Climate change update

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on February 28, 2009

The climate continues to change, because that's what it does.

In actual science related news, a satellite designed to find "missing" C02 didn't quite make it into orbit this week after the payload fairing failed to separate. The fact that this science even needed to be done is evidence that scientists don't really explain how the atmosphere works with regard to global warming and C02 -- no matter what their models say.

Then, we had the usual scaremongering.

The Earth won't have to warm up as much as had been thought to cause serious consequences of global warming, including more extreme weather and increasing threats to plants and animals, says an international team of climate experts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the risk of increased severe weather would rise with a global average temperature increase of between 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit and 3.6 degrees above 1990 levels. The National Climatic Data Center currently reports that global temperatures have risen 0.22 degree since 1990.

Of course, the Earth has cooled since 2000. And now that the Earth isn't warming as much as they were predicting it would just a few years ago, scientists are revising their guesstimates down to make sure that global warming is still an imminent danger.

But even these guys aren't as bad as British scientist James Lovelock:

Climate change will wipe out most life on Earth by the end of this century and mankind is too late to avert catastrophe, a leading British climate scientist said.

James Lovelock, 89, famous for his Gaia theory of the Earth being a kind of living organism, said higher temperatures will turn parts of the world into desert and raise sea levels, flooding other regions.

His apocalyptic theory foresees crop failures, drought and death on an unprecedented scale. The population of this hot, barren world could shrink from about seven billion to one billion by 2100 as people compete for ever-scarcer resources.

Lovelock, of course, won't be around to see how spectacularly wrong he is, because judging by his picture he's well into his advanced years.

Finally, there was some sanity as columnist George Will ably defended the statement that sea ice coverage this year is about the same as it was in 1979 from a bunch of dishonest scaremongers. Sen. John Kerry has challenged him to a debate. They should sell tickets, because it would be a great show.

0 comments on “Climate change update”

  1. It's about the power and it's little brother, the money. "Climate scientists" are about as scientific as astrologers but they see the big bucks and more importantly the chance to tell other people how to live their lives. I will accept a computer projection that if fed the data from 1959, 1909 and 1809 produces a good approximation of todays climate. I'll even let the programmer adjust for industrialization, war and technology which can't be predicted in the next century. That's the easy challenge.

    The harder question I have to ask is "how many people are you willing to kill?" Because the end result of greening the economy is to destroy almost all industry. And an agricultural economy might, with great effort and superior technology, support about a billion people worldwide. True, 99% of them will be subsistence farmers living on the edge of famine and no hope of making their lives better, but they might survive. The other almost six billion people? They'll have to die. Mass murder or mass starvation ( which would be deliberate and thus murder ) are the choices.

    A modern industrial technological society is certainly more likely to find solutions to the so called problem of climate change than one deprived of the industrial revolution. But the new aristocracy of "scientists" wouldn't have the enormous power and prestige they crave. So they'll push for nonsense like Kyoto and carbon credits. They'll make everyone miserable for "our own good". And eventually they'll reluctantly conclude that they'll have to kill us. Since we demand such luxuries as computers and cars, sugar and meat, plastics and metals we will have to go. They will make Pol Pot look like a piker. And when a world with a tiny aristocracy of scientists and a struggling mass of slaves fails to stop natural climate change they will complain that no one could have known.

  2. I hope George Will takes him on. It wouldn't even be close. They would have to stop the fight on a TKO by the end of the third round. Kerry is on the stupid side of dumb.

  3. I am sure that Kerry will debate George Will as soon as he (Kerry) releases his complete military record, as he promised to do a long time ago. This article is nothing but smoke and mirrors, he has no intention of debating George Will.

  4. Kerry would be a weapon of mass destruction: decades in the Senate has only taught him how to speak so as to put people into comas.

    Back when he was running for POTUS, I put myself through torture by reading a few of his Senate speeches. (Not to mention his thoroughly mendacious 1971 Senate testimony.) He can walk along the top of a fence for 20 minutes without coming down on either side. In a way, it's amazing, actually.


[custom-twitter-feeds headertext="Hoystory On Twitter"]


February 2009



linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram