Free Markets, Free People

Climate “scientists” ratchet up AGW scare warnings

In case you missed it, this weekend all those who’ve made an industry of global warming climate change will be gathering in Cancun, Mexico to again try and find a way to tax the world into submission based on dubious science and and obvious political agenda.

Apparently, faced with the fact that the Goreish climatic apocalypse warnings have mostly been refuted and in the wake of Climate-gate, it appears the reaction of warmists is to again ratchet up the scare factor.

The UK’s Telegraph reports on the latest attempts.

In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

Unless emissions are reduced dramatically in the next ten years the world is set to see temperatures rise by more than 4C (7.2F) by as early as the 2060s, causing floods, droughts and mass migration.

Of course readers here are familiar with the arguments (and the fact that the Met office admitted to serious problems with its temperature data used as a base for previous projections) and the fact that skeptics seem to be winning the day.  As mentioned in a previous post, the public’s belief in the science supporting the warmist cause has dropped to an all time low, with a vast majority now seeing no reason to engage in cap-and-trade to tax emissions of CO2.

So the answer, of course, is to make the consequences of ignoring the warmists seem worse.  We’re now likely to see 7.2F increases as soon as 2060 if we don’t do what they want now!

Oh, and by the way, rich nations, here’s more that you should do:

In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods.

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.

Or said another way “let’s do a wartime command economy”  among the rich nations, because command economies works so well history tells us.  Meanwhile China and India?  Keep on keeping on.  And don’t worry, our eminent scientist tells us it won’t be so bad:

Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

You know, I’ve always thought scientists should stick to science and let the politicians concentrate on political agendas.  Someone – anyone – tell me this isn’t “science” wrapped in politics?  And surprise – the agenda will cost you money, freedom and the ability to live the lifestyle you now live.

All for a trace amount of a trace gas that until recently has always been found by science to be a lagging indicator of warming.

Go figure.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

23 Responses to Climate “scientists” ratchet up AGW scare warnings

  • “I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

    OK, this guy is NOT a scientist.  He’s an idiot.  We are polluting LESS, per capita, than at any time in my life.  There are more of us now than 10 years ago.
    These Luddite/Malthusians DO want us to live shorter, darker, dumber, sicker, less informed lives.  And they want to redistribute the world’s wealth…on any lie that works.
    They HATE humanity.  They HATE the Enlightenment.  And they HATE technology.

  • Why not just stop his grant funding ?  It would be equally effective.
    Just like AGW … EVERYBODY KNOWS that embryonic stem cell are going to cure every mality known to man. Why bother ?

  • On, and that green energy stuff is sure creating jobs. Wind and solar–what winning tech.

  • [S]ome of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office…

    This is snort-worthy.  The Met Office is “respected”?  By whom, exactly?  Other than the other con artists, that is (it’s like saying that Charlie Rangle and Maxine Waters are “respected”).  As for Oxford University, it isn’t – or shouldn’t be – a monolithic organization, should it?  Isn’t part of the point of the university system to allow academic freedom, which means that the universities don’t speak for the professors?  I would be interested in knowing if there are any AGW skeptics among the faculty at Oxford.  If not, then I suggest that the university is unworthy of respect; it has become an ivy-clad collection of apparatchiks.

    Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods.

    There has been a lot of talk lately about polls that demonstrate the divide between the “elites” and the rest of us.  Here’s another example.  This clown, locked in his ivory tower, is not only insisting that we little people alter our lifestyles in ways that HE finds acceptable, but that the government should FORCE us to do it if we can’t be “persuaded”.  And he writes this openly, as if suggesting this sort of dictatorship is a normal – nay, commendable – act.

    “I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” [Anderson] said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

    Who the hell is “we”, you pr*ck?  Would that be the “we” in Red China or India who ten years ago were eaking out a miserable living in a hut, trying to grow enough rice to keep their bellies full and now are sending their children to university because they have industrial jobs?  Oh, I forgot: it’s OK for “developing” countries to pollute all they want so long as the rest of us… do what, exactly?  Starve so that people like Anderson can feel some sort of sick sense of virtue?  Here’s another news flash, champ: those developing countries are developing because they are selling to US.  If we stop buying from them, their factories close.  Their people go out of work.  They starve right along with the rest of us.

    Or is that the whole point?

    I think Ragspierre is right: these people hate technology, wealth, democracy, and humanity in general.  Sick, man.  Sick.

    • The Met Office apparently has come up with a new scheme to readjust the temperature data for the last 10 years … which obviously means the past will cool so the present can look warmer.

  • First off let me go on record as stating I’m all for global warming, new coastlines and polar-bear burgers, that said, I’m not likely to get my wish, am I?
     
    We should be so lucky as to be able to warm the planet just doing what comes natural.
     
    For the fifth year-in-a-row there are no hurricanes to speak of, highly unusual. But indicative of the solar observations. Solar activity continues to wane, it will turn around eventually, and I will be happy again.
     
    Why don’t we just call a spade a spade: “No you can’t have my money, you little lying Marxist Thieves!

  • I’ll wait for Mr. Anderson et al to show me the way by their own actions. I guess I’ll be waiting a long time…

  • The Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives and a recent historic shift in emissions – developing countries now produce more greenhouse gases than the old industrial world – all but guarantee the standoff will drag on, at least for another year or two.

  • Will the wealthiest citizens of the advanced countries be required to do more than the poor slubs  who make up the vast middle classes of the “rich” nations? Will we ban private jets and forty room mansions and ski lodges in Jackson Hole before we turn down the heat in the local elementary schools? I didn’t think so.

  • “You know, I’ve always thought scientists should stick to science and let the politicians concentrate on political agendas.” 

    And yet here you are writing a political blog, but focusing entirely on climate change science. 

    “Someone – anyone – tell me this isn’t “science” wrapped in politics?  And surprise – the agenda will cost you money, freedom and the ability to live the lifestyle you now live.”

    It isn’t. 

    The science is the science and the politics is the politics.  I mean you can’t seriously suggest that climate change causes big government. 

    • And yet here you are writing a political blog, but focusing entirely on climate change science. 

      Uh, mostly McQ covers other stuff. There is no reason not to cover climate science in a political blog. For one thing, climate scientists have made it political.
      The science is the science and the politics is the politics. 

      Except that isn’t true. The science is politicized. And the politics claims the science as justification.
      The climategate e-mails make it clear. The whole “2,000 scientists” signing the petition was political BS, for example.
      Science and political advocacy have been mixed in the whole AGW scare. Climate science needs to reset and start over, with a different crew, if it wants to be taken seriously as science.

      I mean you can’t seriously suggest that climate change causes big government. 

      Currently, big government is causing climate science, and climate science is calling for bigger (and more intrusive) government via cap and tax, etc. It is kinda the whole point, really.

      Get a clue.

      • “Except that isn’t true. The science is politicized. And the politics claims the science as justification.”

        Yeah the politics, that is where I have my problem.   Its gotten so political we’ve devolved to nonsensical arguments.  

        “Currently, big government is causing climate science, and climate science is calling for bigger (and more intrusive) government via cap and tax, etc. It is kinda the whole point, really.”

        Paul Krugman tells us the way to avert recessions is mind-boggling large stimulus, I don’t believe him.  Kevin Anderson tells us the way to avert climate change is bigger and highly intrusive government, I don’t believe him either.  

        I’m not a climate change skeptic, I’m a big government skeptic.  

        I do not like the Right wing political  approach to climate change, the Right neglects the flaws of big government and relies mostly upon “proving” the science wrong.  It seems wrongheaded. 

        • The climate science issue is like this:

          1) Is there AGW?

          2) What is the impact of AGW, if the answer to 1) is “yes”?

          3) If 1) is “yes” and 2) is “significantly bad”, then what are our options?

          The climate science community has not sufficiently answered 1), let alone 2). You want to argue 3). It is true that one can argue 3) to some extent (i.e., pointing out that Kyoto has huge economic impacts if actually followed, without having any real climate impacts), but the real argu at this point is 1).

          Some time back it was looking like climate science was sealing the deal on 1). They even swayed Ron Bailey, the Reason Magazine science editor, and a prior sceptic. I was beginning to think AGW was likely true.

          But then the science began to fall apart. The second coming of the hockey stick was proven garbage, climategate occured (proving that the origional hockey stick was based upon splicing different data together, and showing a bunch of other bad behaviour among climate scientists), and a whole bunch of IPCC turned out to be crap.

          The climate scientists need to go back to the drawing board. Their products are garbage, no one believes them anymore, and they have no clue wht we haven’t seen warmin in the last decade.

    • The science is the science and the politics is the politics.

      Well, I looked at the data analysis programs leaked as part of ClimateGate. As a 30 year plus veteran of software development, I can assure you that whatever the h3ll they’re doing with that program, it isn’t science.

  • He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

    Well, the black market would enjoy that…

    • and seriously, even most lefties don’t want to ration, just add a carbon tax, which would effectively lower demand, but at least you got to choose to do something if you really, really wanted to.

  • After reading Liberal Fascism, which explained the whole “we planned in war” argument that was trotted out in the 20′s and 30′s, I thought, “well, this is history.” Now its repeating itself.
    Cut back on long-haul flights, like to Cancun?

  • “Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle,”

    That has to be one of the funniest lines I have ever read. This guy has forfeited any right to be treated as anything other than a semiliterate buffon, a real Erp.

  • House Republicans will scrap the committee set up by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to investigate global warming, the panel’s top Republican announced Wednesday.
    Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) made official what many had already expected — the GOP majority will axe the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which Pelosi created in 2007.

    “This hearing will be the last of the select committee,” Sensenbrenner announced.

    This might be worth 100 climate scientists at the bottom of the ocean.

  • You know, I’ve always thought scientists should stick to science and let the politicians concentrate on political agendas.  Someone – anyone – tell me this isn’t “science” wrapped in politics?

    Who says the guy is a scientist? I mean a REAL scientist.
    Any real scientist is aware that the AGW/GCC shtick is bogus. Any REAL scientist knows to use all data, not cherry-picked, faked data. They KNOW what fake data looks like.
    This guy isn’t a scientist, he’s a charlatan.