Posted on 04/08/2008 7:55:54 AM PDT by Froufrou
In the very same week that Gore launched a $300 million public relations campaign to convince Americans that "together we can solve the climate crisis," prominent climate alarmist Tom Wigley essentially endorsed President Bush’s approach to global warming while criticizing that of Gore’s co-Nobelist, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
In Nature on April 3, Wigley writes that the technology challenge presented by the goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations "has been seriously underestimated by the IPCC, diverting attention from policies that could directly stimulate technological innovation."
Wigley describes that document as relying on "unrealistic" and "unachievable" CO2 emissions scenarios — even for the present decade. For the period 2000-2010, the IPCC assumes that energy and fossil fuel efficiency is increasing.
But Wigley points out that in recent years energy and fossil fuel efficiency have decreased, reversing the trend of previous decades. One reason for this phenomenon, says Wigley, is the economic transformation occurring in the world, particularly in Asia.
Whereas the IPCC assumes in its emissions scenarios that CO2 emissions in Asia are increasing by 2.6 percent to 4.8 percent annually, China’s emissions actually are increasing at a rate of 11 percent to 13 percent annually.
"Because of these dramatic changes in the global economy, it is likely that we have only just begun to experience the surge in global energy use associated with rapid development. Such trends are in stark contrast to the optimism of the near-future IPCC projections and seem unlikely to alter course soon," Wigley writes.
As a consequence, "enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at acceptable levels," he concludes. Wigley faults the IPCC for assuming these technological advances will occur spontaneously as opposed to creating the conditions for innovation to occur.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Terrible analysis. The measure of success is not which program actually does something to help reduce carbon emissions, the measure of success is how much money for the IPCC and their associated green companies does it raise? The true science beyond global warming is centered around money raising, and their plans do that well.
Yes, innovation is definitely needed. A great opportunity for creative entrepreneurship and the creation of jobs and income.
“...enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at acceptable levels...”
I doubt that we even have the slightest idea what “acceptable levels” of atmospheric CO2 are.
There is no climate crisis - which is good, because we couldn’t fix it if there was..
ROTFLMAO. The Gorecle does not donate money to other people? Other people are supposed to donate to him.
The correlation coefficient between rising CO2 and global mean temperature is zero.
I am amazed at how many people believe in Global Warming.
If the weather is unseasonably warm or cool just for one day, Global Warming is the cause.
When I ask them, are they going to give up their car and air conditioning, they look at me like I am crazy.
Teehee. No flies on you [or me.] ;o)
You both sound vaguely familiar in the tones of your posts...are you both retired gubmint employees?
j/k ;o)
By 2014 at the latest, China’s CO2 emissions will be DOUBLE the US, and by 2020, the CO2 per/person in China will equal that of the US. China and India will never agree to CO2 controls for their economies, the left is merely trying to bludgeon the West into this scam in order to hasten the demise of our way of life. Aided by the enivowackos who actually believe the GW crap, the socialist/marxist crowd has found a way to destroy our country via environmentalism. That is the ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore won’t tell you.
Zero, at least from man.
“...the socialist/marxist crowd has found a way to destroy our country via environmentalism. That is he ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore won’t tell you.”
[applause!] I think you left out one thing: that we DESERVE it, as Ward Churchill would say and probably already has, because of our selfish consumptive ways.
Feh.
Not a chance.
I’m not sure how rejecting the fundamental assumptions of what we “know” about climate and the environment implies government employment.
If anything I think the reverse would be true.
Famous oxymorons: government intelligence.
hattip.
To solve a problem that doesn't exist?
A great opportunity for creative entrepreneurship and the creation of jobs and income.
Regulation doesn't create (net) jobs; they destroy them.
“Zero, at least from man.”
‘kay.
I’ll try not to exhale...ever...again.
There is here in eastern Washington!!! Here we are in April and haven’t had day in the 60’s yet let alone the high 70’s & 80’s (at least a week of these by now based upon past observations) and we can still see the snow on the low hills toward Bickleton..
Last week we were still breaking records for over night lows with temps in the high teens and low 20’s...
Bring back global warming now!!!
Please re-submit your question in triplicate on form 1324-C and then take a number..
What, no waiting in line?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.