Another day, another hyper-alarmist, hyper-ventilating missive about Hotcoldwetdry from the Usual Suspects at the Washington Post, Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis, with a headline that rather undermines the entire case
How Earth itself has dramatically upped the stakes for the Paris climate accord
If it’s the Earth itself, doesn’t that make the case for mostly natural global warming? Anyhow, we’re all doomed, ya know
Representatives from more than 150 countries will gather at the United Nations on Friday to officially sign a global accord aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change. But in the four months since that historic pact was negotiated in Paris, a drumbeat of grim scientific findings has underscored that staving off the worst consequences of global warming may take far more aggressive actions.
The first three months of 2016 were the warmest on record in 136 years — by large margins. The massive Greenland ice sheet has melted this spring to an extent that scientists say they’ve never seen this early. New research suggested that if high levels of emissions continue unabated, sea levels could rise by nearly twice as much as expected by the end of this century. A global coral bleaching event fueled by warm seas is turning some once-majestic reefs into ghostly underwater graveyards.
The list goes on and on.
“The strongest hurricane on record for both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere, unprecedented continuing drought in California, the warmest start to a year that we’ve ever seen, on the heels of what was the warmest full year on record for the globe,†ticked off Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University. Such developments, though driven in part by strong El Niño conditions, are a “reminder of how perilously close we are now to a permanent crossing into the global-warming danger zone,†he said. “We are at a critical juncture when it comes to preserving our climate.â€
The warming is mostly driven by El Nino. But, that quote by Michael “Robust Debate/Hockey Schtick” Mann is priceless. As for preserving our climate
Regardless of one’s opinions on the degree to which climate change is occurring, regulations associated with the Paris accord will have no meaningful impact on the planet’s temperature.
Even if the government closed the doors to every businesses and CO2-emitting activity in the U.S., there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.
Even Kerry admitted during the negotiations last December that:
“If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions— remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions— it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.â€
Of course, Mooney and Dennis argue, as do the rest of the Cult of Climastrology, that the super HISTORIC Paris accord is just a starting place, they want more done. But, not enough to advocate for all Believers to practice what they preach. They want everyone else involved by force of government. What they cannot do, though, is prove beyond a shadow of a doubt scientifically that the current warm period is mostly/solely caused by the activities of Mankind.
The Semanticist strikes again!:
A headline proves that global warming is a hoax!
LOL. The Tedious Teach moves the goalposts once again. First, there was no warming. Now someone must “prove beyond a shadow of a doubt” that CO2 causes warming (it has been). Don’t we, as a society, make major policy decisions based on less than “prove(n) beyond a shadow of a doubt” evidence? Has god been “prove(n) beyond a shadow of a doubt”?
Has it been “prove(n) beyond a shadow of a doubt” that your domicile will burn down? No? Do you have insurance?
Scientific theories are never “prove(n) beyond a shadow of a doubt”. That CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of infrared radiation is not a theory but a proven fact. The Theory of AGW predicts that as humans cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, pollution from burning fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), the overall temperature of the Earth (oceans, land, air) will increase, noting that CO2 is not the ONLY determinant. Secondarily, the warming will change the climates in which we humans live.
Didn’t the crystal ball gazers say we were “perilously” close to disaster 10 years ago? And before that 20 years ago? And before that….. “The warming will change the climates in which we humans live.” So? A naturally warming climate will also change the climate in which we humans live. “Do you have insurance?” Wrong analogy. In most case, insurance is a personal decision. And there’s no contradictory evidence, as there is in GW, that wood, drywall, furniture ect., will catch on fire if provided a source or that two automobiles colliding will cause damage.
John François Kerry said:
So, even if we did all that the President said we could do, and more, it still wouldn’t be enough to save us from climatastrophe.
Why, then, ought we to do anything which will make working people suffer, make people living from paycheck to paycheck poorer than they are now, to not solve a supposedly insoluble problem?
‘Cuz they say two thousand zero zero party over,
Oops out of time
So tonight I’m gonna party like it’s 1999
Chris Mooney’s opinion can be disregarded and he’s a paid shill for the global warming crowd. Same for Brady Dennis.
Yes. And they were right then, and even more right now. If we’d have listened 20 years ago…
Insurance is actually a pretty good analogy. The risk of global warming is so grave and the cost of the “insurance” so small that we’d be fools not to invest now. You are part of a minority that Denies that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Just as wood burns with enough O2 and heat, CO2 absorbs radiation and warms its immediate environment. See, you only Deny some science! Why are there global warming deniers? Partly for financial reasons, partly for political ideology, partly just pure anti-intellectualism. It’s clear you have no scientific arguments.
Far-right extremists such as you use Science Denialism as a tool to stop policies you dislike. Far-right extremists (right wing anarchists) hate all taxes and all regulations in principle, regardless of societal value. So, even if a carbon tax structure resulted in greatly reduced CO2 emissions, cleaner air and economic stimulus, they would oppose it as socialism, communism, social engineering etc.
-the little guy who exaggerates often and has no scientific proof for AGW
If we’d have listened 20 years ago…
We did. And all the warnings of gloom and doom never happened.
Warmunism is a scam, an estimated $600 Billion dollar scam, propagated by Big Green.
The warnings have all proven useless, the predictions worthless but the payout enormous.
Still, the far left clings to it like a binky, afraid to let it go.
Jeffrey wrote:
If you believe what you wrote, then the adverb “perilously” has no meaning to you. Disaster has not yet struck, yet you are stating here that those who said we were “perilously” close to disaster twenty years ago were right.
Dana,
We’re taking jl’s word for it that he was reporting a direct quote. No reasonable climate scientist has been saying we’re perilously close to disaster, but rather we are perilously close to not being able to avert the coming disaster. It’s subtle, and we fully understand that propagandists don’t “do” subtle, but you can’t be so dumb as to not understand.
If we had instituted a carbon cap and trade system two decades ago we’d be in much less trouble than now.
For over a century concerned scientists have questioned the wisdom of adding CO2 to and removing O2 from the atmosphere.
Was it karma that had me linking a Prince video just before we found out that his party was over, he was out of time?
Uh, yeah!
Made the same remark to mrs. puppies.