The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report from Copenhagen, Denmark that said, in summary, “Climate change is happening, it’s almost entirely man’s fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emission to zero this century…” (I’m assuming they don’t intend to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide exhaled by humans and other animals.)
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.” The report once again mentions the “…melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice…”
I’ve expressed my opinions on this subject many times, and I still consider myself a denier, as the global warming advocates enjoy calling people who don’t agree with them. I still think the earth may warm, or it may cool, but it is certain the climate will change just as it always has.
I intend to focus on Antarctic and Arctic ice levels posted on the National Sea and Ice Data Center web site. Recent peak levels in the Antarctic set a new record over the period of satellite observations. Global warming fans say that isn’t important. I reason, perhaps naively, that warmer temperatures probably would result in less ice and not more.
That brings us to the comment about “…melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice. Once again I go to the National Sea and Ice Data Center web site. The graphs show 2014 ice levels are more extensive than in 2012. Both 2013 and 2014 to date have had more area covered by sea ice than 2010, 2011, or 2012. The graph of the 2014 levels have taken a slight dip lately, but it is still within the plus or minus two standard deviations of the 1981-2010 average (something that’s important to people who study statistics).
I’ve read one explanation for why the last Arctic sea ice coverage has increased is that it is “young and thin ice.” I reason, once again perhaps naively, that thin ice would melt faster and the area of coverage would decrease if the Arctic is getting warmer.
I’m certain I’m being “hard-headed” about this. I know that I intuitively resent when I hear “the science is settled,” “science has spoken,” or, “Today only a small minority of scientists challenge the mainstream conclusion that climate change is linked to human activity.” I didn’t originate the statement that “It only takes one scientist to be right…” but I believe it.
THe IPCC, being an organ of the UN, is first and foremost a political body with political goals. Goal number one is to bring “fairness” to the world by reining in the economic clout of the US and other developed nations. The concept of human-caused climate change is the perfect tool for this. If Capitalism can be blamed for impending climatic doom, then perhaps the Capitalists can be shamed into more egalitarian behavior?
Capitulating to this guilt trip will hamstring our economy by raising the cost of energy and instigate a massive transfer of wealth from developed nations to the third world via some form of carbon cap and trade, all of which will result in a degradation in the standard of living enjoyed in the West, an outcome that has long been high on the wish list of most of the rest of the world.
Never one to buck a good liberal cause, our Prez just gave away the store and the warehouse to the Chinese for a toothless promise from Beijing to cap China’s carbon emissions sometime before 2030. We agree to cut our carbon footprint down to a toe print on a firm timetable, while China continues to build a coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next decade.
Climate science may not be settled, but the science of Leftwing politics is.