Why should we do anything now to limit
the impact of unknown future climate change?
Leftists refuse to ask that question.
They say we MUST act now,
because they say so,
and cost is almost no object,
because they say so.
This blog is different -- based on
real science, not climate astrology
( wild guess, always wrong, scary
predictions of the future climate ).
In "realityland", actual global warming
in the past 300+ years, of at least
+2 degrees C., has been 100%
good news.
No one in their right mind would
want it to stop -- it's a disappointment
that there's been virtually no global
warming in the 15 years from
early 2003 through 2018 !
Real scientists study the PAST climate.
Past global warming has been
100% good news.
That's reality.
Smarmy leftists make scary wild guess
predictions about the FUTURE climate.
Future global warming
is ALWAYS predicted
to be 100% bad news
... that never shows up !
That's junk science !
Visions of a coming global warming problem
started with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957.
Climate computer games started in the 1970's,
using a formula that's still being used today --
predicting quadruple the actual warming rate
from 1940 through 2018, and predicting triple
the actual warming rate from 1979 through 2018.
That's quite a formula !
The predictions are always far from reality,
but the formula behind the predictions
never changes !
Leftists apparently don't care about the 60+
years of wrong predictions, including 30+ years
of wrong predictions using computer games.
But never mind that no one actually knows
whether the future average temperature
will be warmer, or cooler.
And never mind that past global warming
was always good news, while future
global warming is always predicted
to be bad news.
The only questions
leftists are interested in
is how much money to spend,
and how much more power
the government needs,
to "fight climate change".
As propaganda to support their unprovable
beliefs, leftists use science fraud and
fake cost-benefit analyses !
The science fraud is the evidence-free claim
that the future climate will be 100% different than
the climate in the prior 78 years, since 1940.
The past 78 years, since 1940, are very
important because they include additions
of significant amounts of man made CO2
to the atmosphere, from burning fossil fuels.
No one knows the effect of CO2 additions
to the atmosphere, but we can assume a
worst case -- that ALL warming since 1940
was caused only by CO2, and nothing but CO2.
Making that assumption about CO2
ignores the global warming period from
1910 to 1940, that had about two-thirds
of the warming from 1975 to 2003,
which was said to be natural warming,
NOT blamed on CO2.
The 1910 to 1940 warming is strong
evidence that natural global warming
is an alternative explanation
for the 1975 to 2003 warming.
With very rough measurements,
government bureaucrats claim
+0.6 degrees C. of global warming
from 1940 through 2018.
That's a global warming rate
of only 0.77 degrees C. per century
-- completely harmless, at worst.
Actually, global warming so far has been
beneficial, based on real science.
If the climate-change alarmists' proposed
conversion to renewable energy ever
became feasible, the costs would be huge.
There are computer game forecasts about the
future climate.
They have made very wrong global average
temperature forecasts since the 1970s.
But never mind that !
We need to know the future distribution
of climate around the world—for areas the
size of individual nations and regions.
A global average would not be useful.
On the scale of regions, no useful climate
forecasts are possible, not even in principle,
for long-term forecasts.
What fraction of the observed rise
in global surface temperature
since 1979
( a warming rate of about
+1 degree Celsius over a century )
was caused by man made CO2?
No one knows.
The entire warming could have had natural
causes, such as the cause of glaciers
covering Canada melting, from about
20,000 years ago, to 10,000 year ago.
A set of hundred-year forecasts
of the average rainfall over Australia
was produced by various climate
models around the world.
Present-day measured rain averages
about 450 millimeters per year.
The model forecasts for the next century
ranged from less than 200 mm,
to more than 1000 mm per year.
That's quite a range of wild guesses !
Economic models of the future,
of regions and nations, would be
highly unreliable because the
regional and national climate
forecasts are unreliable.
To make matters worse,
economic models are based on
statistical relations between
economic variables devised
for present-day conditions.
There is no particular reason
why these relationships
should be valid in the future.
Economic models
carry the present
into the future.
Economist Kenneth Galbraith once said:
“Economic forecasting was invented
to make astrology look respectable.”
There is a lot of discussion among
academics as to what should be
an appropriate “discount for the future”
to apply in the cost-benefit calculations.
The climate cost-benefit "business"
consists of no certainty about any
of the numbers used in the "calculations".
It is simply assumed,
with no evidence,
that all future
climate change
will be bad news,
while all past
climate change
was good news !
There is no recognition
that future climate change
could be continued good news !
There is little, or no, recognition
that humans can adapt to
very slow changes in the climate.
The claim that we must collectively do something
drastic -- now -- to prevent climate change in the future,
is a steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste
products, to use a technical term.
That claim is like any religious belief,
based on faith.
Perhaps I seem harsh here, but I have been
an atheist since I was old enough to know
what the word meant.
And I see the demonization of CO2 as a modern
"secular religion" -- a replacement for conventional
religions, for people who abandoned them, but still
feel a need to be part of a religious group.
As a replacement for traditional religions,
the Climate Change Cult manufactured
a set of beliefs about climate change
to guide and control human behavior.
Their beliefs are similar to those
of conventional religions, as they are
unprovable, in any strict scientific sense.
Either that, or mankind is insane for
demonizing CO2, the staff of life !