the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Follow the Money

Posted by Jeff Id on January 27, 2009

moneyThe shrill cries of the polyscienticians are ramping up. A host of new “revalations” have come up in the last few weeks as the world cools in the face of the unique opportunity our new socialist government was given. Beauties such as the warming antarctic and now the fact that global warming can’t be stopped. The timing is perfect to drum up support for the increased legislation promised by our US socialist leaders.

Global warming impacts irreversible

Irreversible, yup they said it, as in never to be reversed.

Changes in rain, temperature and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped, a study released today by federal scientists concludes.

The study, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration senior scientist Susan Solomon, appears in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Booming voice – Never to be reversed sed sed.

Keep in mind, these are the same people who can’t tell us the weather next Monday. I have no idea how they determined this bull but it obviously isn’t realistic. The carbon of course would go away, what would keep the temp up, albedo? Like we have that so well nailed down, we can’t even measure temperature.

The rain decreases last not just a few decades but centuries, the authors said. Regional impacts include decreasing drinking water supplies, expanded deserts, more fires and other ecosystem changes.

Dry-season wheat and corn farms in regions of rain-fed farming, such as Africa, would also be affected.

Without considering melting glaciers and polar ice sheets, expansion of warming ocean could cause irreversible global average sea level rise of least 1.3 to 3.2 feet by the year 3000 if carbon dioxide peaks at 600 parts per million, and double that amount if it peaks at 1,000 parts per million.

Why do I read this stuff, whether you believe in AGW or not it is complete rubbish? Check out this comment, just to realize what planet this lady is from.

Geo-engineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study because those methods are highly speculative, Solomon said.

And the doom predictions are worse than ever.

Coastal regions and small islands could be submerged for centuries, even if carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped in the next 100 years, according to a new study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The agency’s report appeared on Monday in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Yup, it’s government. The only group with a clear horse in the global warming race. The message becomes even more clear when you consider this second group of articles promoted by the equally socialist associated press.

Report: Cost of rapid CO2 cuts “manageable”

Rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade to curb global warming could cost less than 1 percent of world gross domestic product by 2030, a report from management consultants McKinsey & Co said Monday.

“Globally financing and costs look manageable,” the report sponsored by environmental campaign group WWF said, putting the price at euro200 billion ($256 billion) to euro350 billion ($448 billion) annually by 2030 when they calculate total world GDP to hit euro60 trillion (US$77 trillion).

Taking action will mean additional investments of euro530 billion ($678 billion) in 2020 and euro810 billion ($1.04 billion) in 2030, the experts said — claiming much of these high upfront costs would be regained by energy savings later on.

“The net cost could end up below 1 percent of global GDP,” they said.

Below 1 percent … um you say – maybe below 1 percent. Sure guys, whom do I write the check to. At least we know the goal. – $$$ You’re not fooling us ladies and gentlemen, we’re here and there will come a time when you are recognized for what you are. While you work away on this business you will make money but think — Nobody remembers the scientist who argued with Galileo. Today’s science is incapable of determining the magnitude or consequences of global warming, the claims that it can are universally over-stated and nearly universally accompanied by political motive. If the reduced solar activity lately cools the earth, support for these overreaching foolhardy policy changes will plummet in the face of it.

12 Responses to “Follow the Money”

  1. page48 said

    I bet the Russians are laughing their asses off.

  2. Jeff Id said

    I know first hand the Chinese are.

  3. page48 said

    Oops – gotta run – time for the Local News. Gotta get the 1000 year outlook so I’ll know what to wear tomorrow. See ya’ later!

  4. Harold Vance said

    Speaking of money, the current “stimulus” (aka The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009) includes $140M to be made available for “climate data modeling.” I guess this means that AGW is getting its own bailout. lol.

    NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
    4
    ADMINISTRATION
    5
    OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES
    6
    For an additional amount for ‘‘Operations, Research,
    7
    and Facilities’’, $400,000,000, for habitat restoration and
    8
    mitigation activities.
    9
    PROCUREMENT, ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION
    10
    For an additional amount for ‘‘Procurement, Acquisi11
    tion and Construction’’, $600,000,000, for accelerating
    12
    satellite development and acquisition, acquiring climate
    13
    sensors and climate modeling capacity, and establishing
    14
    climate data records: Provided further, That not less than
    15
    $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.
    16
    SOURCE:
    http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_text.txt

  5. Jeff Id said

    Thanks Harold for the source and the comment.

  6. Chris H said

    Not entirely related:

    I think that the 2004 BBC documentary “The Power Of Nightmares” by Adam Curtis is extremely relevant. While he was mainly talking about a Nightmare of an international terror network, it is equally applicable to the current Nightmare of AGW. Here’s a clip of the start:
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk1WkmioQvA

    Google for the full version (it is usually made of 3 parts), but currently it can be watched here:
    http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

  7. Harold Vance said

    Here is my interpretation of the NOAA earmark, which amounts to $1,000M:

    OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES ($400M)
    * Habitat restoration and mitigation activities [huh???]

    PROCUREMENT, ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION ($600M)
    * Accelerating satellite development & acquisition
    * Acquiring climate sensors [nice] and climate modeling capacity
    * Establishing climate data records, provided further:
    not less than $140M shall be made available for climate modeling

    Does anyone have any idea what is meant by “habitat restoration”? Has the NOAA created some super toxic data gathering sites that need to be cleaned up? Are there too many mercury thermometers lying around on the ground somewhere? I thought that the EPA or U.S. Fish & Wildlife was in charge of habitat restoration. Here is a link to the NOAA org chart, and I don’t see an obvious connection of that earmark to any of their existing line offices (departments):

    http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm

    The “procurement” earmark is $600M, of which no less than $140M is to be spent on climate data modeling.

    If they really are going to ram this legislation down our throats in such short order, I’d rather see more money spent on satellites, sensors and data and less on modeling.

    What I think is happening here is that the current leadership is using the financial panic as a cloak for increasing spending on their pet projects regardless of need. Yeah, it’s a cynical take, but when you see a large percentage (14%) of the total NOAA earmark designated for something as obscure as climate data modeling, you have to wonder. That’s why I jokingly referred to it as an AGW bailout. The other question to ask is who insisted on that floor of $140M? Why the need for a condition like that?

    Jeff, thanks for your interesting takes on so many different climate-related topics. You have a gift of making the subject matter comprehensible to laypersons. Keep up the good work.

  8. DeWitt Payne said

    What I think is happening here is that the current leadership is using the financial panic as a cloak for increasing spending on their pet projects regardless of need.

    This is SOP for government. They always do it. They did the same thing in WWII.

  9. Ron said

    “Without considering melting glaciers and polar ice sheets, expansion of warming ocean could cause irreversible global average sea level rise of least 1.3 to 3.2 feet by the year 3000 if carbon dioxide peaks at 600 parts per million, and double that amount if it peaks at 1,000 parts per million.”

    The mind boggles! Help me, I’m having trouble visualizing those screaming refugees fleeing from the onrushing seas as they rise 1.3 – 3.2ft. in only a thousand years!

  10. page48 said

    Regarding the irreversible nature of the impending devastation, Solomon also said (quoted from NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903),

    “I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.”

    I wouldn’t count on her paper making a whole lot of sense.

  11. Jeff Id said

    “I wouldn’t count on her paper making a whole lot of sense.”

    Maybe dollars though! It’s only 1% of global output, no big deal. I think the picture above would cover about 1 hour of the small and as stated, affordable global warming bribe.

  12. paminator said

    Solomon Prophecy 1- As much as 3.2 feet of sea level rise in 1000 years. That amounts to around 1 mm per year. This Solomon Prophecy is predicting a SLOWING of sea level rise from the current estimated 2 +/- 3 mm/year down to 1 (+/- 1?) mm/year. Of course, the glaciers and polar cap melts are not included. However, this is a reasonable assumption given the lack of reliable observational measurements of Antarctic and Greenland ice mass balance that show any sort of trend.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: