The futility of climate change mitigation
What do you do? Do you gloat because you got even with all those evil corporate polluters who were destroyed when the carbon days ended? Or do you scream and shout, realizing that we have sacrificed our nation for nothing? Or do you take comfort in the mitigation we achieved through self-immolation? Are you proud that, by 2050, our act of total national self-destruction prevented the global temperature from going up by an additional 0.083 degrees Celsius, and sea levels from rising by 0.6 centimeters? It only cost the world its biggest economy and a people their entire livelihood…
The report’s author, Paul Knappenberger, made his assumptions “based on the [United Nations] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports.” He ran a scenario in which “the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions immediately,” and found that “the ultimate impact on projected global temperature rise would be a reduction, or a ‘savings,’ of approximately 0.08°C by the year 2050 and 0.17°C by the year 2100–amounts that are, for all intents and purposes, negligible.” Under this wild scenario, not only do the rest of the world’s new emissions completely replace ours in just 6.6 years, but China’s growth alone replaces them in less than 11 years.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
How to stop the oceans from rising and covering land:
1. Get a bucket.
2. Fill the bucket from the ocean close to the land.
3. Walk into the ocean away from the land.
4. Empty the bucket.
5. Repeat.
This will have exactly as much success as activities suggested by global warming prostitutes – sorry, I mean scientists.
RoadRunner on November 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM
UN climate change chief getting frustrated with United States
BallisticBob on November 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Since the biggest CO2 creator is the Pacific Ocean, I say we should drain it. Where will we put the water?
The great thing about being an advocate for “fixing” “climate change” is you don’t have to show your results. Just keep pouring money into it.
People who believe the universe was created in 6 literal days are considered religious nuts.
People who believe the earth was finished and complete when they got here get Nobel Prizes.
Wander on November 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Except that the “climate change” hoax is not about climate. It’s about international redistribution of wealth, resources and power.
petefrt on November 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Well the powers that be have been redistributing natural wealth from poor countries all over the world to rich ones, do you blame them for trying to try their own hand at imperialism?
ernesto on November 24, 2012 at 11:05 AM
This article is complete BS, because, although it does argue the futility of significant climate mitigation, it accepts the false premise that the actions mentioned would influence the climate AT ALL!!!
NOTE TO DIE-HARD WARMIST PRIESTS: Sorry, but CO2 follows climate…it does NOT cause climate!!! (Look it up!!!)
landlines on November 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM
If these “poor countries” have this “natural wealth” why didn’t they use it?
darwin on November 24, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Because they were invaded and enslaved?
ernesto on November 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM
The “corrected” temperature records are debased.
The IPCC Assessments reports are debased.
The software producing the models are garbage.
CO2 is not causing significant warming.
AGW, now dubbed Climate Change so as to allow wider claims of AGW, is a hoax.
Supporters of the hoax come in three varieties — scientists, environmentalists and power hungry elites and each support it for various and sundry reasons, but the result of it’s success will be the same cataclysmic societal upheaval they warn against with the poor, minorities and the stupid dying in numbers that will rival the black plague and that most of these genocidal idiots think they will survive.
Dusty on November 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM
I believe in AGW, if it refers to all the hot air being spewed by its proponents. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
22044 on November 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM
So you’re conceding it’s a hoax aimed at redistribution?
petefrt on November 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Who was?
darwin on November 24, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Plus, why didn’t they use it before they were supposedly “invaded and enslaved”?
darwin on November 24, 2012 at 11:21 AM
I don’t know about that. There’s certainly a tinge of truth to that but only in that those who will suffer the most from implementing the solution to climate change will be it’s earliest casualties and are looking for a piece of survival.
Dusty on November 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Most despicable among these are the power hungry elites.
petefrt on November 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM
I don’t think it’s a hoax, though I don’t support CO2 mitigation efforts. Mitigating carbon output is absolutely designed to distribute wealth to nations in the global south that have for hundreds of years been pillaged by imperialist powers. I’m of the belief that money will have to be spent adapting to changes in climate rather than hamstringing our economy to prevent the changes.
ernesto on November 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM
You obviously have not done due diligence.
darwin on November 24, 2012 at 11:32 AM
That’s a reasonable position, though I disagree with some of it.
These nations that have been “pillaged”… How did that happen? Did they not receive market value in exchange?
petefrt on November 24, 2012 at 11:37 AM
These last few years have been too crazy in NY for me to go around insisting the climate is not changing. Our fall and spring are significantly shorter, we’re getting tornadoes in hilly suburban towns that haven’t ever had any, and the size and scope of the storms we’ve been having lately has been unprecedented. Something is going on.
ernesto on November 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM
This part I agree with, adding that all of the money spent so far to placate The Gorical and his acolytes would have been much better spent in researching and implementing these adaptions.
AesopFan on November 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Well said. I’m saving this quote.
WeekendAtBernankes on November 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Hoax, Algore being a prime example.
Did you hear, the guy that filmed the fire tornado in Outback Australia was called twice (or more) by Algore’s staff wanting to buy rights to use his video in another of his global warming ads. He refused to do business with Gore because it was clear he intended to use the video to plug his global warming theory, when actually this phenomenon had nothing to do with global warming or climate.
petefrt on November 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Have you actually taken the time to research any of your “observations”?
Have you taken the time to do any research at all?
For instance, NYC has been hammered by hurricanes in the past. Sandy was not an unusual storm per se, but she did merge with two other systems and hit at the worst possible time … high tide. Sandy’s storm surge wasn’t unusual, but when you add the tide it becomes a killer.
In fact, NYC has an info page on their website that gives a history of past storms.
The reality is the US hasn’t been hit by a major hurricane since 2005. The reality is that’s the opposite of what the climate nuts said would happen. The reality is nothing the climate nuts have predicted has come true. The reality is all their predictions are based on rigged models that have all failed. The reality is AGW isn’t real.
darwin on November 24, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Hey remember before the industrial revolution when weather was totally predicable and there were never any bad storms? Yeah, those were good times.
Kataklysmic on November 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM
AM
Yeah I saw that. Gore is a cheap crook.
darwin on November 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Assuming the prevalent model is accurate (it’s not), the majority of the world’s impoverished do not live close enough to the sea to be affected for centuries if ever. On the other hand, increased temperatures will increase agricultural output significantly. So, if they actually care about all of these starving third-worlders, you’d think they’d be in favor of AGW.
Of course, this also depends on the prog assumption that there is not currently enough food to feed the world’s population. Of course, we know this is untrue, but these folks are largely unwilling to confront the inefficiencies (read: corruption) inherent to state-to-state wealth transfers.
WeekendAtBernankes on November 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Something that would actually do something (such as it is):
1. Get a bucket.
2. Fill the bucket with sand from the ocean close to the land.
3. Walk inland away from the ocean.
4. Empty the bucket.
5. Repeat.
Not that one guy with a bucket makes much difference.
Count to 10 on November 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Isostasy
Thermal expansion of the oceans
De-gassing of the oceans
The fact that CO2 does not cause atmospheric temperatures to rise
Milankovitch Effects
NASA’s surface temperature data not including the effect of cloud cover
There’s lots more that refutes AGW garbage.
But of course what ernesto has seen & perceived in NYC must trump all of those things.
Badger40 on November 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM