Climate scientists in Germany are saying forget the attempts to reduce emissions…..instead concentrate on attempting to deal with the effects of climate change…however that change is generated…. in other words exactly what Bush and the Americans were saying a decade ago….and for which he has been extensively abused and mocked by the clever folk of the BBC…..they loved the computer models which the sceptics have always criticised as being unrepresentative of reality and that seems to be the considered view here as well…..
“The situation is absurd,” says Sebastian Wiesnet of the University of Bamberg. “It would be more forthright, with respect to voters, to step back and think about how global climate protection could really be implemented.” Efforts to actually prepare for the effects of climate change, he says, could not only be implemented more quickly, but they would also be cheaper than emissions reduction efforts.
“The current discussion is much too fixated on greenhouse gases,” says Frank Uekötter, an environmental historian. He refers to the recent climate conference failures as the “phase of inaction.”
Instead, many say that measures aimed at dealing with the inevitable consequences of climate change must become central.
Any sort of move away from the 2 degree Celsius target, of course, would be politically risky. To many, it would sound like an abdication and a retreat from decades of pledges to finally launch a global effort to combat global warming. But researchers are beginning to come to the conclusion that there might be no other way.
Today’s computer-simulated climate models, the foundation of all UN climate negotiations, represent the “almost complete disregard for reality,” says Werner Krauss, from the Helmholtz Geesthacht Center for Materials and Coastal Research.
“A world is being saved that only exists as a model.”
Will the BBC report this? They consistently fail to report on major stories from Germany that indicate wind farms and green policies fail disasterously and at great expense.
Even if the science is ‘settled’ (and it’s not) there must still be a debate on how to deal with the ‘reality’…..aim for greenhouse gas reductions….and as yet there is no proof that these gases are the cause of global warming….or invest in projects to ‘adapt to, improvise and overcome’ the consequences of any change in climate.
The BBC cannot duck that one……it is surely the next big debate……my money is on them continuing to push the green house gas agenda….reputations, egos and careers, not to mention vast amounts of cash, are at stake based on their CO2 theory being the right one.
….but it seems that even the IPCC are hedging their bets now.
Perhaps people should start checking what odds they might get at the bookies for when the climate lobby finally admits that CO2 isn’t the cause of global warming….I’d guess three years from now max.
All well said. However the Global warming/ climate change issue is just a ‘red herring’. We all know that it is simply the Left attempting to pick our pockets with pseudo-taxation in order to save “The Planet”. As usual it’s all about redistribution of wealth…… mainly to themselves.
>”and as yet there is no proof that these gases are the cause of global warming….or invest in projects to ‘adapt to, improvise and overcome’ the consequences of any change in climate.”<
Has anyone noticed how much the BBC is trying to impress upon us that co2 is evil and how it is the driver of global warming. They have even gone as far as to gloss over the fact that it is an unavoidable by product of the food and drinks industry, referring to the 'stuff' that causes bread to rise as well as one of the by products of fermentation as simply just a 'gas' rather that co2. Keep an ear open next time you are watching a bbc food programme!…heaven forbid that their nightly glass of merlot and their posh delicatessen breads become a target for the eco loonies.
What they fail to acknowledge is that co2 is NOT the driver of global warming, it isn't responsible for the warming on mars and it isn't on earth either, Michael Mann's hockey stick graph clearly shows this.
The bodies of water on earth act as a giant co2 sink and as they warm up they release a certain amount of co2 causing the rise in co2 that we are seeing in the atmosphere.
Not convinced ? Then try it out for yourself; take two identical unopened bottles of coke (beer, lemonade, water etc) and put one in the coldest part of the fridge and the other in a warm place in the house. Leave them over night and then carefully take them into the kitchen and open them. Listen and compare how much gas is release – the warm bottle will make the louder (hissing) noise when opened indicating a greater release of gas compared with the cold bottle. (If you were really clever you could probably place a water balloon over the necks of the bottles before opening and get a visual representation of how much gas is being released.
Still not convinced….carefully place the cold bottle back in the fridge and leave the warm bottle on a warm window ledge and come back to them in an hour or two have a drink from either bottle – you'll find that the cold bottle has retained a lot more carbonation (or fizz) ie co2 that the warm bottle. Hence it's temperature that is the driver of co2 rather than co2 being the driver of any temperature rise.
That nice Mr. Yeo was on the news today, extolling the virtues of decarbonising ourselves. Basically, yes, it will cost us more to shoot ourselves in both feet, but that’s what he’d really like to do, and will move heaven and earth to achieve it (and, presumably, mega-bucks for his capacious pockets, too).
From the headline, I thought this post would be about how Bush and the Neocons predicted that the liberation of Iraq would lead to peoples across the middle east rising up against their dictators.
The vindication of the Freedom Agenda doesn’t get mentioned a lot, for some reason…