Free Markets, Free People

Oxfam predicts world food shortages by 2030 mostly because of “climate change”

In advance of the December climate summit in South Africa this year, the scare-factory is ramping up its efforts to sell the need for “drastic action” to prevent “climate change”, the current euphemism for AGW.   The stories are beginning to flow.

Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.

"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."

Of course the not-so-hidden premise here is that any increase in temperature is driven by our carbon dioxide emissions, even when the science doesn’t support the theory and models which make such a claim (about CO2 amplification) have been shown to be wildly inaccurate.  That doesn’t stop the scare-factory from ignoring the discredited nonsense to make their claims:

Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a ‘business as usual’ path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s] projections, such a path … would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.

Except the IPCC’s report, as anyone who has read this blog knows, has been mostly discredited, thereby yielding this result:

Added to that, the United Nations-led negotiations on a new global treaty on climate change have stalled. "The significance of climate change in international policy debates is much less pronounced than it was a few years ago," said Birol.

Consequently, the scare-factory must crank up its stridency to new levels.  So expect to see more of this as December approaches.  The formula is pretty predictable:

By 2030, the average cost of key crops could increase by between 120% and 180%, the charity forecasts.

It is the acceleration of a trend which has already seen food prices double in the last 20 years.

Half of the rise to come will be caused by climate change, Oxfam predicts.

Can you guess what the other cause is?

In its report, Oxfam says a "broken" food system causes "hunger, along with obesity, obscene waste, and appalling environmental degradation".

It says "power above all determines who eats and who does not", and says the present system was "constructed by and on behalf of a tiny minority – its primary purpose to deliver profit for them".

It highlights subsidies for big agricultural producers, powerful investors "playing commodities markets like casinos", and large unaccountable agribusiness companies as destructive forces in the global food system.

Oxfam wants nations to agree new rules to govern food markets, to ensure the poor do not go hungry.

Or “capitalism”.  Oxfam’s “solution” is no different than the AGW alarmist’s solutions:

It calls on world leaders to improve regulation of food markets and invest in a global climate fund.

Of course it does.   And those “improved regulations” and the “global climate fund” will shift power where?  To centralized authorities.  And we all know how well central planning works don’t we?  After all, under the USSR and Maoist China, central planning adequately fed their citizens for years, didn’t it?

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[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

49 Responses to Oxfam predicts world food shortages by 2030 mostly because of “climate change”

  • Keep wasting corn to turn into ethanol, and you’ll 100% see food shortages

  • Here is another piece pushing the lefts agenda.
     
    “In a world of climate change, freak storms are the new normal. Newsweek’s Sharon Begley on why we’re unprepared for the harrowing future, and how adapting to the inevitable might be our only option.”
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-29/global-climate-change-freak-storms-are-the-new-normal/full/#
     
    Yet with the help of the MSM Republicans are portrayed as scare mongers.
     
     

  • First, it was CFL bulbs, now …

    Research from North Carolina State Univ. shows that so-called biodegradable products are likely doing more harm than good in landfills, because they are releasing a powerful greenhouse gas as they break down.
    “Biodegradable materials, such as disposable cups and utensils, are broken down in landfills by microorganisms that then produce methane,” says Dr. Morton Barlaz, co-author of a paper describing the research and professor and head of NC State’s Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering. “Methane can be a valuable energy source when captured, but is a potent greenhouse gas when released into the atmosphere.”

    Knee-jerkism at it’s best.

  • Every twenty years, we find that catastrophe will strike… in another twenty years.  In the ’70s, we’d all be dead by 1990 due to overpopulation or global cooling.  In the ’90s, we were ASSURED that the ozone hole that would render the earth uninhabitable by 2000 or 2010.  Then the AGW crowd got started up… I thought that the handful of the human race that managed to survive for this long were all supposed to be wearing colanders on their faces and chopping each other up with crude axes* in the struggle for the last pint of gas or water or the last can of pork and beans.

    Sheesh…

    (*) Given the millions and firearms made in just the past few decades along with the billions of rounds of ammunition, why is it that post-apocalyptic people always use clubs???


  • Regarding the environmentalists’ concern over CO2, here are some facts nobody argues with:
    1. Atmospheric pressure is about 15 psi (pounds/in./in.).
    2. Earth’s radius is about 4,000 miles.
    3. CO2 constituted about 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere in 1950–.
    4. CO2 now constitutes more like 0.06 per cent of the atmosphere.
    From #2 we calculate that the Earth’s surface area is 0.8 billion billion square inches. And from #1 that the atmosphere weighs 11.9 billion billion pounds. This is 6 million billion tons. Now take fact #3; 0.04 per cent is 2,400 billion tons of CO2. Half (the change since 1950) is 1,200 billion tons. Let’s call this fact #5:

    5. There were 2,400 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1950; 3,600 billion tons now, give or take a psi or two–.
    6. Human activity currently releases 6 billion tons of CO2 per year.
    7. Non-human activity (oceans, trees, Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) releases 200 billion tons of CO2 per year–.
    Now compare fact #5 with fact #6. Simple division tells you that if every molecule of human-released CO2 at the current rate of production stayed in the atmosphere, it would take another 200 years for the post-1950 change to be matched. Or looking at it backward, since minus 200 years takes us back to before the Industrial Revolution, it means that if every CO2 molecule from every factory, car, steam engine, barbecue, campfire, and weenie roast that ever was since the first liberal climbed down out of a tree right up until today was still in the atmosphere. It still wouldn’t account for the change in CO2 since 1950.
    Fact #7 has been going on for a long time, a lot longer than any piddling 200 years. Comparing #5 and #7 means it takes about 12 years for the average CO2 molecule to be recycled back out of the atmosphere.
    Given the above, here are some conclusions that nobody can argue with and still claim to be a reasoning creature:
    8. Human activity, carried out at the present rate indefinitely (more than 12 years) cannot possibly account for more than 6 per cent of the observed change in CO2 levels.
    9. Entirely shutting off civilization or even killing everybody could only have a tiny effect on global warming, if there is any such thing–.
    That leaves two questions that no one knows how to answer:
    Q-1. Why do all these supposedly educated, supposedly sane people want to end civilization?
    Q-2. Since humanity can’t possibly be causing the CO2 level to go up, isn’t it time to start wondering about what is?
    L. Van Zandt, Professor of Physics,
    Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

    • Posh – science – pfaugh —- Damn it, don’t you understand, WE HAVE AN AGENDA!!!!
       
      They don’t want to end civilization, they want to restore “the priesthood” to it’s former position of power and authority, and they just figure naturally they’ll be in the priesthood.  This is done much in the same way the average 14 year old kid thinks he’ll be the hero survivor in the post apocalyptic future where the hot chicks wear fur bikinis and dig 14 year olds.
       
      In short, there’s not a lot of thought going as to the actual result of what they’re proposing.
       

    • I read somewhere today that the Icelandic volcano in 4 days of eruption had put at least as much carbon into the atmosphere as all of mankind’s silliness over the last several decades has avoided.
      I will go out this PM and grill a steak in commemoration.

      • I was grilling yesterday – does hickory put more bad stuff in the air than mesquite?

        • Always use mesquite.  It is one of the nastiest, orneriest trees you can imagine, and it needs to get burned a lot.  It is the fire ant of the arboreal world.
          It tastes so good, too!

    • Easy one Professor Zandt, Income redistribution, societal control.

  • It calls on world leaders to improve regulation of food markets and invest in a global climate fund.

    Is that all ? You mean they didn’t ask/beg for a donation to Oxfam as well ?

  • 1. Most plants grow better when it is warmer and wetter.
    2. Even if it gets drier, increased CO2 concentration reduces water needs as the stomata don’t need to open so much.
    3. Plants prefer CO2 concentrations up about 1500 ppm.

    Only a dolt would try to claim CO2-induced global warming could possibly reduce food yields. North Korean food distribution policies maybe, CO2 not so much.

    • Here, Here! I vote for an extended warming period! (can you tell I’m from the North Country!)

  • The “climate” has been “changing” for billions of years, it has also been “changing” on Mars and on the moons of Jupiter, ironically when the “climate changes” on those far-away bodies, it changes here and in the same direction! The only common factor is the Sun, do you suppose the Sun might be affecting “climate”. If the theory goes that CO2 causes warming, can the same gas be causing cooling too? If so, why would it cool one minute (relatively) and warm the next. No one from the Environmental Nanny State has adequately explained that contradiction to anyones satisfaction. Finally, if the “climate problem” is solved by taxes and societal control, than the problem must not be an environmental one, but one of a lack of money and control.

  • Because centralizes planning of agriculture never produced famines in socialist countries.

    • Never forget the American Socialist/World Socialist dictum – “It will be different here, we’ll do it right”

      • I hate to tell them this, but American government seem to never do things right. We aren’t like Denmark or Germany. We run about 10-30% more incompetent. Its just how we are, government wise.

        • Do we fail more, or are Americans just more likely to point it out more when it happens?
           
          There’s a study in there somewhere – and probably funding too, I mean, after all, if we’ll put shrimp on a treadmill and examine jello wrestling in the Antarctic……

        • We Americans do things better than anybody else in the world… including fouling up!

          I am fond of a story, allegedly from the Imperial German Army.  A wise general said that he divided people into four broad categories based on their brains and their industry:

          SMART / LAZY – good commanders as they will find the easiest way to accomplish a task

          SMART / INDUSTRIOUS – good staff officers as they revel in minutiae and hard work and are good at it

          STUPID / LAZY – they are everywhere, and you just sort of ignore them because they are too stupid and lazy to even screw things up

          STUPID / INDUSTRIOUS – BEWARE OF THESE PEOPLE!!!  They are hard-working and diligent, but not smart enough to know the right things to do!

          Need it be said what category our political leaders tend to belong to?  American culture places a premium on hard word; we equate “hard work” with “success”, which is often quite true.  However, when people work hard on the wrong things, it’s a recipe for disaster.  This is why I try not to get too upset when I find that Congress or Captain Bullsh*t are spending a lot of time on vacation: the less time they spend working, the less likely they are to screw things up.

        • I’ve found that whenever a politician uses the phrase “the greatest country on the Earth” that it’s time to grab your wallet with both hands because you are the target of a wallet-ectomy.

          • Obama said “My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.”
             
            Many of us tried to tell, warn people he meant what he said.

  • Climate change is real and has not  been discredited.  The only people who claim it has are irrational politically motivated blogger and propagandists who are harming billions (and should perhaps be held accountable) by ignoring science.  Europe has met the Kyoto accord goals and as such has moved ahead of the US in green technology, and thus can work with a Chinese market interested in that.  They proved there is no economic harm in meeting those goals, debunking a lie that was often claimed in the US.   The fact political idiots in the US take climate change, politicize it, lie, and claim it doesn’t exist, harms the US.  No rational person denies the strong probability that the damage we’ve done to the atmosphere contributes greatly to climate change — change that can be seen in recent US weather.   That’s why I’m putting my money where my mouth is and going geothermal.   You guys seem to find identity and meaning in the silly games of American politics.  The “right” and “Libertarians” as good and rational vs. the evil naive left.  It’s amusing, and says something about things you lack in your own lives.   But to deny the reality of climate change is not only irrational, it is harmful to billions.   Luckily, a generation is coming of age who will take control and solve the problems my generation neglected.   Don’t be surprised to find yourselves increasingly in the political margins.

    • I skipped your comment to look for Ott Scerb’s. Where is it?

    • There’s a difference between ignoring science and ignoring politicians who bought and paid for ‘scientists’ to back up their policies.

    • Of course Europe met the Kyoto accord protocols. The protocols were designed around the (then) coming reunification of Germany and the shutdown of the East’s massively inefficient and polluting industries, giving Germany (and thereby most of the EU) a free pass on meeting the accords at virtually no cost. You wonder why no one else agreed to the accords at the time?

      After that Europe got busy exporting much of its industry to China and importing gas from Russia for power so the deadly emissions of plant food no longer count in a country signed on the Kyoto protocol.

      Are you a comedian or just play one in America? You clearly don’t live in or know much about Europe.

    • Don’t be surprised to find yourselves increasingly in the political margins.

      Wow, Erp.  Nice projection there, bubba.  That little screed was nuttier than a Pay-Day.  Ah, well, always a laugh-riot to be preached to by a “Political Science” guy about actual science!
      And, YOU…RATIONAL…!?????!!!!!!   A screamer!!!!!!!!!!

      • Actually Erb reveals (unconsciously no doubt) a nugget of truth if you project it back through the leftist looking-glass.

        Modern leftists (those since the collapse of European communism) hold two basically contradictory principles as paramount. The first is the traditional fighting for the working class. The other is the newer green ideology tacked on when communism was discredited around 1990. These two are incompatible, workers thrive best when industry is free and open and not subject to arbitrary rules. But green ideology only works through ever increasing rules and regulation. The old school commies couldn’t have given a f*%k about the environment so long as the workers were doing something and the 5 year plans were chugging along. Old school greenies couldn’t care less about workers as such so long as spotted owls and lesser banded boll-weevils were thriving.

        As an aside, it is interesting to note the hardcore greenery at the start of the 20th century was the province of national socialists and fascists, with their obsession with racial purity and natural order. The old skool socialists were more concerned with building the new man and to hell with nature. Both blithely ignore science now as they did then.

        But modern politicians find a nice situation in the contradiction (shades of Alinsky no doubt)… if the economy is good because they’ve blown up a housing or IT bubble then they can ignore workers and claim to be environmental champions. When the bubbles burst, their loans are due and they need to drop green programs that cost too much and produce nothing (windmills, ethanol subsidies, the state of California, the country of Spain…) then they switch to being working class heroes.

        Contradiction… hypocrisy… in Erb’s world it is all one post-modern narrative. That is the beauty of modern leftism. Just note how he carefully said “climate change” rather than the much stronger condition of “catastrophic anthropogenic climate change”, the two are not the same and it is standard pomo practise to, with malice aforethought, deliberately try and build such a strawman.

        So when a lefite opens his mouth to claim that rightists or libertarians are irrational while faithfully continuing the party line of increasing the contradictions and promoting old national socalist ideas you know he’s been preening in the mirror way too long.

        • The Collective, as I’ve noted elsewhere, is the reaction to the Enlightenment, the counter-revolution to the American Revolution.
          It is a fundamentally anti-human impulse.  Given their inclinations, we would live darker, shorter, more painful, less comfortable, sicker, and less interesting lives where we saw less of the world and had far fewer choices across the board.
          They are true Luddites in the modern era, and would very willingly reverse the course of human progress, just as the same impulse has rationalized the slaughter of millions, both in theory as with the Fabian Shaw, or in awful practice.

          • “They are true Luddites in the modern era, and would very willingly reverse the course of human progress,”
             
            Well, based on Erb’s traveling (think of the CARBON SPEWED INTO THE AIR TO FLY HIM ACROSS THE ATLANTIC!!!!!!) I think he plans on HIS life remaining the same, same travel, same benefits, same meals, pretty much life as he knows it, only with him in a better position.
             
            The rest of us though, need to start toiling to fulfill his dreams and if our lives become darker, shorter, painful, less comfortable, and less interesting as a result, well that’s too bad, we’re deniers and we should get what’s coming to us for our impact on billions of others that HE speaks on behalf of.
             
             

    • Climate change is real and has not been discredited. Did you see that rhetorical trick there? I have now conflated “climate change” with “manmade climate change” so get ready for me to take the obvious fact that climate changes over time and use it to beat you up about your meanness. That, of course, is necessary if we wise leftists are to dominate society they way God Marx intended.

      The only people who claim manmade climate change has been discredited are irrational politically motivated blogger and propagandists who are harming billions (and should perhaps be held accountable) by ignoring science. Yep, if I had my way, we’d haul you all up before kangaroo environmental courts in which wise leftists pass judgment on just how much you have harmed humanity by your stupid insistence on such outdated concepts as “honor” and “freedom” and “math” and stuff like that. Especially math, with all those charts and graphs. We wise leftists have such powerful intuition that we can handwave aside all of your so-called facts and logic, and arrive at a higher truth. We intuitively know that we deserve to tell you how to live your lives and by God Marx we’re going to keep on finding reasons why we should to it. Climate change is the best one we’ve come up with since FDR, and you can bleat all you want about how the science is flawed. Doesn’t matter. It’s settled science, and we have a consensus among wise leftists about it. Suck on it.

      Europe has met the Kyoto accord goals and as such has moved ahead of the US in green technology, and thus can work with a Chinese market interested in that. And the fact that the Germans just decided to give up nuclear, which means they’ll be burning coal by the megaton and blow their Kyoto goals to hell is completely beside the point, and I don’t know why you bring it up. They met them in the present, absolutely not with any accounting tricks no sir, and that means we have to do EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS THEY DID TO REIN IN DENSE RIGHTIES! Don’t you get it? They proved there is no economic harm in meeting those goals, debunking a lie that was often claimed in the US. So shut up about closing the nuclear plants, just shut up! And don’t you dare bring up how the economic picture is so complex it’s impossible to make the assertion I just made. I have godlike powers of political science, plus an advanced degree, degree, degree, degree, degree, degree [BUFFER RESET] so I can decree such things and you just have to accept them.

      The fact political idiots in the US take climate change, politicize it, lie, and claim it doesn’t exist, harms the US. Yes, in addition to being sterile, inbred, and Nazi-like, as I’ve told you before, I am now outright telling you that you are idiots. No rational person denies the strong probability that the damage we’ve done to the atmosphere contributes greatly to climate change — change that can be seen in recent US weather. No rational person, I say. So stop with the charts and the graphs that show the medieval warming period and the little ice age and other climate change cycles that had nothing to do with humans. They’re not rational, I tell you! Not rational! They can’t be! They just can’t!

      So stop linking scientists who have changed their mind about climate change being manmade, just stop it. They are political idiots like you. The fact that they used to be wise scientists reinforcing the consensus doesn’t change the fact that, as soon as they go against the consensus, they immediately transform into political idiots. I decree it.

      That’s why I’m putting my money where my mouth is and going geothermal. Yep, I am proving the superiority of my moral position by spending money on geothermal. You can’t believe how good it made me feel when I signed the contract for it. I got all gooey inside from the sheer joy at doing the right thing, and the magenta caterpillars completely disappeared from my house for a week.

      You guys seem to find identity and meaning in the silly games of American politics. And I absolutely do not do that. So don’t even suggest that getting into geothermal makes no economic sense and is a move in a silly game.

      The “right” and “Libertarians” as good and rational vs. the evil naive left. We’re not naive! We’re not! And we were not either naive about what was going on in Iraq! We got it right, I tell you, we got it right! Oh, sure, it looks good for the moment, but it’s all ready to blow up, any day now, you just wait. I am confident that eventually we wise leftists will be proven right about Iraq, and everyone will agree with us that it was the biggest foreign policy disaster in history. Well, at least, after we’ve indoctrinated educated a couple of generations of students with the history books that explain it that way.

      I am confident that eventually we will be proven right about the tea parties, which are just small groups of extremists with no impact. I am confident that we will be proven right about the anti-tea-parties in Egypt, Syria, and Libya, and a glorious period of peace and harmony is about to break out there due to the magnificent guidance of Obama (peace be upon him). And I am confident, because the tea parties are just a small minority of extremists, that the Republicans will be held to about 20 House seats picked up in the elections of 2010.

      Oh, sorry, a little cut and paste error, there, strike that one. I’m still trying to figure out how my confident assertions based on godlike powers of political science could have gotten that one wrong. But know this – just because I got one little thing wrong in my main specialization of politics, and just because I got one little thing wrong in asserting that the violence in Iraq was going to spiral out of control in 2007, 2008, and 2009 even though I specialize in foreign affairs – certainly does not mean you should ignore me on climate change, even though I have zero training in science and barely passed Introductory Statistics for Social Science Majors. Nope, there’s absolutely zero relationship between those things. Now shut up. And stop laughing.

      It’s amusing, and says something about things you lack in your own lives. Which I totally don’t by the way. Really. I LIKE being a low-paid professor at a third rate college that doesn’t even grant PhDs. Really, I do. It’s fulfilling, spending my day indoctrinating educating those young minds. And I absolutely don’t lack something in my life that compels me to come here and talk down to you political idiots to boost my own self esteem. Nope. I do it for your own good, not mine. Stop laughing.

      But to deny the reality of climate change is not only irrational, it is harmful to billions. See, I slipped in the “climate change” equals “manmade climate change” thing again. Clever, huh?

      Luckily, a generation is coming of age who will take control and solve the problems my generation neglected. I see them in my class every day. They nod at me with a beautific smile on their face when I tell them what they must go out and do. I have complete confidence that they will change the world into a leftist utopia.

      Don’t be surprised to find yourselves increasingly in the political margins. Stop laughing! And shut up about the 2010 elections, just shut up about those! They were just an abberation! You’ll see! You’ll be shoved to the margins! I decreeeeeee it!

      • Love you, man.

      • Ohmigod I thought he was joking about there being no doctoral programs at Erb’s place of employment, but it’s true. So, Erb doesn’t even work where they even pretend to do real research and he’s lecturing people about science and knowledge and rationality? Bwa ha ha ha!

        • He has college degrees dammit!  You will respect him!  Because no one else here has….
           
          oh…
           
          wait…..

        • Erp is just mediocre stupid.  If he was REALLY stupid, he’d be in the Ivy League.
          What must it be like to be both stupid and mediocre at it….???

          • I can’t find his publication list, just a reference to a pair of old book chapters. For an “academic” that is real odd.

          • “I can’t find his publication list, ”

            Why not just ask him? I am sure he would be happy to supply links to his many writings.

            Heh!

      • I have collected a big file of these, and sometimes when I am feeling down, I re-read them. It’s always worth a good laugh.

    • “who are harming billions (and should perhaps be held accountable) by ignoring science.”  (we’ll be bringing suit against you and those like you who willfully filled the heads of millions of young people with lies and pseudo scientific crap and CHARGED them to do it).
       
      “The fact political idiots in the US take climate change, politicize it, lie,” (self reflection appears in yet another of your posts).
       
      “That’s why I’m putting my money where my mouth is and going geothermal. ”  – (good sound choice, makes sense, has nothing to do with climate change though and won’t affect it one iota).
       
      “But to deny the reality of climate change is not only irrational”
      No one denies it changes, what we deny is your politicizing of a perfectly natural phenomenon in order to gain control over the lives and wealth of others because you foolishly believe you’re smarter by virtue of your possession of a piece of foolscap with some writing on it proclaiming you managed to get through college courses with passing grades.
       
      Soooooooooooooooo not impressed.

  • Scott has posted a number of comments lambasting others for applying the proper tool of science to complex questions: skepticism. He has, in Orwellian fashion, attempted to argue that up is down, that True Science is settled by popularity and that skepticism (of anything he believes) is bad.
    Over and over, people respond to him, correct his errors, mistakes, lies. But he keeps coming back here, like the Energizer bunny, repeating the same propaganda.
    It’s good that so many people noticed his ambiguous use of the term “climate change”, which has become more common now that the predictions keep failing to come true. (Mass starvation, mass migration, continuously increasing temperatures, increasing major hurricanes, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!) Instead, they refer to “change” and find rationalizations why less rain, more rain, less snow, more snow, cold winters, warm winters, are all consistent with the scientific models.
    Did you also notice he mentioned “recent US weather”? Whenever people mock Al Gore because there always seems to be an unseasonably cold snowstorm wherever he gives a speech, the alarmists insist that there’s a difference between weather and climate. But alarmists get to point to weather as evidence, instead of climate.
    This stuff is straight out of Nineteen Eighty Four. It’s tailor made for Scott’s brand of political argument.
    Meanwhile people like Warren Meyer easily poke holes in the alarmists’ weak arguments.

    • Warren Meyer’s Climate Skeptic blog.  I didn’t properly format the link in my previous comment.

      • The best link from Mr. Meyer’s latest post goes to a press release from the NSF titled “Global Warming Will Not Significantly Affect Wind Energy Production”-

        “wind patterns across the US are not expected to change significantly over the next 50 years since the predicted climate variability in this time period is still within the historical envelope of climate variability,” said Antoinette WinklerPrins, a Geography and Spatial Sciences Program director at NSF.”

        An orginazation that grants millions of dollars for climate change ‘education’ issued a press release essentially admitting that ‘global warming’ won’t even cause any unusual changes in climate.

        Meanwhile, they note a rapidly chaning climate drove apparently drove the Vikings from Greenland. But how could the local climate change so fast? I guess the discovery of hot springs in Iceland led them to greatly reduce the number of fires they needed and the resulting drop in emissions must have cooled the whole North Atlantic.

  • IGCC fuel plants use the carbon twice or can sequester in older oil wells. The world uses the energy is does and will use more as time goes on. We can use it more efficiently and wisely.

    • And normal plants (and animals) can use “carbon” over and over and over again through millions and billions of years. What’s the point?