The consistently ridiculous U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared last week that the world has just ten years to reduce “global emissions” beyond what any reasonable or politically viable measures can accomplish, and if it doesn’t, heat waves, famines and infectious diseases could claim millions of additional lives by century’s end. Or maybe not. The IPCC is not at all embarrassed about all the other supposed deadlines politicized climate change “experts” have confidently predicted and that it has relayed with absurd certainty. It doubtless will spit out yet another doomsday prediction after this one has passed. (That U.N. warning on the right dates from 1989. The deadline: 2000.)
As plenty of rational, honest scientist have pointed out, “the world” is nowhere close to ready to dump fossil fuels. Alternative technologies and energy sources have not shown that they can achieves what the slick TV commercials claim and promise. All of the targets, some of them supposedly mandatory, established by national and state governments are cynical, manipulative grandstanding. The useless U.N., as is its wont, is aspiring to world dominance and influence it does not have and (I hope) never achieves.
If you have no options, a wise man once said, you have no problem, but the theoretical climate change Sword of Damocles has been a useful device for unethical politicians–incompetent, irresponsible, dishonest—to attract public support through demagoguery. Spurred on by the U.N. jeremiad, two New York Times readers nicely illustrated this bizarre phenomenon in heartfelt letters to the Times editors:
To the Editor:
Re “Earth Is Nearing the Tipping Point for a Hot Future” (front page, March 21):
I can’t begin to express the deep grief I feel after reading about the new U.N. climate report, which spells out our challenge more plainly than past reports and is more specific about time lines.
As your article says, we need to cut greenhouse gases roughly in half by 2030 and stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the early 2050s if we are to have a 50 percent chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Considering the actions of the leading offenders — China, the United States and other countries — it is patently clear that we’re not going to make even this conservative goal.
Humans will not disappear from the earth, but we can expect apocalyptic death and destruction, hints of which we’re already seeing: floods, fires, famine, frightened migrants chasing safety and authoritarian governments rising to control borders.
I’m 81, and I’ll be dead by the time the worst happens, but my grandchildren will not. Can we not think to protect future generations, and the earth they’ll inherit? Our problems are not chiefly economic and political — our problems are spiritual: They have to do with values and meaning.
Marilyn Sewell
Portland, Ore.
The writer is minister emerita of the First Unitarian Church of Portland.
***
“We need to cut greenhouse gases roughly in half by 2030 and stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the early 2050s if we are to have a 50 percent chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius,” do we?
Well we can’t, and won’t. Next piece of advice? Today’s human beings are not going to drastically reduce their quality of life and cripple their children’s future based on assurances from scientists who have been consistently wrong about the path of climate change for decades that doing so has (perhaps) a 50% chance of averting climate-related disasters long after they are dead. THAT is a certainty.
That’s not a “spiritual” problem. It’s called reality. Life involves dealing honestly with reality. Ethics, which include values, are only relevant when they point of practical policies and actions.
Marilyn is, sadly, typical of climate change hysterics: she’s shouting “Do something!” when she has no idea what to do, what she claims can be done can’t, and she nonetheless accuses those who don’t follow her reasoning selfish and corrupt.
Psst! Marilyn? The problems are economic and political. Also logical, technological, and scientific.
Here’s another one:
To the Editor:
Political liberals and conservatives, religious and nonreligious people of every stripe, residents of every state and nation, and every generation need to act quickly to avert the worst of climate change to protect our only home, planet Earth.
Our family has done all it can to lower our carbon footprint in housing and transportation, and while individual actions are a crucial part of averting a climate crisis, real change can come only on a societal level by electing political leaders who will act for the good of all, not just for the few.
Unless there is a secret alternative planet, politicians who deny that our planet Earth is warming rapidly will suffer the same consequences as their constituents.
Edwin Andrews
Malden, Mass.
What does Edwin want? Well, the only approach that will even promise to achieve his “do something” goals is installing completely trustworthy, benign totalitarian government coordinating with other totalitarian governments under the aegis of the United Nations.
Jeez, somebody tell him…
I wonder what political party he belongs to?
Ethics Alarms 
Step Right Up And Pick Your Tipping Point:
“HOURS: Flashback March 2009: ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster — Declares Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party
Days: Flashback Oct. 2009: UK’s Gordon Brown warns of global warming ‘catastrophe’; Only ’50 days to save world’
Months: Prince Charles claimed a 96-month tipping point in July 2009
Years: 2009: NASA’s James Hansen Declared Obama Only First Term to Save The Planet! — ‘On Jan. 17, 2009 Hansen declared Obama only ‘has four years to save Earth’ or Flashback Oct .2009: WWF: ‘Five years to save world’
Decades: 1982: UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the ‘world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.’
Millennium?: Flashback June 2010: 1000 years delay: Green Guru James Lovelock: Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out’
It is becoming obvious that the only authentic climate ‘tipping point’ we can rely is this one:
Flashback 2007: New Zealand Scientist on Global Warming: ‘It’s All Going to be a Joke in 5 Years‘ “
It seems appropriate to share this particular cartoon from Gary Varvel…
Does anyone but me notice the unethical repetitive pattern that the political left uses/abuses.
“Repent! The End is nigh!”
Other Bill wrote, “Repent! The End is nigh!”
Touché!
It’s another example of the toxic mix of religion and politics, Steve.
I completely agree.
Regarding Marilyn Sewell.
The Left/Dems have successfully delegitimized organized religion. Nature abhors a vacuum. Progressive politics have expanded into that vacuum. Religion and lefty politics are now one and the same. Of course, the UU has been a pseudo religion since its inception. To keep people in the pews, lefty churches have become nothing more than Lefty/Dem cells. The problem is all of politics and public policy has been rendered moral rather than practical. It’s why if you don’t vociferously denounce Donald Trump, you are a sinner and must be shamed and banished from the elect and polite society. You have lost your soul and will be condemned to eternal damnation. Voting Republican is not just a policy disagreement, it’s a fatal moral failing. This is a really, really screwed up situation. It’s as bad as the demise of the academy. I’m tired of it and I’m pretty sure at some point it will bite the Reverend Sewell in her butt and the butts of all the other annoying UUers and their insufferably morally superior fellow travelers, like the idiotic Edwin Andrews of Malden, Mass. He and the reverend can both go jump into Walden Pond. Assholes.
I have family that lives near Walden Pond and they ask, “Why polute such a beautiful spot?”
Yeah, well, it’s Massachusetts. I bet the Reverend Sewell is from the Commonwealth of originally. Mrs. OB’s high school boyfriend’s older brother was at one time the Pope of the UU!
Exactly. Leftism/progressivism gave replaced antiquated religions.
jvb
Marilyn Sewell
Portland, Ore.
The writer is minister emerita of the First Unitarian Church of Portland.
OK, I know it’s argumentum ad hominem, but if they led with that, couldn’t we all have pretty much guessed the general content of the following letter?
I’m waiting to hear how they plan on talking the sun out of that cyclical “sunspot” thing it likes to do.
The importance of being earnest.
I read this entry this morning right before Sunday School and decided I needed to comment. I had to wait until now to do so. The earlier comments made here about Climate Hysteria and other Progressive Talking Points being a religion have heartened me because that’s exactly was I was thinking before we ushered the middle schoolers inside to throw plastic eggs filled with candy into the air…
Back in 5th grade, I went to school one day to find rumors among my classmates that the world was going to end at X:XX hour. I don’t remember the exact time. This unnerved me, understandably, being 10-years old and reasonably religious enough to believe the world would end some day.
I still remember the deadly silence as the designated time approached. Then arrived. Then passed without incident or fanfare. There were no audible sighs of relief in that classroom of 5th graders but you could feel the tension escape, nonetheless.
I learned something that day. No one knows when the world will end.
Over the years, there have been further predictions by one doomsday prognosticator or another. Sometimes they’re based on writings of some obscure old fellow; more often than not, a TV or print-media preacher has done some multiplying from the book of Daniel and decided he knows when the 70-weeks will end and Christ will return.
As you can imagine, I have a vested interest in the return of Christ. But those predictions never work out either.
I have a Facebook friend… lovely man, family guy, friendly and generous…who does YouTube videos based on the return of Christ. If there’s a Jewish festival coinciding with an astronomical event, such as a comet or a Harvest moon, watch out! The video is posted, shared on Facebook with the requisite comments by his believing friends and followers about the End. Israel makes an agreement with one of its Muslim neighbors? Whoo-boy! Remember Tropical Storm Gabriel? The comments on this guy’s video posts were insane! Gabriel – the angel from the Bible. The storm was headed for an island named for Joseph; another island named for Mary; another island…you get the picture. God’s hand was seen in every movement of this thing. And, after all, the Bible does tell us that natural disasters, such as earthquakes will happen with greater frequency and in a diverse number of places near the End.
But the Bible also tells us in Matthew 24:36 that ““But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
But this fellow will argue that we will still know the signs of the times even if we can’t predict the exact day or hour.
Then nothing happens.
The videos stop for a little while with nothing else said.
I got tired of seeing this happen. One day, after a dry spell began again when the Lord still didn’t return, I reached out to my pastor, asking him if he knew about these videos and what he thought about them. I told him I was concerned that this fellow’s believing friends would become discouraged if he was always wrong and that his non-believing friends would find a further reason to reject Christ.
My pastor told me:
“There is a website (I can’t remember the site now) that lists every failed prediction since the 1st century. There are SO many! And they always have to do with wars, rumors of wars, famines, evil/corrupt governments, government agreements, church failure in leadership, etc.
5 years ago it was the blood moons. What ever came of that? Before that the year 2000 and Y2k…
And it’s almost always couched in “I cannot say for certain this is it… but…”. That way there is always an excuse when it doesn’t happen like “I told you I wasn’t saying this is it, but it’s sooo close…”
One day a prediction will be correct. Regardless, I live by faith and not by sight.”
So do I. I believe the world will end and that Christ will return. And that’s fine for Christianity. It’s not fine for Climate Science (or biological science or astronomical science or epidemiological science). When people present themselves as authorities on Science and claim that Science trumps religious belief because it’s based on fact and not faith, they’d better be prepared to be backed up with facts.
And they aren’t. Yet, they do the same things with these failed models that an End-of-the-World Believer does when the Eclipse of the Century doesn’t usher in the End of Days. They come back with excuses, such as, “These are just models, not exactly predictions” or, worse, “Of course, they didn’t happen. There were steps taken to slow it down!” And they point to reduction in carbon emissions or new legislation or friendly handshakes across borders that have minimal effect at best on the environment as evidence. They’ll still caution, “But that doesn’t mean it won’t happen if we don’t do more now, now, now!”
They’ve got something in their hearts that they need to worship so they’ve settled on this. They have to make the Climate Hysteria work which means they have to constantly adjust the models when what they predict doesn’t happen.
And, like my Facebook friend, they don’t recognize that true believers will eventually become discouraged and walk away from the faith after being fooled too many times by a bad prognostication while, at the same time, those they hope to recruit will have rejected the credibility of their dogma for the same reason.
Climate Change appears to be real. Like the return of Christ, though, it does not seem like there is much we can do to prevent it from happening, much less determine the Point of No Return.
I’m not at all sure climate change is real. Just for one example, somebody has to demonstrate that the data that are purported to show climate change are not simply the product of having a larger and ever-increasing sample size.
Other Bill wrote, “I’m not at all sure climate change is real.”
Let me assure you that climate change is real, it’s actually settled science that the climate is constantly changing and has done so since the dawn of time and there is absolutely nothing that human beings can do to change that fact. What’s not absolute is, are we in an apocalyptic global warming period or not, this is the point that everyone is truly arguing about. The problem is that statistical data related to climate and whether apocalyptic global warming is happening right now or not is not settled science, the interpretation of the data which is very selectively chosen, aka biased, to promote a specific viewpoint regardless of which side of the global warming side one happens to belong. There is absolutely nothing “settled” about what the climate is going to do in the next 1, 2, 5, 10 or 50 years and anyone that tells you that their predictions are settled science fact is a bald-faced unscientific liar.
The frustrating thing about the climate debates is the motte-and-bailey tactic levied against the “climate-deniers”. Of course we all know that the climate changes, and has changed. And we also know that the “climate change” the alarmists are trumpeting is supposedly athropogenic. Anyone who disagrees with them is labelled as a “climate denier,” someone so hideously foolish as to believe the climate isn’t changing. The tactic is meant to smear them as decidedly out of touch, since we do have strong evidence of a warming globe since the 1970’s. But pointing out that the denial is merely on the anthropogenic portion of the alarmist claims is met with further claims that that wasn’t the argument at all. Of course they meant the deniers were deniers about the athropogenic causes. But still they couch “deniers” as though they were denying any change to the climate at all.
Yes, I know. Immigrants conflated with illegal aliens. Choice conflated with killing an unborn child. Voter suppression conflated with common sense voting regulations. Common sense gun laws conflated with outlawing guns. The litany goes. Make the language dance, so we can say what we want to say but always fall back on, “we didn’t mean it like that,” if the pushback is too severe.
Ryan,
I agree that climate is changing – and has been since climate began – but the evidence that the planet it warming up is debatable. Tony Heller, an environmentalist (among other things) and a software guy, has been showing for years that overall temperatures in many areas are actually cooling slightly. He also contends that climate alarmists have been cherry-picking data for years to back up false assertions that not only is the planet warming at an alarming rate, but that man is the ultimate culprit. He is a prolific creator of video content on Youtube…he still hasn’t been banned.
I encourage you to watch this one from his channel and see what you think. It’s from about three years ago, is 12-13 minutes long, and is very revealing. There are hundreds more there.
Joel,
I’ll check it out later tonight, hopefully.
My general accession to the idea that the globe is warming is predicated on two main items. The first is satellite data, which is vetting by groups like Watts Up With That, which does show a general warming trend since 1970. The second is that we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, which ran from the early 1300s to the mid 1800s. By all accounts, we are already 4 DegC warmer than in 1750, and of course, the net effect has been quite beneficial to mankind.
That we would see regions warming and regions cooling across the globe is no surprise. To an extent, that’s what makes talking about a global temperature so crazy. The vast differences in regional climate, obliterated by an average, need to be observed and analyzed and incorporated into the whole. Of course, that is practically impossible. That’s why weather forecasts are still, despite all our models and supercomputing, barely accurate. The number of variables required to model the weather (not to mention the number of unknowns we are still wrangling with) quickly makes the problem intractable.
One particular item that is of note among the skeptics are the pauses in the average global warming, the latest of which lasted from 2014 to 2022. Yes, there were warmer years in that timeframe, but there were also colder years, so that taken as a whole, all the peaks and troughs averaged to 0 change in average global temperature. If the primary driver of global warming is anthropogenic CO2, how is it that we have these pauses (of which there have been several) while atmospheric CO2 is still higher than it has ever been in recent history?
For the record (I hope I’ve made this clear before), I don’t deny that the planet is warming to some extent or another. I also think it’s likely that human activity is responsible for at least a significant amount of it BUT…
…the degree, pace, duration and consequences of climate change is far more uncertain than is being represented
…there is far more disagreement on the causes that the media communicated
…the most aggressive activists on the matter don’t know what they are talking about
…climate change is being dishonestly exploited for political ends unrelated to cliamte change
…there is virtually nothing that can be done about the matter that does not require world government or cooperation between nations that can’t be trusted, and
…making symbolic policy gestures in the US that can’t possibly have a long-term effect on climate change is so stupid that it makes my brain hurt.
Jack,
You touch on my personal dilemma regarding the entire climate change fiasco. I’m not a climate scientist — I’m a mathematician, a theoretical computer scientist, an amateur theologian, and a controls engineer. So I rely on experts to conduct the research and provide the analysis on the results. But now we get the crux of the issue.
I don’t trust the experts. I know that if person A is delivering proposition Y, and A is untrustworthy, that does not falsify Y. Y stands on its own merits no matter the merits of anyone proposing Y. However, if the merits of Y are only conveyed through A, and A is untrustworthy, then I cannot trust that A is presenting the actual merits of Y. Thus I cannot weigh Y apart from A, and I am more inclined to reject Y.
At this time, I do not reject the proposition that human causes are influencing the global temperature profile. But given that the solutions, as you pointed out, are so politically influenced, and are so inept at actually handling the problem, and that the problem itself is being channeled through sources I do not trust, I find the probability that anthropogenic climate change is an issue is too small to justify beggaring the world.
Exactly.
Assets might better be directed towards developing means of DEALING with expected changes rather than futile schemes hoping to maybe stop climate variances. Very little consideration seems to be given to that. Maybe it’s not as lucrative for the hucksters.
Great comment AM. You said much of what I was going post.
jvb
I recently watched a podcast from the Hoover Institute (I can enthusiastically recommend you check out their YouTube channel). The Goodfellows podcast had Bjorn Lundberg as their guest, a noted climate scientist — he believes man made climate change is real, but doesn’t subscribe to the various apocalyptic projections that politicians are so fond of making.
Here is one of his suggestions — if we increased the amount of mosquito netting provided in sub-Saharan Africa by a mere 10%, it could potentially save perhaps 200,000 lives per year (from malaria) and, even more, if so many people are not perpetually ill with malaria there would be an enormous productivity increase and increase in potential production in those countries.
Regarding the various remedies that are proposed, the UN and other organizations are promoting a fairly simple message to Africa: We think you should forego any use of fossil fuels — for example to create a reliable and sustainable energy grid — and you should remain impoverished so that we can say we are solving the climate problem.
Well, they aren’t going to do that. We in the West didn’t do that — and won’t give up all our stuff. Our best shot at solving these problems is a rising tide of worldwide prosperity and wealth.
One of Lundberg’s key points is that global warming, in the worst case scenario is likely to result in perhaps a 5% loss in worldwide GDP by 2100. That’s a fair chunk of change, but not much compared to the untold trillions we are supposed to spend in a futile effort to avert the warming.
There are things we know — know — how to do right now that, for a relatively trivial amount of money and effort — will pay huge benefits in terms of better health, better productivity, etc. As opposed to the trillions and trillions we are supposed to spend in a likely failing attempt to avert global warming.
“a fairly simple message to Africa: We think you should forego any use of fossil fuels”
Same pitch is paid to wide swaths of Asia; don’t expect Limo Lefties to cut back, that’s for Little People.
Whatever you do, don’t ask ’em about AIR CONDITIONING
Exactly. We’ve got ours but you can’t have it.
Oh Paulie. Air conditioning schmere conditioning. Everybody’s supposed to move to Duluth and Frostbite Falls. You know, environmental migrants I think is what they’re called. (Of course, they can freeze in the winter when their solar and wind powered heat pump stops working.)
They can go back to um-ggoga-um-googa village culture.
Forbid any country where, say, less than80% of residences have AC from any new installations. They’re obviously historically used to being without it, and that would reduce the future load on power and climate. Is they should have higher heart related death rates, that reduces the potential population as well, so another bonus.
If and heat, not is and heart.
As a note, here’s an interesting speech given at Energy Industries Club in the UK. It has a lot of useful information that should be well know. But from this, any alarmist should be forced to answer the following questions:
1. Do you know how many people die each year due to cold-related complications?
2. Do you know how many fewer deaths will occur due to cold-related complications with a global warming of 1.5 DegC?
3. Do you understand the dangers of intermittency on the grid, the numerous power consumers outside of the residential zones that will be impacted? (Medical is certainly a big one.)
4. Do you know the limitations of natural resources, and the appalling conditions many people in second and third world countries endure to extract those resources?
5. Do you know there is no official analysis of the cost of simply adjusting our homes and technologies to deal with the projected consequences of climate change? Why should we believe that decarbonizing our economies (and possibly placing us a hundred years back in terms of power availability and even crop production) is a more affordable alternative than adjust to a warmer climate?
My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, provided all the data we need on climate change.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=380576&p=4522430#post4522430
It is no wonder he greatly influenced my own political v iews for twenty-five years!
“Do something!” This claim is exactly as stupid as you say, Jack, and the people who make it for climate activism are either uneducated on the issue, or showing malice. Given Hanlon’s razor, I always assume I should try and give a few facts rather than despair, but man, I feel like despairing. I always ignore discussing whether or not the global climate is being changed by humans, though I certainly believe the evidence suggests that a worldwide effect caused by man-made carbon dioxide is completely false. I also think that 1.5C is not a target that even should cause us any worry, especially since we have long passed that and have actually seen conditions around the globe improve. Quadruple that…maybe, but maybe not. Indeed, while one can see that the globe has warmed since the 1800s, is that warming bad? Polar bears are thriving, Greta… Ice age, until it was politically expedient, used to mean there was ice on the poles and the ice age wasn’t over until the poles were ice free. However, that isn’t really a discussion that is truly where I like to focus. I like to focus on solutions, which is really more in my wheelhouse anyway
“We need to cut greenhouse gases roughly in half by 2030 and stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the early 2050’s if we are to have a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celcius… Our problems are not chiefly economic and political – they are spiritual.”
I have noticed that many “solutions” the left provides for so many things are posed as spiritual or humanistic. “It is called sharing. It isn’t that hard.” They don’t seem to think their ideas through. Most of these ideas are ones that, really, require all of humanity to work altruistically. However, if everyone stays working for everyone else, and never being selfish, these ideals MAY flourish, if someone starts away from pure altruism, the plans immediately fail and put us in worse scenarios than we would have been in before. They also almost always assume that everyone lives identical lives. Someone who lives with a non-standard condition, like cancer, or even just chronic illness will throw all of these ideals into the toilet or cause loss of life to these people with unusual circumstances. They also don’t realize how far these problems reach.
I have commented on previous posts about the issues with renewable energy. Instead of boring you with my soapbox again, I will summarize the items. Coal and natural gas work well in electricity, petroleum works well in transportation and the chemical industry. The other solutions out there are not viable for large scale replacement and usage, though they do work in select small scale operations, sometimes even sort of economically.
The first thing to discuss with this quote here is, “stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the early 2050’s.” If one took this at face value, it is nothing less than saying that we need to kill all humans and animals. That would then harm the plants as they would be unable to grown without CO2. All that would be left on earth would be extremophilic bacteria. Not really saving the planet for much there, are we? I don’t think the writer wants to kill her grandchildren that she seems so worried about, so let’s assume she doesn’t say what she means. What she must mean is that she wants to decrease carbon dioxide radically. I will assume we want to get rid of all industrial carbon dioxide emissions.
Now, what does that really mean? Truly, this means a drastic change in our standard of living. That change will drop us to a horrible place that no one wants to consider, if they actually think this through. There is too much in our society that relies on CO2-creating energy sources. I have written and rewritten this comment many times, perhaps creating 60-100 pages on many different items. I continually pared it back, until this option, which discusses, in limited detail, only two items. Water and plastic.
Water is necessary in several aspects. First, we need clean water to drink. Our plants need clean-ish water to grow. Finally, handling large quantities of human waste is most efficiently handled with water. Two of these three are energy sinks for most of the US, and the third is up in the air, literally. Humans need clean water. Depending on where you live, you many be able to get a bunch from rivers, lakes, or even rainwater, otherwise, you have to drill in the ground. Some wells can have very clean water, so all you really need to do is pump it out. My parents have a 9,000 foot deep well. Their well pump is a monster. They live very frugal lives with water, but it is an energy sink when they need it. Most of us aren’t as lucky as my parents, who could maybe get a solar pump and a monster set of lead batteries to run it when they need water and the snow is too deep to find the solar panels like it was this weekend. Most people get their water from where other people, animals, and industries dump waste such as rivers and lakes. They have to get it cleaned. The cleaning depends on the water, but a fairly standard process is: screening, aeration, coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, chlorination, and supplementary treatment. Some of this can be done without electricity, but most requires a large amount of it. Skipping steps is not highly recommended as doing so increases the chances of parasites, protozoa, and bacteria in the water, as well as some chemicals not usually indicated for human consumption. Cholera, anyone? But wait, once it is cleaned, how does it get to your home? It is pumped through a system, that, assuming all goes well, provides you with all the water you want. To cut the energy usage on this in the US, we would have to accept many more deaths from preventable illness and our societies would look a great deal more like third world countries with a single well or pump where the entire village gets their water that they have to haul back to their house each day. You could do that, and filter and boil your own water to avoid illness, but that will take hours out of your day. I had to do it once when my community had a water issue, and 10-12 hours of my day were focused on that. Is this a step backwards that we want to take?
Human waste handling is huge. People can put liquid waste into the ground and not worry too much. Urine is sterile, unless you have an infection. However, solid waste can either be put in a hole in the ground and decompose (10-18 months before it is safe to use as fertilizer) or removed from the premise by some manner. Most people use the “remove it from my locale” option, usually with toilets or a septic tank and water. Outhouses are typically the other option and most of those are still dug out and shipped elsewhere rather than personally handling all of your family’s crap. Both have issues, but the outhouse one, as long as you are ok with that, would be the way to go for decreasing energy reliance. The removal option requires energy intensive removal, either through municipal sewage facilities, or honey wagons. Do we really want to all have outhouses? Say goodbye to indoor plumbing? Outhouses stink, they require more effort on our parts, and how much do you want to meander out back in several feet of snow to relieve yourself in the winter? Not to mention that improper handling of outhouse material leads to increased disease. If we remove water treatment for sewage usage, we will save a lot of energy but…is this a step backward that we want to take?
Frankly, water alone suggests that the solution of no longer emitting CO2 is ridiculous, but I’m going to hit one more that is near and dear to my heart, single-use plastics and similar materials. Those all need to go to drop carbon dioxide to your preferred levels. Before you say, “great, I’m all about getting rid of single use plastics,” think about surgery. Do you really want to believe that every single doctor you deal with perfectly sanitizes all their hands and all their tools? No more gloves? No more sterile wrapped tools or silicone catheters? Are you ok with the idea that your IV catheter was used by the AID’s patient who was in the room before you? What about the IV bag that contained a medicine at only a sublethal dosage for someone with a condition you don’t have. Are you sure you like sharing that? How about no longer getting a stainless steel stent because the forging process is extremely energy intensive and requires burning serious fuels. I personally have a kids who gets a 30 days supply of sterilely wrapped medical equipment every single month. I can imagine what life would look like without that. I’d be traveling to a gravesite with flowers. Is this what you want for your kids and grandkids? What about the rest of us? This is not a place I want to step back from.
This approach to “solving the climate crisis” is nothing more than declaring that we want to go back to a society that is so regressive that we cannot understand it. Our society depends on all of these things, and no one likes to think about what we would really give up. People truly don’t think about all the luxuries that we would no longer be allowed. I cannot imagine what all I would have to give up, but when it comes to, “why wouldn’t you just make the right choice?” what people are really asking me, with my daughter’s health on the line, is “we want to have you lose your daughter so we can feel good about ourselves.” They might not see the problems with even the smallest changes, but for me, even a simple loss of electricity to my home, or the loss of single use plastics is a drastic concern. There are people who cannot possibly have their homes colder, travel in cars less, or take any of these recommendations, and a society that forces them is not only not free, but it is significantly less fair than any of them think. Do they really not see the consequences of their actions? Or is it truly that these people are asking me to sacrifice my daughter tomorrow so that they can maybe save their (great) grandchildren from a catastrophe that probably will not happen in 100 years or possibly in human history?
Here was what Chris wrote.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=380576&p=4522359#post4522359
I have said it before…
CO2 is not the problem…period.
People who study these things claim that the largest explosion of life occurred in the Cambrian (or Pre-Cambrian) era…six hundred million years ago…something like that. You know what they estimate CO2 levels to have been in that period?…the largest expansion of life? Ready?…7,000 parts per million. That’s seventeen times the level of CO2 that we have now (what climate alarmists are saying will kill us).
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. 90+% of the atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is .04%. And guess what?…the frequency range of infrared energy absorbed by CO2 is almost entirely in the range that is already absorbed by water vapor. We could have 2x the CO2…5x the CO2…heck, 50x the CO2, and it really won’t change much.
The REAL solution to warming is cutting vast amounts of water vapor from the atmosphere. And other than a pesky side effect – turning the planet into a hotbox that kills all life – the problem is solved.
But of course, the UN’s IPCC is not interested in actually solving a problem. They’re interested in taking your money, and they are using a bunch of people shouting “Do something!!” as the mechanism by which they will try to do that.
Agreed.
Joel Mundt wrote, “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. 90+% of the atmosphere is water vapor. CO2 is .04%.”
Joel,
How do I use the data in the following chart to verify that “90+% of the atmosphere is water vapor”, am I missing something or is the chart missing something? I honestly don’t know.
Not to speak for Joel, but I think he means 90%+ of atmospheric green house gases. In the makeup of air, with 21% O2, 78% N2, and almost 1% Ar, that leaves less than 1% to squeeze in all the other gases. There are other gases than greenhouse gases, but the bulk of that <1% other is made up of water vapor. CO2, at 450 ppm, is 4.5% of 1% of the atmosphere, which is pretty small. Though if you think about it, 450 ppm of H2S is lethal to humans, so…
Steve,
Yup, that’s pretty much how it breaks down. 0.04% is 4% of 1%, or about 400 ppm.
I know why the diagram uses dry air (water vapor being so variable), but it does obscure how minor a player CO2 is in comparison. It also doesn’t help Joel’s assertion, assuming I’m faithfully representing what he means.
I mean, 90% of the atmosphere being water vapor would be even more intense than anywhere along the Gulf Coast…
Here’s at least part of their argument about water vapor…
I have only one quibble here:
“If non-condensable gases weren’t increasing, the amount of atmospheric water vapor would be unchanged from its pre-industrial revolution levels.”
This presupposes a couple of things which are very much in question. If the non-condensable gas concentrations were constant, we could still have more water vapor, because the primary driver of global temperatures is the sun. Variations in energy from the sun have an impact on temperature, and that can drive the amount of water vapor. This is especially true that the world has been warming since 1850, and some analyses even point at the warming trend starting around 1750 (with a dive downward in the early 19th century, just in time to unleash a blizzard on Napoleon in Russia, and then bog down his army in a rain squall at Waterloo (I may be making this up…)). The point is that these are pre-industrial times when warming occurred, so it would be difficult to blame the warming on the CO2 concentrations which did not tick up substantially until the late 19th century.
I thought it was a stretch to make that statement too.
Ryan,
Care to share a comment on this, Global Atmospheric Carbon & Fossil Fuels?
(Cross commenting with your blog, Steve…)
The problem with all efforts to insist the US (or the UK, or the EU) lead the way in decarbonization is that contributions of each of those is too small on their own to make any difference. The climate alarmists want to believe that if someone leads the way, everyone else will follow, setting aside their individual goals altruistically for the benefit of all mankind. This ignores reality, the political goals of other nations (Russia, China, India, the developing world as a whole…), and human nature. At best, everyone shaking hands on reducing CO2 emissions to pre-industrial levels is global exercise of the prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone will be confident that everyone else is crossing their fingers behind their backs, and thus everyone will think that either than pull an economic/political/sociological advantage by not agreeing to the climate agenda, or everyone will renege on the climate agenda out of fear that others will pull an advantage over them. Or some idiot country will go through with its decarbonization, and quickly succumb to its enemies who retained economic/political/military resources.
Ryan,
Mine was a terribly written response. Some good stuff, and some written without properly checking my facts before hitting submit. That’s rather embarrassing and I apologize. I would ask that it be deleted except that it should remain for my own humbling so that I’m far more careful in the future.
Joel Mundt wrote, “Mine was a terribly written response. Some good stuff, and some written without properly checking my facts before hitting submit. That’s rather embarrassing and I apologize.”
Joel,
Those things happen to all of us, no need for an apology.
…especially me.
Steve, et al,
Thanks, but I’m giving myself 40 “mental” lashes for being so careless. I don’t like it when the other side is so flippant with facts. I should not fall into that trap myself. K…I feel better.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.”
An absolute epitome of grift/graft, the UNIPCC conducts no research of its own, which should come as no surprise. Follow the money; it’s not in the research, it’s in the solutions recommended by the Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM) addendum to its Assessment Reports (AR’s).
While this may come as something of a surprise, the “solutions” quite often benefit financially those who propose them.
Anyone wondering why the UNIPCC has fought reform and scrutiny, wonder no more.
The UNIPCC answers to no one, has no obligation to give an audience to anyone who doesn’t confirm the “Consensus” and has NO Conflict-Of-Interest (COI) provision.
A while back, an INTERACADEMY COUNCIL investigation recommended sweeping changes to the UNIPCC.
“*(T)he council said (the UNIPCC) needs a full-time executive director, more openness and regular changes in leadership.
*It called for stronger enforcement of its reviews of research and adoption of a COI policy, which the IPCC does not have, even though its parent agencies do.”
*The COI issue was raised because of former Chair Rajendra Pachauri’s work as adviser and board member of green energy companies, etc., etc., etc.
The UNIPCC’s response? “F*CK OFF!!…a somewhat more direct iteration of BITE ME…
These TRILLION$ in “solutions” here are financed by ‘taking $ from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.’
Why did the Maldives take a half a BILLION in “Climate Reparations” and build golf courses and airports to promote tourism (Fly-In Golfers?) rather than moving all their $#!t to higher ground?
The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), comprised of a veritable Who’s Who of Climate Criminal Lefties; (Al Gore, Jr., Maurice Strong, Frank Raines, Uncle Georgie Soros, the Lefty Foundations, et al) WAS SHUTTERED for failing to fulfill the one reason for its existence: Lining the pockets of Gucci-slippered Carbon Traders and rent-seeking corporations.
Expected to generate trades reaching into the 14 figures, it would have been a Lefty Statist’s wet freakin’ dream!
“At its founding in November 2000, it was estimated that the size of CCX’s carbon trading market could reach $500 billion. That estimate ballooned over the years to $10 trillion.”
That’s some serious jack for trading what amounts to thin air.
The kind of people that kind of money tends to attract IS NOT Sunday School teachers or the Boy Scout Den Mothers!