The Green New Deal (GND) has been costed at almost $100 trillion by very knowledgeable experts, or about half of total gross national product over the ten years involved. Representative Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey claim that it will save the world. There is a little problem, however. The best scientific evidence is that there would be no significant climate benefits from implementing GND or any other “decarbonization” policy. You read that right–no significant climate benefits at all.
How could this be? The short answer is that the GND authors relied on sources (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC) which also got it wrong, possibly on purpose. Yet much of the left-wing of the Democratic Party has bet their future on the GND. And most of the rest of the Party believes the misnamed “consensus” science on which it is based. Unusual but true. No US political party has gambled so much on what is basically a scientific scam. Other parties in other countries have done likewise, but a number appear to have lost elections as a result (Australia, for example).
The issue involved is whether changes in emissions of CO2 have a significant effect on temperatures. The IPCC and now much of the Democratic Party claim that they do. But if they does not, as shown by the best scientific evidence (for a slightly revised version of one study see also here.), the GND accomplishes nothing useful to anyone except those that profit from the added government spending involved. I will take the good science rather than the self-serving assumptions made by the climate scammers.
Bear in mind that even if the so-called “consensus” science should somehow be shown to be correct, perhaps as the result of new research, the results of implementing the GND would not be measurable. So either way GND is a waste of money. In one case the US loses every dollar it spends on decarbonization; in the other it loses most of it but not all, assuming that we do not want a slightly warmer climate, which I believe we do.
The underlying scientific issue is whether temperatures determine CO2 levels or CO2 levels determine temperatures. The scammers claim the latter; the best science says the former. What the scammers want the US to do is to gamble half of national product for ten years that the IPCC assumption on this issue is correct.
What would be far more useful is to carry out research to resolve the basic scientific issue to everyone’s satisfaction (although this may no longer be possible given the willingness of some members of the scientific establishment to put the desired “answer” ahead of the scientific evidence) before spending anything on trying to reduce CO2 (the miracle molecule that provides food for plants, which provide food for animals, including humans) emission levels. But current science says that changes in CO2 emissions have had no significant effects on temperatures during the years that we have useful data. Those that ignore the science and rush ahead with the wrong scientific assumption will lose everything they persuade others to spend–in this case half of all US expenditures during 10 years. In other words, on average half of what everyone does for the ten years covered by the GND will be a total loss rather than being an unmeasurable minor effect.
[…] http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/5028 […]
By enabling photosynthesis, Carbon dioxide enables plants to grow and thereby to generate new replacement oxygen for the atmosphere that enables us to breathe.
The only known impact of Caron dioxide gas is making plants and oxygen. That is about as benign and helpful as can be.
Yet eco activists allege co2 is carbon pollution. This is false, to justify big government. It is very disrespectful to how Nature actually works.
The Earth’s climate has been changing for eons and it will continue to change whether mankind is here or not. Current climate change is taking place so slowly that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. Do not mix up weather cycles with true climate change. Currently we are still warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than 1500 years ago. The climate change we have been experiencing is typical of the Holocene that has been taking place for the past 10,000 years.
The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even is all of mankind stopped the burning of fossil fuels altogether, the effort would have no effect on the Earth’s climate.
Even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are both part of the current climate. We do not even know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. Mankind has not been able to stop one extreme weather event let alone change the earth’s climate. We would be much better of trying to improve the global economy then wasting time and money trying to affect the Earth’s climate.
The AGW conjecture seems quite plausible at first but upon closer inspection one finds that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. It is all a matter of science.
See http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
Here is the conclusion:
“When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is useful to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”. The 2017 paper proposed a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991,that this turning point correlates with a temperature turning point in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650.
The establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports ,the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small. Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world. (See Kahneman -. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991.These errors are compounded by confirmation bias and academic consensus group think.
See the Energy and Environment paper The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers .http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html See also https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html
and the discussion with Professor William Happer at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
When will people realise that
1. The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped ~20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
2. According to reliable Ice Core records, the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world has already been cooling quite rapidly since 1000 BC.
3. At 11,000 years old, our Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from caves to microprocessors, is coming its end.
4. The weather gets worse in colder times.
5. The world will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York. The prospect of even moving in that direction is something to be truly scared about both for the biosphere and for man-kind.
6. Carbon dioxide is 75 times less effective as a Greenhouse Gas than water vapour and clouds. Any extra CO2 in the atmosphere just makes plants grow better to feed the World.
Spending vast amounts trying to stop something that has not been happening for 3 millennia seems truly stupid.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/
“The underlying scientific issue is whether temperatures determine CO2 levels or CO2 levels determine temperatures.”
And, from recent research, the answer is…
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/06/15/upside-down-co2-dogma/
https://principia-scientific.org/empirical-evidence-refutes-greenhouse-gas-theory/
cO2 enables photosynthesis. This c02 enabled reaction yields the food web on earth, plus oxygen for breathing.
What is the chance that CO2 is more important than the Sun in driving the earths temperatures?
Plus there is no reliably known increase in temperatures. There is just a lot of “noise” and no clear temperature signal of an increase. All claims otherwise are just shoddy data analysis.
The climate alarmism narrative can be rejected on many grounds.
It’s just socialist bullshit. (Sorry doc, but the President is taking a strong stand against bull crap for 2020.)
co2 enables photosynthesis and thereby green plants on earth.
Being against CO2, political greens are thereby against greenery.
Climate alarmism is self parody.
What the economics also does not take into consideration is the local and global wars which may be stoked because of such a radical diversion of funds to fight the bogus “climate change” issue.
The greenies may destroy the world if their idiotic belief is implemented.
My plan can save $1 trillion/year in energy and not cost $100 trillion. Difference is around $120 trillion. I tweet about it @seaplaneguy if you are interested in real solutions to energy, read my pinned thead. My plan allows CO2 haters and lovers to use the same equipment, whereas EVs forces people onto the expensive grid.
The key is to make fuels, not electricity. Wind/solar/nuclear all make fuels at 3 c/kwh OFF grid. Thorium at 165% of base load runs grid and fuel is made with difference in grid load and near constant Nuclear. Thorium = fuel making + electric grid load. Vary fuel making to balance electric load. No peakers or turbines needed. No smart grid. No variable devices. Simple grid that costs 1 c/kwh and not 14-16 c/kwh due to grid wind/solar. Wind/solar is 1/10th cost OFF grid…by making fuels, not grid electricity. Turn intermittent source into fuel source that can be on demand. Grid is fuel based. Key.
Fuel goes into engine to power vehicles, homes, factories. It is par in efficiency to EVs plug to wheel. (60-75%). Old IC engine are 10% city and 20% highway. This gives 4x better fuel economy. Same engine runs off of solar thermal in house to make fuel at home via fuel maker. Zero out Natural Gas and air conditioning loads…. Work anywhere stand alone, Alaska to Zimbabwe.
Go to zero CO2 because it will be CHEAPER than oil. Infinite supply via Thorium. No need for batteries, except for low power apps below 1-2 KW such as lights. Fuel IS the battery. 1 year of fuel in 1000 gallon propane tank for $1500, compared to 1600-4800 times more for same store with Li-ion. New engine can run on 16 different sources of energy, not just electricity.
EVs are a dead end. Capacitors future for EVs if wanted…even Elon Musk admits this. My engine can run on electricity via thermal cycle and use batteries or capacitors if needed. No need for EVs now or in 100 years. Costly detour.
Climate alarmism is the most witless of crusades. Worse than the charge of the light brigade at balaclava. Into the valley of stupid rode the $100 trillion, led by a socialist bartender.
One of the many ironies is that those on the left call themselves “Social Justice Warriors”. Think about that a minute. They call themselves Social Justice Warriors and back plans that will substantially increase (at least double) electricity prices for the poor, the “marginalized”, minorities, disabled etc., people who now struggle to pay for low priced electricity. And the SJWs are all behind Obama’s “electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket”. How many will die from cold in winter and heat in the summer, and lose their jobs (which will be destroyed) as a result of doubling electricity prices?