News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

'Absolutely no point in US and Europe going alone' on global CO2 reduction. 'The thing that people kind of forget is it's global warming. It's not US warming,' Darwall, The Age of Global Warming on CNBC, Rush Limbaugh

3/21/14, "Author: Depending on Weather for Energy Has Driven West into the Arms of Thugs," Rush Limbaugh transcript

"RUSH: This is somewhat fascinating here, actually. This morning on CNBC's Squawk Box, the guest was the author Rupert Darwall. During a discussion about his book, The Age of Global Warming, cohost Andrew Ross Sorkin said, "Talk about the economic implications. You make an argument about Putin and what's happened in Europe." This guy's basic premise is that "green" policies, pro-global warming policies -- wacko, nut, lunatic global warming beliefs -- have pushed Europe into the hands of Vladimir Putin.

DARWALL: It's unquestionably the case that green policies in Europe, and particularly in Germany, have pushed the German economy into the hands of Putin.  Because if you switch from fossil-fuel power generation to wind and solar, you depend on the weather. Because you're depending on the weather, it means you won't need other sources of fuel. So they're pushed into the hands of Gazprom, the Russian gas company. And you've seen gas shipments from Russia rise by about 30% in 15 years, which is a big amount.

Now, let me dissect this.  This is important, folks, with Putin on the March now....  

What this man is saying, Rupert Darwall, is really quite insightful.  He's saying that by all of the Western nations going full blast into this green technology business, we're just handing the world to Vladimir Putin while he's laughing all the way to the bank. He uses the example of Germany. We've pushed the German economy into the hands of Putin, because as these companies decide to go into wind and solar, they have decided to turn their energy sector over to the weather.

Which nobody can control, nobody can depend on, and the weather doesn't produce enough harvestable energy to run anything yet.  So while the western democracies get rid of conventional fossil-fuel energy economies, they open themselves up to the need of fossil fuel energy such as natural gas. And if Putin does not join the push on global warming, he's been the guy you have to buy your natural gas from.

And, lo and behold, Gazprom, which is the natural gas company Soviet Union. They have the pipelines. That's why Putin wants Ukraine. Get a map. Get a map and look at all the natural gas and oil pipelines that run through Ukraine, and it'll impress upon you the importance of Crimea, and controlling Ukraine. Putin wants control of energy. He can charge what he wants for it.

Because Western democracies (in this STUPID, idiotic push into global warming) are getting rid of their own fossil fuel energy use and production like we are here. Although we're actually not because we're fracking out the wazoo and we're overcoming what Obama's trying to do. But imagine if we were totally dependent on Putin for natural gas? Well, Germany is becoming that way.  So is the UK. 
 
So Putin holds a huge card, lots of leverage there. Just like we were dependent for so long on the Middle East for our oil.

This is really an insightful comment. It's these green policies, this idiotic belief that Western democracies and their progress are destroying the planet. So they're made to feel guilty, and so they get rid of their fossil fuel production and use. But they still need it because the weather doesn't provide enough energy, and that's what wind and solar is. This guy's exactly right....
 
Who would be stupid enough to do that but liberals?  So then Becky Quick, CNBC's Squawk Box said, "Rupert, you're right. Germany and the rest of Europe have been hamstrung by this reliance on someone who is not very friendly. Do you think climate change is not real? Or do you think climate change is not linked to human behavior? Or do you think it just doesn't rank high enough on the problems we should be addressing?"
 
DARWALL: If you look at polls today, they put concerns about environment and global warming right at the bottom. So I think there's been a big shift in public opinion. People are kind of worn out by the hysteria, the predictions of catastrophe. And the other thing is, we've had 15 years, according to the IPCC, of basically flat-lining global temperature.

RUSH:  Seventeen years now.  Seventeen years of flat-lined temperatures, global temperatures. There hadn't been any warming, is the bottom line.  So this guy is again right....

And he's pointing out (and it's true) that in every public opinion poll you've got, global warming and climate change are at the bottom of a list of issues people think are important, 'cause you understand this. Since the 1980s people have been told, "We have 10 years to save the planet!" Since the eighties you've been told, "We have 10 years to save the oceans, 10 years save the planet!" So 10 years here, 10 years there. "Catastrophe! We're all gonna die!"

It hasn't happened. 

Now people are worn out, and they don't believe it. That doesn't matter to liberal leaders. They have this desire to punish their own countries. So they turn their energy sector over to the weather. You know, that is a great way to put it, rather than say "wind and solar."  Green energy is dependent on the weather, 'cause that's exactly right.  Solar energy, wind? What if the wind doesn't blow?  Your windmills are worthless.  And we are not harvesting enough solar even in bright sunlight to make a difference anything....

But now here is the piece de resistance. The cohost, Andrew Ross Sorkin, says, "Is it that a statistic which gives you comfort in suggesting that we should put it on the back burner or not?" He means: You say that global warming/climate change is at the bottom of the list of things people care about. Does that give you comfort?...Do you think "we should put on the back burner or not?" 

DARWALL: Unless China and India and Brazil and those economies say, "We are gonna join in and cap our emissions," there is absolutely no point in the US and Europe going alone.  The thing that people kind of forget is it's global warming.  It's not US warming.

RUSH:  And it's not even that. But his point is, once again, that if the ChiComs are not gonna reduce their carbon emissions, then all the rest of this is academic. If India is not gonna reduce theirs, if Brazil isn't, then what the hell are we doing penalizing ourselves?  I can tell you right now that the ChiComs are not gonna do it. They want to grow their economy. So does India. They have to feed their people. 

They've got to keep their people employed or they've got massive unrest. They cannot engage in energy policy that reduces economic growth. No leader in his right mind would want to do that. So if the ChiComs and the Russkies or the Brazilians and the Indians are not gonna participate, there's no reason we should 'cause we can't make a difference. We're not even the leading polluters." image from RushLimbaugh.com

================================

Rush Limbaugh related links:
========================

15 reviews of Darwall's book at amazon.

----------------------------

Another review, 1/24/13.

Rupert Darwall's background

More Darwall background 

=================

UN IPCC said it can't explain the "pause" in global warming because not enough papers have been written on the topic:

9/30/13, "The Political Science of Global Warming," WSJ, Rupert Darwall

"The U.N.'s latest climate-change report should be its last."

""Human influence extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century," was the headline from Friday's release of the first instalment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report. "Extremely likely"—indicating a 95%-100% likelihood—was ratcheted up one notch from the 2007 fourth assessment report's "very likely." Yet compared to 2007, the IPCC widened its estimate of the responsiveness of the climate system to carbon dioxide by 

reducing the lower band to a 1.5°C increase
from 2°C, 

qualifying the new estimate as only "likely."

This is a glaring discrepancy. How can the IPCC be more confident that more than half the temperature rise since the mid-20th century is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions when it is less sure of the climatic impact of carbon dioxide? The explanation is that IPCC reports, especially the summaries for policymakers, are primarily designed for political consumption. 

And as if on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the IPCC report, "If someone said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that doesn't agree with it, you still take out the insurance."


But poke beneath the surface of the IPCC's latest offering and the confection is revealed for what it is. The IPCC's quantification of the separate components of the warming since 1951 (greenhouse gases, cooling from aerosols, internal variability) is deemed only "likely" (66%-100% likelihood). Only at the IPCC could the sum of these components be given a greater likelihood than the individual building blocks. Perhaps the most revealing aspect is that none of the climate scientists involved seems embarrassed at this nonsense or protests at the manipulation of science for political ends.

This time around, the greatest difficulty faced by the IPCC was explaining the ongoing 15-year pause in atmospheric temperature increases. The body estimates that between 2011 and 2005, there has been a 43% rise in human-induced radiative forcing—the difference between solar radiation entering the atmosphere and infrared radiation leaving the atmosphere, whose balance is supposedly greatly disturbed by heat-trapping man-made emissions. But there has been little warming for 15 years.

Other than saying that short periods do not reflect long-term trends, the IPCC ducked out of a dilemma of its own making. One lead author, Jochem Marotzke, explained to reporters that the issue had come a bit late in the process. There was a tendency for each of the 14 teams to think someone else was working on it. Thomas Stocker, the working-group co-chair, said that the IPCC relies on peer-reviewed journal articles. "I'm afraid to say there is not a lot of published literature that allows us to delve deeper into the required depth of this emerging scientific question," Mr. Stocker said, as quoted by the Christian Science Monitor. Is it plausible to believe that if the story had been temperatures rising faster than expected, the IPCC and climate journals would have remained silent? 

Evidently nature has embarrassed the climate-science consensus.

If climate scientists are really as confident in their understanding of the climate as the IPCC's 95% confidence headline figure is meant to suggest, they would put a firm date by when the pause must end and temperatures bounce back to what the IPCC claims is the long-term upward trend. All too predictably, the IPCC avoids such a hard-edged test. It merely projects a likely temperature rise of 0.3°-0.7°C for 2012-2035 compared to 1986-2005, offered with "medium confidence."

A better indicator of the evolution of what climate scientists really think can be found elsewhere. In the IPCC's first assessment report of 1990, there was discussion of scientists' then-inability to reliably detect predicted signals of global warming. The second report, in 1995, said the "signal" was still emerging from the noise of background variability. Have climate scientists at last unambiguously detected the greenhouse signal? The word is not mentioned once in the summary of the 2013 report.

Ever since the second assessment, controversy has surrounded these reports. It first erupted on these pages in 1996, when Frederick Seitz charged that he had "never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process." An official in the U.S. State Department had ordered text to be amended "in an appropriate manner." Justifying the intervention, Stephen Schneider, a leading IPCC climate scientist, argued that the Second Assessment Report was "fraught with political significance" as the Clinton administration was on the verge of announcing its acceptance of binding emissions cuts.

Politicization is thus an ingrained feature of IPCC reports. After the fiasco of the 2007 assessment, the U.N. secretary general asked the InterAcademy Council to review IPCC processes and practices. The committee, chaired by Princeton economist Harold Shapiro, observed that government representatives and scientists meet to agree on the final wording of the summary for policymakers line by line "for clarity of message" and to get government "buy-in." Perhaps that's being polite. The real question is who is buying whom. 

The committee recommended changes in IPCC governance, which were mostly ignored, and specifically recommended that the IPCC not use the quantitative probability scale that it re-used last week, as in the IPCC's 95% probability headline. The body's flagrant disregard for the InterAcademy Council's findings and its reluctance to address the 15-year warming pause are symptomatic of a failure of leadership. The conclusion is unavoidable: The IPCC is unreformable and the Fifth Assessment Report should be the IPCC's last."

"Mr. Darwall is the author of "The Age of Global Warming: A History," (Quartet, 2013)."



================= 




.

No comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.