AGW collapses

Climate Change Consensus Tracked
A 2012 poll found that 43 percent of Americans believe scientists disagree on whether climate change is caused by human activities. A new study emphasizes just how wrong they were. Not only is there scientific consensus on the causes of greenhouse warming, there’s near-unanimity.
Advocates of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are no longer making scientific argument, which makes sense considering:

A sensitive matter
OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
This article in the Economist uses the phrase "maybe" "maybe not" a lot.

My position has always been that one day climate science may give us a somewhat reliable model of the climate and it could show an impact by humans. As it stands today, however, there is not even a scientific justification for heading back to a pre-industrial economy in order to fight global warming. The amount of death and hardship that will definitely happen if climate change policies are enacted cannot be justified by "maybe, maybe not, we're not sure yet." AGW relies on climate models that assume knowledge man doesn't have yet. Wall Street thought it could hire mathematics Phds to model the financial economy, far less complex than climate, and it almost destroyed the global economy—and still might. We'll know the science is right when, as Vox says, it becomes engineering. When climate scientists can recommend a specific act that can be shown to deliver the predicted change in temperature, then we will be looking at a reliable model of the climate. Until then, they will fall back on political pressure and political arguments.

Finally, it might not matter if they could make a strong case for global warming today due to falling social mood. The climate change agenda requires a global consensus, and that consensus is collapsing by the day. Nations are finding more and more things to fight over; there's no way they will agree to global centralized control over the economy.

No comments:

Post a Comment