Excerpt:
"But the Annan report deserves even closer scrutiny as an example of the sleight of hand that so often goes with the politics of global warming. Unlike starvation, climate change does not usually kill anyone directly. Instead, the study's authors assume a four-step chain of causation, beginning with increased emissions, moving to climate-change effects, thence to physical changes like melting glaciers and desertification, and finally arriving at human effects like malnutrition and 'risk of instability and armed conflicts.'
This is a heroic set of assumptions, even if you agree that emissions are causing adverse changes in climate. Take the supposedly heightened risk of conflict: The authors suggest that 'inter-clan fighting in Somalia' is a product of climate change. A likelier explanation is the collapse of a functioning Somali government and the rise of jihadists in the region.
Enter Mr. Pielke, who, we hasten to add, does not speak for us (nor we for him). But given the headlines the Annan report has garnered, his views deserve amplification. Writing in the Prometheus science policy blog, Mr. Pielke calls the report a 'methodological embarrassment' and a 'poster child for how to lie with statistics' that 'does a disservice' to those who take climate change issues seriously."
On the other hand, True Believers are famous for wrongly manipulating statistics to favor their religion, while ignoring and/or misrepresenting statistics that prove they're full of the hot air they claim CO2 produces.
#
You may be correct about global warming. I wonder though, how much of a direct effect added co2 from the burning of fossil fuels and other pollutants have on human health, in the form of asthma and other respiratory problems, cancers, and genetic mutations.
ReplyDelete--brandonB
CO2 is not a pollutant. It does not cause disease. It is essential for life on earth to flourish.
ReplyDeletePeriod.......Regardless of what any supreme court decision says, despite what the EPA says, despite what any Looney Toon climate alarmist says.
If you (or anyone) insist that CO2 is a pollutant, then you must also insist that H2O is a pollutant.
Meteorologist Art Horn:
"The crazy part of all of this is that the Supreme Court made such a terrible ruling about CO2 in the first place. Carbon dioxide is NOT A POLLUTANT!
Al Gore will tell you it is but he got a D and a C in the only intro science classes he took at Harvard so he is hardly the one to listen to. Besides he has a company in England, Generation Investment Management that makes money by scaring people about global warming.
By the way do you know what a nursery will do to increase plant growth in their green houses? They pump it full of carbon dioxide, three times the levels that exist in the atmosphere.
How can something that makes things grow be "a dangerous pollutant". The answer is it can't!
Carbon dioxide is essential for life on our planet. Carbon dioxide gives and makes life possible. If carbon dioxide levels drop below 200 parts per million things stop growing. Carbon dioxide is plant food not poison, unbelievable. So something that makes life possible on our planet is now pollution apparently because it comes out of an exhaust of a car or some other motor that burns fossil fuels.
Well guess what else comes out of the exhaust of a car, yup water vapor. Oh it's not very much, just a small amount but it's still there. So what are we to do, I know lets call that pollution too! After all it makes things grow just like carbon dioxide. It's at the root of all life on Earth just like carbon dioxide so what the hell let's get water on the pollution list as well.
We can regulate water with government laws made by attorney 'generals' that circumvent the legislature with lawsuits so they can make their own laws. This is how much sense the Supreme Courts ruling makes. If you’re going to call carbon dioxide pollution apparently you must add water vapor to the list as well if not now then somewhere in the future."
As far as I know, you could very well be right about co2. Is that to say that using fossil fuels is not harmful? Does it not contribute to respiratory problems and cancer? I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand you.
ReplyDelete--brandonB
Look up the other components in current auto emissions, and see how harmful they actually are.
ReplyDeleteI think you will be surprised.