For years now, the white lab coats have been dreaming about solving “Climate Change” by limiting the sun’s rays from getting to Earth. The trouble is, it either won’t work at all, or it will work too well, and as it turns out, they’re clueless which way that’s going to go, and either way, it stands a good chance of endangering the entire planet. From Science Alert:
Spraying particles into Earth's atmosphere to try and cool a warming planet might sound like a good idea in theory, but it will only work if it's done properly – and even then, it could carry risks that might spill beyond our control, scientists caution.
According to a team led by aerosol scientist Miranda Hack of Columbia University in the US, there are real-world logistical, engineering, and political limitations that mean any stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI) intended to reduce global warming should be considered extremely carefully before any attempt is made.
I’m in serious trouble here, trying to prevent myself from making a snide comment or three. (Shrug) Whatever. The interestingly surnamed Ms.Hack is probably correct at least as far as the quote goes. But let’s skim some of this article and see if we can detect a pattern here. Let's pull six buzz phrases out of the article, which you may even recognize without much prompting.
- As our planet continues to warm at an alarming rate…
- ...greenhouse gases, …
- ...mitigate the effects of global warming caused by humans' predilection for burning fossil fuels...
- Computer models simulating SAI are delivering promising results…
- Even when simulations of SAI in climate models are sophisticated, they're necessarily going to be idealized.
- And in the simulation, they put exactly how much of them they want, where they want them. But when you start to consider where we actually are, compared to that idealized situation, it reveals a lot of the uncertainty in those predictions." …
If you like, you can go ahead and read it all, but I’m quite sure you already know where this thing is going. Allow me, before you do, to point out a few things, point by point.
First, that the earth is warming at all, much less at an “alarming rate,” is far from settled science.
Second, okay, I have to give them the use of the phrase “greenhouse gasses,” but let’s consider who, besides white labcoat-wearing climate alarmists, ever utters the phrase at all? I suppose the Energy Department does, or rather did, back in July of this year, and concluded:
Among the key findings, the report concludes that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies may be misdirected. Additionally, the report finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.
“The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told—relentlessly—that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright.“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy.”
Third, there's the proverbial attack on “fossil fuels," famed in protest song and enviro narrative.
Back in 2009, I addressed a lot of this in a column I wrote here at PJ Media. I pointed out at the time that CAFE standards were costing us on the order of 2,000 lives per year, according to the National Academy of Sciences. I pointed out at the time that the standards were being ramped up by Democrat politicians, who were (and largely remain to this day) clueless on what they’re trying to regulate. Again, 2,000 lives a year. I said then:
This death toll figure was arrived at long before President Obama recently upped the CAFE standards by 30% and more. The death toll going forward will be even higher.
Sounds attractive, doesn’t it?
Imagine the reaction of the oh-so-energy conscious Democrats to a private company causing 2,000 plus deaths per year. We’d be having show hearings by the dozen, the company execs lined up in the hearing room for the TV cameras like a corporate murderer’s row. The coverage would be non-stop, as it was for the much smaller death toll involving SUV drivers who never could figure out how to inflate their tires correctly. Special legislation would be enacted to “stop the carnage.” The government would air PSAs urging us not to buy the product.
However, since CAFE is a government product — and now, so too are the cars — none of that is happening. Instead of trying to scare us out of such vehicles as they have (falsely) been doing with SUVs, they’re silent on the dangers involved with cars that are built far too small and light.
In short, they've been trying to push us out of our cars, and off the use of nearly all the available forms of energy since around the time that Mrs Lincoln was asked: "Well, other than that, how did you like the show?" All for the sake of solving a problem that they to this day have utterly failed in proving actually exists. Indeed, the data suggest that it’s not happening.
Fourth, hadn’t we better establish that there’s a problem before we start messing with solar radiation to try and use an untested theoretical and highly dangerous remedy?
Fifth, computer models. The reliance on such models has proven foolish time and again. Climate Control Journal from just last month addresses this rather well:
A new study finds that computer models are unreliable and cannot accurately predict and model climate. Supercomputers are helping to improve our climate modeling capabilities, allowing us to better understand and predict climate patterns and climatic events. The only rational person believes that computer models can precisely predict temperatures decades from now, but the answer is no.
"Idealized." In other words, they’re looking for confirmation of the narrative they’ve been trying to feed us since Woodrow Wilson. So, right at the outset, and before we even get into the idea of shaving data to meet the narrative, we’re dealing with what under any other conditions would be considered a suspect source.
Sixth, same answer as number five, but now with the added ability to alter the parameters of the data. That factor would seem to account for the delta between actual temps and what the computer models have predicted. I tell you true, if half the models we've been presented since the first Earth Day were anything like accurate, we'd both be dead, along with the rest of the world.
It has always amazed me that the folks who still cannot predict where hurricanes will go, tell us they are dead certain that they can predict what the weather will be in 100 years. It has been my observation that when someone utters the phrase “believe the science,” it almost invariably translates to “Shut up and obey”. Even worse, the government goes along with this nonsense far too often. I've long since come to the conclusion that there's money being exchanged.
Related: Climate Week NYC Misses the Mark on Warming
The whole thing is based, at least insofar as normal citizens are concerned, on the subconscious idea that a white lab coat shields one from bias, from greed, and the lust for having one’s moments in the spotlight. Or, as the saying goes, 99% of scientists agree with whoever is paying them. Halloween is upon us today, so it seems appropriate to remind you that every horror movie in history begins with a white lab coat telling the future victims, “All we need to do is…” and “Everyone will be fine…” A couple of years back, we had a group of white lab coats telling us what we needed to do about the virus they created. Remember how that worked out? They're now investigating Anthony Fauci, for example. If that experience doesn’t cause some questions to be asked, I fail to see what will.
Finally, let’s consider the subject of energy production here in the U.S. I addressed wind farms just this week, in a two-part series, here and here. Now let’s consider solar power in light of this plan (pun intended). We’ve got huge investments in solar panels, which only work when the sun is out, on the advice of climate “experts”. Now, these same “experts” are telling us we need to reduce the amount of sunlight those panels use to make power?
Please, make it make sense.
