No Planning for the Future – We Only Have 10 Years Left

In the latest in radical climate doomsaying, a new report warns that fossil fuel consumption will need to be reduced “below a quarter of primary energy supply by 2100” to avoid possibly disastrous effects on global temperatures.

In their report, titled “Pathways for balancing CO2 emissions and sinks,” a team of eight scientists warns that “anthropogenic emissions need to peak within the next 10 years, to maintain realistic pathways to meeting the COP21 emissions and warming targets.”

 The statement was immediately repackaged by environmentalists to read: “Scientists say we have ten years to save the earth.”

As is always the case in studies of this sort, the scientists juggle dozens of variables, none of which is entirely predictable and which taken together tell us virtually nothing about the future of the environment. read more

Don’t Plan for the Future – We Only Have 10 Years Left

In the latest in radical climate doomsaying, a new report warns that fossil fuel consumption will need to be reduced “below a quarter of primary energy supply by 2100” to avoid possibly disastrous effects on global temperatures.

In their report, titled “Pathways for balancing CO2 emissions and sinks,” a team of eight scientists warns that “anthropogenic emissions need to peak within the next 10 years, to maintain realistic pathways to meeting the COP21 emissions and warming targets.”

The statement was immediately repackaged by environmentalists to read: “Scientists say we have ten years to save the earth.”

As is always the case in studies of this sort, the scientists juggle dozens of variables, none of which is entirely predictable and which taken together tell us virtually nothing about the future of the environment. read more

Climate Alarmists are Doubling Down

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, climate alarmists, dressed in lab coats and calling themselves scientists are becoming wackier with every passing year.

The latest demonstration of said wackiness was a recent and no doubt little heard NPR radio interview  of Peter Tans, the chief greenhouse gas scientist at NOAA. I say little heard because it is after all, NPR radio, which probably has a listening audience of tens of people, no doubt other government paid scientists.

Anyway, scientist Peter Tans says that in order to really fight climate change, carbon emission needs to be lowered to zero. Yes – you did read that right.

The NPR host Melissa Block throws a hanging curve over the plate.

Block: “How troubling is the new record number of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere – 400 ppm?”

Tans: “What troubles me is that we’re still headed at full speed in a direction that we should not be going. We are at the beginning of bringing about huge changes in the Earth’s climate and ecosystems. The potential is there for us to make life hard, really, for future generations.”

Block: “And what would it take to reverse the carbon dioxide concentration levels that you’re seeing now?”

Tans: “See, that is really at the core of why we have made so little progress. The problem with CO2 in particular is that climate – forcing of climate change by CO2 depends not so much on the rate at which we are admitting it. It depends primarily on the total amount of CO2 that we’ve emitted since preindustrial times. The implication is that if we want to stop this, we have to bring the omissions back down to zero.” read more

Another Green President, Perhaps

With the recent shakeup in the republican primary, Mitt Romney can no longer be considered the prohibitve favorite. I still think he is favored, but it’s getting very interesting.

With that said, do we really want or need another global warming advocate in the White House? Is Mitt a greenie or a flip flopper? You decide.

I guess I wouldn’t classify Mitt Romney’s positions on Global Warming, Flip Flops. I would say it’s more of a slow climb over a fence, climbing from the left to the right side of the fence.

First you’re on one side. Then you climb up, you straddle said fence while you inspect the lay of the land on the other side and then climb down. Voilà, you have changed your position.

As recently as his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

In June of 2011 he said, “I think the earth is getting warmer. … I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”

During a campaign stop back in October 2011 Mitt Romney stated, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said recently, “Governor Romney has been consistent in his statements on global warming.”

However, EPA Abuse reports:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has had numerous positions on climate change, carbon dioxide and global warming over the years.
His most recent views seem conservative, but as governor of Massachusetts, his views were in line with Al Gore’s views.

Human Events columnist Deroy Murdock recently outlined some of these “hot and cold” positions on global warming from the man who wishes to be President of the United States.

Murdock notes:
In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, “a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate,” as his office described it.

Romney’s December 7, 2005 press release announced, “Strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”

“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. This red tape, the communiqué noted, is designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.” Furthermore, the experts whom Romney consulted “include John Holdren [sic]…at Harvard University.”

“Romney (or his staff) was misled by John ‘Holdren’ [sic], a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.

John Holdren is now Obama’s science adviser,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director. “They consider CO2 a pollutant and mention it along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury — all real pollutants, injurious to human health. Clearly, they had no clue about the science.”

“No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisors, and then suddenly reverse himself,” the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., tells me. “As president, Romney will revert to his more familiar green self.”

Now, let’s juxtapose Rick Santorum’s (you know, the real conservative) view on the subject:

“There is no such thing as global warming,” he told a smiling Glenn Beck on Fox News in June 2011. That same month, he told Rush Limbaugh that climate change is a liberal conspiracy: “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum accused the EPA of acting on a philosophy of “We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas.”

“Drill everywhere” is his philosophy when it comes to oil, he told Beck.

Santorum doesn’t see what the big fuss is about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline traversing the Ogallala Aquifer. “Has anybody looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now? I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there,” he told Iowans at a Dec. 31 rally. Opposition to the pipeline is just “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” he continued. “… It has to do with an ideology, a religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.”

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Attribution: UK Guardian, CBS News