The Politicians of Fryentology
Posted by Jeff Condon on November 29, 2010
Anthony Watts is already covering this but I’ve been in a mood lately. Climate ‘scientists’ are recommending rationing as a method for reducing CO2 output.
As the world meets in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of United Nations talks on climate change, the influential academics called for much tougher measures to cut carbon emissions.
I”m not kidding, listen to this genius.
In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.
Edit- almost forgot:
Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods
He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.
This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.
While allowing ‘poor nations’ to continue to grow. THERE IS A REASON THESE NATIONS ARE POOR! They don’t need welfare or self punishment by semi-functional countries to grow, they have to drop their repressive anti-business anti-freedom governments. Try and start a business in Venezuela!! Guh? Perhaps it’s the evil Americans or English keeping the poor Venezuelans down, I’m sure Kevin Anderson thinks so. They are not scientists when they are recommending extremist leftist solutions but they still claim the title. While many fools in this world are ready to go along for the good of mankind, I would pose a few questions.
What will rationing do for economies of successful countries? will it increase them or decrease them?
What technologies will we use to replace the CO2 we are rationing?
Who will control what the CO2 is spent on? (CO2 becomes a monetary unit)
What will rationing do for our ability to create technologies to replace coal?
How much effect will CO2 rationing have on the summed output over the next hundred years.
Since CO2 is claimed to have hundreds of years of residency in the carbon ‘cycle’, doesn’t limitation now make little difference in the final outcome?
Isn’t true CO2 limitation about finding the next technology to power cars and houses?
I already know the answers to these questions, the same answers that have eluded so many government educated people. Still it is impossible to miss the fact that rationing is absolutely a non-answer to the problem as posed by the IPCC — it is anti-scientific in its conception. They have to know that any CO2 production at all simply builds up according to their ‘science’ – there is no appreciable century length absorption. Of course I don’t believe them but that is the problem as posed by the ever perfect IPCC. It’s impossible to be curious about the scientists motivations in such matters, because it’s very clear and life is too short. However, when a proposal like carbon ‘rationing’ can be considered in the open without being laughed right out of the room from a maybe 0.8C/Century temp rise partially UHI, partially natural and partially human, you really can’t trust the rest of the politically insane fryintists still inside the room.
Deeper into the pit of denial I’m forced.
food or cold
technology or ignorance
energy or dark
success or failure
happy or miserable
peace or war
there will be war if we follow these particular leaders
because fur-less humans like food and warm
Tough call–More and more skeptical I become. I didn’t have time to finish the Anastassia math at Lucia’s but I did spend several days sidetracked in a climate model. It thoroughly impressed me with both its complexity and crudeness. What you need to understand though is that there is absolutely no opportunity for such a mathematical construct to represent atmospheric feedbacks in anything except the assigned level. — read that carefully because it took a lot of math reading for me to figure it out and I don’t want my days of effort to go to waste.
Why did they meet in a hot climate like Cancun?
I may have to go Lindzen on you.