Continuing the 25 Days Of Climate Christmas
2013′s Climate Grinches — Stealing Christmas Warmth And Putting It Into The Atmosphere
Climate change is the most pressing challenge of our time, yet meaningful action to address this global threat seems increasingly elusive. What’s standing in the way? There are numerous individuals, organizations, and corporations that actively work to obstruct attempts to cut our carbon emissions, advance clean energy, and prepare communities for the devastating impacts of climate change. Here is a list of just a few of these thwarters who stood out in 2013.
If it’s the most pressing challenge, why do so few Warmists practice what they preach? If they aren’t giving up their own use of fossil fuels, air conditioners, hairspray, ice makers, washing machines and dryers, installing solar and wind on their property, only buying local, and unplugging every appliance when not in use, among other measures, then they are part of the problem, not part of “meaningful action”.
Anyhow, the Climate Grinches named are
- Tony Abbott
- Stephen Harper
- Rupert Murdoch
- Rex Tillerson
- The Koch Brothers
- House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Joseph Bast, President and Co-founder of the Heartland Institute
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Bjorn Lomborg
You’re welcome read why at the link. The blurb about Lomborg is amusing
Recently Lomborg wrote an editorial in the UK Times that asserts that, “global warming has mostly been a net benefit so far†and will be for decades. So while Lomborg does not deny that climate change is happening, he might be considered a confusionist, as Climate Progress’ Joe Romm recently labeled him. With Lomborg holding such a high perch from which to espouse his confusing — and even confounding — views, the potential negative impact he could have on combating climate change stands to be tall.
A “confusionist”. Warmists do not like what Lomborg has to say because he speaks without hysteria, unlike Warmists, and notes that Mankind is doing pretty well during the Modern Warm Period, regardless of the cause. He notes that Mankind tends to do better during the warm periods than during the cool periods. And “climate change” is all about gloom and doom, the better to make sure that Government is increasingly put in charge of people’s lives and the private sector.
Heat waves, tornadoes and icestorms, oh my! What a week in weather!
Your continued contention (and the continued pointing out that it’s flawed logic) that the fact that some climate realists drive to work refutes the Theory of AGW is silly on at least two levels. It’s like saying that conservatives who accept government benefits are hypocrites.
Mr. Lomborg understands the reality and causes of the current rapid warming but contends the benefits will outweigh the damages. Most experts disagree with his opinion.
Your opinion that climate realists want to slow CO2 emissions to “make sure that Government is increasingly put in charge of people’s lives and the private sector” is debatable. Do you have any evidence or logic to support your opinion?
Yes, the evidence is that CO2 emissions are at 20 year lows thanks mostly to fracking-all this done without government intervention.
Tuesday morning links…
"Science-based conversation hacks" that will get people to like you It does work. Spike in Harm to Liver Is Tied to Dietary Aids Piers Morgan: First Amendment ‘Shouldn’t Protect Vile Bigots’ Like Phil Robertson Let’s switch it: First Am…
The calculated (computer modeled!) drop in US CO2 emissions since 2008 coincides with the Great Recession and also with miles traveled by auto and truck. The Great Recession and slow recovery, not hydraulic fracturing, caused the drop in energy emissions. Both the Recession and recovery resulted from gov’t policy, so indirectly gov’t did affect CO2 emissions!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/the-shale-gas-boom-wont-do-much-for-climate-change-but-it-will-make-us-a-bit-richer/
So while burning cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing DOES produce less CO2 than coal burning, it is not the reason for the reduced CO2 emissions.
As pointed out above, to say that gov’t policy does not affect CO2 emissions is false. In addition to wrecking our economy, gov’t policies such as mileage standards, renewable energy initiatives, limits on coal burning, CFLs, energy efficient appliances, tax incentives for home energy efficiencies and for hybrid cars etc all contribute.
This could all be accomplished more efficiently if the nation would adopt the conservative market-based plan for a carbon cap and trade system (conservatives abandoned their own idea during the 2008 Prez race ’cause Sarah said “drill” and winked or something).
The calculated (computer modeled!) drop in US CO2 emissions since 2008 coincides with the Great Recession and also with miles traveled by auto and truck. The Great Recession and slow recovery, not hydraulic fracturing, caused the drop in energy emissions. Both the Recession and recovery resulted from gov’t policy, so indirectly gov’t did affect CO2 emissions!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/the-shale-gas-boom-wont-do-much-for-climate-change-but-it-will-make-us-a-bit-richer/
So while burning cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing DOES produce less CO2 than coal burning, it is not the reason for the reduced CO2 emissions.
As pointed out above, to say that gov’t policy does not affect CO2 emissions is false. In addition to wrecking our economy, gov’t policies such as mileage standards, renewable energy initiatives, limits on coal burning, CFLs, energy efficient appliances, tax incentives for home energy efficiencies and for hybrid cars etc all contribute.
This could all be accomplished more efficiently if the nation would adopt the conservative market-based plan for a carbon cap and trade system (conservatives abandoned their own idea during the 2008 Prez race ’cause Sarah said “drill” and winked or something).
Jeffy lied.
Here are the lead couple of paragraphs from his linked article:
Notice what is missing: no mention of the recession, no mention of driving less.
The article also says that fracking and the use of natural gas drove carbon emissions down, but will not continue to drive them down which makes sense when you think about not all power plants will convert to natural gas.
So once again we see that we have a liberal who is willing to lie to try and make a point and instead, confirms what was posted by someone with whom he disagrees.