurate; and how we know that one policy or another will produce any results and will in the end benefit mankind.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Amidst the Bundy ranch thing I read that Dingy wants to re-purporse Yucca Mountain from nuclear waste storage to CO2 storage.

What an absolute moron.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Was about to recommend repurposing Yucca Mountain for storage of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. Thank goodness I missed the post link with the first try - I realized that I would get hammered for missing two serious problems with that idea.

1) There probably is not sufficient room in the facility to store those particular waste products (both present and future).

2) Nobody has yet come up with anything like a foolproof containment system - these particular waste products corrode anything that they contact.

Perhaps it is time to revive the old idea of shooting our most dangerous waste directly into the Sun?
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Are you crazy? Shooting any radioactive material into the sun would create a nuclear explosion and blow the sun all up! Seriously, I once said the same thing and got a dismissive sigh and a blanket statement that that was technically unfeasable. But don't you think a rail gun or two operating 24 hours a day shooting trash into space could clear up most of the waste in just a few years? I don't know how the inhabitants of the sun might feel about it, but they might just breathe it in like air freshener, and send us up thank-you flares.

Actually, shooting it out of the earth's orbital plane away from the sun would be my preference.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
An orbit that intersects Jupiter would work.

45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sure. Any direction away from the sun or the earth's orbit would work. But would the rail gun work?
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
A working rail gun for space launch? We can build one big enough, but can we deal with the heat generated by the projectile as it is accelerated enough in a few seconds to achieve escape velocity? That might be tough.

Rail gun problems aside, the problem with waste disposal in space is the hazard of almost succeeding.

What happens when that 200 pounds of spent reactor core doesn't quite make it out of the atmosphere, and instead comes back to earth like a meteorite, spreading its radioactive joy far and wide?

This problem is independent of the method of launch.

I think the risks probably outweigh the benefits.
45 weeks ago
45 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

One Trackback to “For Unproven Theory, Scientists Propose Unproven Solutions”