Disciples of the Green New Deal are still trying to attempt to rationalize it
Why the Green New Deal makes me hopeful about climate change
As a climate scientist, I have studied the impacts of human emissions of carbon dioxide on the climate system for nearly 20 years. Over this time, my research, as well as research by my colleagues, has made me increasingly worried about the impacts of climate change on human society.
But last week’s release of a Green New Deal resolution is the first time I’ve felt a sliver of that worry fall away, because it feels like solutions are finally on the horizon.
At this point, just about everyone recognizes that the climate is changing. Even Donald Trump says, “I think something’s happening.”
Heck, I believe something is happening, as I’ve written tons of times. I just don’t think it is mostly/solely man-caused, nor even about 25%.
Though it’s not as well recognized, the scientific community is certain that human activities are the cause, primarily the emission of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels.
If they’re so certain why are they not giving up their own use of fossil fuels? And what of all those scientists who do not believe this? Meh, different debate
If we don’t take action, unchecked greenhouse-gas emissions would lead to global-average warming over this century of 5 degrees Fahrenheit to 9 degrees Fahrenheit. This may not sound like much until you realize that the warming since the last ice age — a warming that completely reconfigured the planet and caused 300 feet of sea level rise — was about 9 degrees Fahrenheit. With continued fossil fuel use, we might see warming over the current century sufficient to literally remake the Earth’s environment and our place within it.
This is what caught my eye, the utter stupidity, and fake science from computer models, of proclaiming we’ll see 5 to 9 degrees F of warming in just over 80 years, when we’ve only see 1.5 since 1850, which is almost double the time. This is where the Pause comes in: if it was all caused by CO2, then why was there not only a long pause recently, but multiple ones during the Modern Warm Period? Warmists will have all sorts of excuses, including nature masking the warming. If nature can do that, then why can’t nature be the primary driver?
And what caused the warming at the end of the ice age, when CO2 was at a “safe” level below 350ppm?
That’s why I think the Green New Deal is so important. It moves the debate past “is the climate warming?” (it is) and “is that bad?” (it is) and focuses on what we should do. Surveys show that the public wants action on climate, as well as supports the principles of the Green New Deal. (snip)
The debate over the Green New Deal will lead to a debate we need to have — how to address the dangers of climate change. And for the first time in a long time, it’s a debate I’m hopeful about.
I’d be happy to debate all the Big Centralized Government controls this would put on all our lives, along with the taxes, fees, cost of living increases, and so forth, that writer Andrew Dessler avoids (just like most of the GND supporters avoid writing about) discussing in his piece. I wonder why they avoid that stuff?
Perhaps we can also have a debate as to why scientists like Andrew have to fear monger, as well?
“As a climate scientist, I have studied the impacts of human emissions of carbon dioxide on the climate system for nearly 20 years. Over this time, my research, as well as research by my colleagues, has made me increasingly worried about the impacts of climate change on human society.”
I’ve studied Earth Science for OVER 20 years and this guy is FOS.