Monday, November 11, 2013

So Why Does the Catastrophic Global Warming Hypothesis Continue to Flourish??

One word: Money. There is a very good reason I refer to these people as "Big Climate." The dollars are huge.

Read this:

Number of the Week: $22,195,000,000 US. As required by law, the White House delivered to Congress a report stating in Fiscal Year 2013, which ended on September 30, the US government spent $22,195,000,000 on climate change matters. The main categories are: US Global Change Research Program $2.463 Billion; Clean Energy Technologies $5.783 Billion, International Assistance $797 Million; Natural Resources Adaption $95 Million; Energy Tax Provisions That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases $4.999 Billion; Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions $8.080 Billion. The $8.080 Billion buys a lot of lobbying power for the wind and solar industries.
These expenditures further support SEPP’s earlier estimates that since 1993, the US has spent over $150 Billion on climate change. The updated figure is over $165 Billion.
The full story is here. Think about this number: $165,000,000,000 spent on global warming.

For a tiny fraction of that amount, we could have saved literally millions of lives from malaria in Africa (mostly children) and we could have brought clean water to much of the third world. Since 1988, we've been told -- constantly -- catastrophe is just around the corner. Instead, the climate has been quite benign. We just had another record corn harvest. Why does the nonsense of an imminent global warming catastrophe continue?
To the disappointment of Big Climate, earth's temperatures have not warmed the last 15 years.
Here's why: Over the last decade and a half, while the atmosphere stubbornly refused to warm, all this money built, for example, "centers for the study of climate change" (they have various names), departments of climate change, etc. No catastrophic climate change = no catastrophic climate change dollars. So,

There is zero institutional incentive to go on record as minimizing the seriousness of global warming. 

The IPCC did a pretty good job with its first draft of its latest report. But, political pressure intervened and the illogical (see blue link) mess of its final report was released.

As I have said, over and over, I believe global warming is a mild problem. I believe ocean acidification (related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere) is potentially a very serious problem. I also believe the potential of low solar activity to cause significant global cooling is very serious. Yet, we are overstudying CO2 (do we really need another study of global warming's effects on prostitution?) and understudying some of the scientific issues that really matter. We are not solving very solvable problems (i.e., the malaria problem) because CO2 is sucking up too much of the atmospheric research dollars.

It is long past time to hold Big Climate and the mainstream media accountable for the exaggerations of the global warming problem.

My proposal: Cut the existing global warming research budget by two-thirds.
  • Take 30% of the money saved and give it to the NWS which to further improve weather forecasting and storm warnings.
  • Take 40% and put it into studying the relationship between the sun and climate.
  • Take the other 30% and solve a real environmental crisis and save (literally) millions of children's lives: Malaria in Africa. 55¢ of DDT per home will do the job. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.