Posted by Jeff Condon on January 15, 2012
S0 I’m actually getting to where I feel better about things and have begun looking at actual data. Then I ran across this.
It is a call to action to limit black carbon emissions, a far more sensible thing to attack than CO2, but the article is so insane that I simply refuse to accept that anyone in the world believes it has any attachment to reality.
Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC) contribute to both degraded air quality and global warming. We considered ~400 emission control measures to reduce these pollutants by using current technology and experience. We identified 14 measures targeting methane and BC emissions that reduce projected global mean warming ~0.5°C by 2050. This strategy avoids 0.7 to 4.7 million annual premature deaths from outdoor air pollution and increases annual crop yields by 30 to 135 million metric tons due to ozone reductions in 2030 and beyond. Benefits of methane emissions reductions are valued at $700 to $5000 per metric ton, which is well above typical marginal abatement costs (less than $250). The selected controls target different sources and influence climate on shorter time scales than those of carbon dioxide–reduction measures. Implementing both substantially reduces the risks of crossing the 2°C threshold.
You have got to be completely insane to imagine that a 0.5C warming or the associated pollution will kill a minimum of 700,000 people per year. This is what passes for peer review?!
There is simply no shame in these people’s makeup. Have you ever witnessed such incredibly blatant and false scare tactics? This actually went into a journal.Perhaps if this is the standard for the AAAS science magazine, it should rename itself Charmin.