Climate change comedy

April 14, 2009

I love the title of this global warming article from the AP:

Study: Cuts in greenhouse gas could lessen warming

Shocking! It’s shocking, I say. Now that’s news you can use. Wow, I haven’t heard that before. But wait, it gets better; here’s the opening line:

A new scientific study finds that the absolute worst of global warming can still be avoided if the entire world cuts emission of greenhouse gases the way President Barack Obama and Europe want.

I didn’t know that the president could be in agreement with an entire land mass. Personally, I wouldn’t argue with Europe. Ennui is a bitch (not that I care).

It gets better:

A computer simulation by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., looked at what would happen by the end of the century if greenhouse gas levels were cut by 70 percent.

Ooh! Computer simulations. They’re always accurate. Just ask Wall Street.

And then there’s this:

But if the United States and Europe cut back on carbon dioxide and China, India and other developing countries do not, then the world is heading toward a harsher hotter future

To me, this seems like the most likely outcome of any climate agreement. We will make ourselves poorer while China and India get richer. We will have little, if any, effect on climate and will be worse off for it. What’s not to like?

UPDATE: The New York Times reports on the same topic but with a different headline: Study: Emissions Cuts Could Lessen Climate Change

The word “warming” is gone, now it is “climate change”.


12 Responses to “Climate change comedy”

  1. karbon kenny Says:

    Nice assessment of the article. Personally, I believe that decades worth of data cannot possibly begin to predict what has happened on this planet over the course of millions of years. That’s just silly.

    Anyway, go get yourself a nice certificate of carbon offsets for free:

    You will feel better.

  2. superdave524 Says:

    Propaganda is propaganda, whether it’s “red” or “blue”. The previous administration’s cant was pretty easy to follow, because I had a pretty good idea that the ultimate goal was preserving the empire (Thomas Cahill points out in a footnote in “Sailing the Wine Dark Seas: Why the Greeks Matter” that former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld commissioned a study on how ancient empires preserved their power. Duh). Clearly, Big O’s crowd is stoking up the propaganda. I just don’t yet understand what his agenda really is.

  3. John in IL Says:

    Clearly, Big O’s crowd is stoking up the propaganda.

    I was trying to make fun of the AP and climate scientists. Thanks for confirming my suspicions that they are part of “Big O’s crowd”.

    I just don’t yet understand what his agenda really is.

    That really scares me that a supporter doesn’t get it. Please explain.

  4. superdave524 Says:

    Well, I figure he’s taking this FDR thing kind of seriously, and probably he’s trying to help undo some of what Reagan did. I’m actually okay with that, as long as it doesn’t go too far. I voted for change, and I want some change; however, we can probably get a little more equity just by bringing back increased tax rates for increased levels of income. I’m a fan of a “mixed” economy. Big business has proven that they can’t be completely left to their own devices because in their zeal to maximize short-term profits, they have forgotten to tend long term profitability. Still, the market must be the touchstone for every program. Some things, like regulating carbon emissions, require more government action (though “cap and trade” is one way to bring the market back into the equation). Socialism is not an effective way to run a company or a country. I tend to see conspiracies where they probably don’t exist, so I’m sure I’m wrong. I figured Bush/Cheney just flat lied about stuff. I don’t think Big O has resorted to that yet, but I’m still disappointed by the wholesale “dialogue change”. It makes me suspicious anytime people start messing around with the words used in the dialogue. I get the logic of some of it, but I guess I’d just hoped we wouldn’t still be mucking through doublespeak so much, so soon.

  5. John in IL Says:

    You said you “don’t yet understand what his agenda really is” regarding global warming but yet “Some things, like regulating carbon emissions, require more government action”.

    Why would you advocate more government action when you don’t even know what his agenda is? If BOs supporters aren’t even sure, but are supporting him anyway, can you see why I have a problem supporting those actions.

  6. superdave524 Says:

    I don’t speak for all Obama supporters, John, and I don’t need to understand all of his motivations to support particular actions. I haven’t written off my guy yet. All I’m saying is that I agree with you that this wholesale renaming sounds a lot like propaganda.

  7. John in IL Says:

    So why then do you think “Some things, like regulating carbon emissions, require more government action”?

  8. superdave524 Says:

    Some things you just can’t give to the private sector because it won’t get done. Military (blackwater and Hessians, notwithstanding). Police (Brinks and narco-enforcers notwithstanding). Passing and enforcing most laws can’t be properly done in the private sector (though Lobbyists’d have you believe otherwise).

  9. John in IL Says:

    Sorry, Dave. My fault. I should have phrased my own question. I was focusing on the carbon emissions point. Here we go:

    Why do you think carbon emissions requires more government action?

  10. superdave524 Says:

    Even W ultimately admitted that the polar caps appear to be melting, so it’s clear that there’s a problem. Gore’s gang think man-made carbon emissions have something to do with it. A lot of folks, even your great Dane, agree (though he most vocally denies that most proposals to reduce manmade carbon emissions are worth the trouble or money). Clearly, private companies have no short term reason to voluntary increase their costs by employing scrubbers or any other technologies in factories, or increasing the costs of their sales units for things like cars to reduce emissions. It would be financially irresponsible, and perhaps even make them subject to shareholders’ suits, to add any costs that aren’t required. So, even the “green” companies would have to ask the gummit to impose standards that would apply to their competitors in order to make it feasible to reduce their own emissions. That means new or tougher laws or regulations to add criminal incentives or something like cap and trade options to provide financial incentives so everyone jumps into the pool at the same time.

  11. John in IL Says:

    the polar caps appear to be melting, so it’s clear that there’s a problem.

    Ice caps are over land. The recent trend in melting ice is in the Arctic. That is sea ice. The ice cap in Antarctica is doing fine. In fact it is still very, very, cold there (and has been trending lower…you never hear about that).

    It is not clear to me that there is a problem.

    even your great Dane, agree[s] (though he most vocally denies that most proposals to reduce manmade carbon emissions are worth the trouble or money).

    There’s the rub. You think that doing what we are planning to do is worth it. I don’t. Cap and trade is a rent seekers paradise. See how it has turned out in Germany.

  12. superdave524 Says:

    Really interesting article, John. So, renewable power sources in Germany have done some good in creating jobs and reducing dependance on outside sources of energy (such as oil from Saudi Arabia), but since the overall number of pounds of pollutants stays the same, the cap and trade system has done nothing positive to reduce CO emissions and may even be hurting? Hmmm. That is something to think about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: