Good News: Holding The World Under 2C May Destroy Economies

Or require the use of future technologies that haven’t been invented yet. So, essentially, economic doom or unicorns, as the Washington Post’s hyper-Warmist Chris Mooney inadvertently tells us, in regards to The Magic Number

Getting the world’s governments to reach a global agreement at the United Nations’ climate conference in Paris is going to require careful politics, but the effort may be up against an even tougher challenge: mathematics.

The central goal of the gathering is to forge an agreement that would set the world on a path to ultimately restrict planetary warming to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures. The target was originally proposed by the European Union in the 1990s as a way to avert some of the worst consequences of climate change, such as rising sea levels.

But as ambitious as this effort is, time and numbers are working against it. Some scientists and analysts now suggest the two-degree target may be all but out of reach. The world has waited so long to cut emissions, they say, that sticking to two degrees may require extremely harsh cuts that could damage economies, or the assumption of future technologies that have not been invented yet.

Let’s consider that the global temperature has gone up a reported 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850. What they’re yammering on about is a 1.2C increase by 2100. At the low end, now, because they’ve significantly increased their doomy prognostications. Unless we destroy our economies. And put Government in charge of our lives to control our “carbon budget”.

All for a junk science issue which typically polls last or next to last when put up against real issues. This is primarily being pushed by people who have an economic and/or political stake in the game. Politicians want more power, and others are seeing an economic reward from pushing this on Everyone Else, while refusing to live the life they want to force on Everyone Else. Another “journalist”, Justin Gillis, the NY Times’ resident Warmist, also makes an inadvertent truth-saying

In the end, though, experts do not believe the needed transformation in the energy system can happen without strong state and national policies. So speaking up and exercising your rights as a citizen matters as much as anything else you can do.

Funny how the main solution to a supposed “environmental issue” is power to Government. Gillis also provides a few whoppers and falsehoods, meant to scare people, such as

The ocean is rising at a rate of about a foot per century. That causes severe effects on coastlines, forcing governments and property owners to spend tens of billions of dollars fighting erosion. But if that rate continued, it would probably be manageable, experts say.

The sea rise measurement for the 20th Century was just 7 inches. That’s not “about a foot per century.” The average sea rise during the last 7,000 years, used due to that being when the massive sea rise from the end of the last ice age ended, is just 6-8 inches. Thinking back to elementary school math, remember how averages are obtained. Which means a Holocene warm period should be much higher. Why the need to lie in the article, one which also distorts, heck, lies about, the reasons behind why Skeptics are not buying into the anthropogenic ‘climate change’ scareathon?

Most of the attacks on climate science are coming from libertarians and other political conservatives who do not like the policies that have been proposed to fight global warming. Instead of negotiating over those policies and trying to make them more subject to free-market principles, they have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to undermine the science.

We don’t trust the science, the computer models, the people who have a vested interest in pushing the subject. Why would we possibly negotiate over policies that tremendously increase governmental control over our lives, private entities, and the economy? Policies that will damage our economy and raise our cost of living while possibly reducing our modern lifestyles? Government in control is not free market. It starts with the science, which is the equivalent of junk bonds status.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend