Impact of Current Climate Proposals

We have all heard these (false) claims by the AGW crowd that "we need something like the Paris agreement on climate change." A few even have claimed that we need the Paris agreement, and even AOC's "Green New Deal" to "save the planet."

But is there any truth to these claims?

As a matter of fact Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published a peer-reviewed paper published in the Global Policy journal on 09 November 2015.

Here is an abstract of what Dr. Bjorn actually found.

Abstract

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so‐called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20‐20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.
...

Impact of Current Climate Proposals

This was published back in 2015, yet since then AGW proponents have kept on lying claiming that "this is the only way we will save the world."

The fact is these policies would do almost nothing at all to stop the climate from changing. But what these policies will surely do is cause economies to collapse. Untold numbers of people will die of starvation, untold numbers of people will die from heat exhaust in summers, from not being able to cool themselves, and untold numbers of people will die from hypothermia, from not being able to warm themselves. Meanwhile the elites will enrich themselves, and in what once were some of the riches countries in the world the majority of the people will suffer, meanwhile the climate will continue doing it's thing.

The climate will ALWAYS change, there is nothing anyone can do about it. What we can do is adapt to these changes just like untold civilizations had to do in the past.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Here is some of that peer review you speak of.

Lomborg suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw which means that it could not fulfil its aim, stated in the‘Abstract’, to investigate ‘the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030’.

Projections of global mean surface temperature for the period up to 2100 are based on cumulative annual global emissions of greenhouse gases. While Lomborg purports to analyze the temperature changes associated with policies affecting emissions up to 2030, the author fails to acknowledge that the temperature projections to 2100 are determined primarily by assumptions that are made about cumulative annual global emissions over the 70-year period after 2030, rather than cumulative annual emissions during the period up to 2030.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Lomborg is a political scientist, not a climatologist. Lomborg is wrong. His analysis is flawed.

“Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature—often not peer-reviewed— that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words 'unexpected and disturbing in a statistician.'”

source

Humanity is changing the climate but the question is how much. We have been doing it for thousands of years and according to this video we would have been very cold (Ice Age) if we had not.

We are warming up the oceans with nuclear power that is wasting energy we could have used for heating in housing. Water vapor is a Greenhouse gas.



The economic system that humans have created need to be destroyed. Even if the change cause more suffering.

On the long run debt based banking cartel enslaving all humans creates more suffering by being allowed to continue than short term destruction. Sometimes amputation is the wise choice and allowing a disease to continue will cause more damage to the whole of humanity.

20% of humanity are sociopaths that should be in mental asylum, 20% are troubleshoot solvers that can create a good society for all people if the 20% sociopaths get out of the way. 60% are followers (easily manipulated) that get used by the 20% sociopaths to make sure the sociopaths stay in power.

The 20% sociopaths keeping control by 60% followers is why the dualistic (US vs Them) war manipulation can happen. The US Vs Shia, Zionism, Wahhabi (Sunni muslim) vs Shia, Christians vs heretics (Muslim, Eastern philosophies) are a few historic examples.

a reply to: Phage

Lomborg is wrong. His analysis is flawed.

But the problem here is...you say tit, I say tat. All we got is wall of text that claims it's all flawed. In the end, I'm forced to believe it because none of us can truly verify it for ourselves. It's all down to authority heads we have to bough too.

Luckily, I know how these things go. It's always so transparent.

a reply to: Phage

Your first link is to a piece written by Robert E. T. Ward, who is the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change. The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change is an organization founded by Jeremy Grantham, a political activist with an economics degree.

Your second link is broken.

Your third link is to an article from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Not exactly an unbiased group.

UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the “rigorous scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.

Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then it manipulates or misconstrues the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”

Maybe a little less propaganda would be helpful when calling someone else's work propaganda.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

thanks for doing that...I couldnt be bothered because I already knew...it's always biased.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

That's the whole point, thanks for getting it. One guy writes a report, another guy screams "BIAS!!!" and then gets outed for being biased themselves. Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows...

I guess I am in a unique situation. As a research engineer, I can understand the scientific jargon just fine and am inherently familiar with the scientific principles involved. Yet, I am primarily self-taught, obtaining my degree later in life. That means my biases are based not on what someone standing in front of a classroom said, but on what I learned myself from a pure desire just to know and understand how things work.

Based on that bias, I can tell you this: the claims are overblown and the doomsayers are wrong. The planet is greening, food will become more plentiful, and there will be no catastrophic effects from carbon dioxide levels unless they increase a few times what they are now.

If that happens, I'll sound the alarm... because someone is transmuting elements!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I guess I am in a unique situation. As a research engineer, I can understand the scientific jargon just fine and am inherently familiar with the scientific principles involved. Yet, I am primarily self-taught, obtaining my degree later in life. That means my biases are based not on what someone standing in front of a classroom said, but on what I learned myself from a pure desire just to know and understand how things work.

this

Now I like you even more Formal education teaches you to regurgitate the accepted mantra. If you dont, you get a bad grade. Correct regurgitation grants you an A. We see this pattern in adults, especially in science. Questioning "settled science" only grants you scorn, ridicule and possibly a lose of a job. Even though we know...science is always right, until it isnt, then it's right again...until next time. Always perpetually right, no matter how wrong at any given instance in time.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Formal education teaches you to regurgitate the accepted mantra. If you dont, you get a bad grade. Correct regurgitation grants you an A. We see this pattern in adults, especially in science. Questioning "settled science" only grants you scorn, ridicule and possibly a lose of a job.

You don't know how true that is.

I attended college back in the 1980s, and then in the early 2010s. The difference was astounding! The push to get students to think outside the box was gone, with a few notable exceptions, whereas it was a major push before. Today, the first two years are spent just trying to get kids out of "high school mode" and get them to actually try to succeed, than the next two are spent in the "regurgitation mode" you speak of. That's a full Bachelor's! Back in my younger years, you got out of "high school mode" yourself or you washed out... the first two years were "regurgitation mode" and the next two were more guided self-discovery. An Associate's meant you could regurgitate and a Bachelor's meant you could think outside the box back then, whereas a Bachelor's today means you can regurgitate.

In my case, post-grad work is relatively unchanged (at least in my alma mater in my profession). Post grad work entails intensive study and promotion of one's own ability to formulate, test, and hypothesize on cutting edge subjects. There is some bias, yes, but that is IMO unavoidable: the professors are just as interested in the fields as the students and have had more time to experiment. Most will listen to well-thought-out, documented evidence, though.

I attended college for a unique reason as well: while most of my classmates were interested in getting a job and making big bucks, I wanted to know why. It's a lifelong passion for me to know why. When I was a small kid, I used to look up at the sky and try to figure out why it was blue... yeah, I was weird like that. I wondered why things fell to the ground. When others would simply accept "it's gravity," I would then ask "what is gravity?" "Things falling to the ground." That's circular logic, like "what is matter? Anything that has mass. What is mass? A property of matter." That tells one nothing about the why behind the how.

Back to Global Warming: I could fill 20+ threads talking about why carbon dioxide acts the way it does, where it comes from, what its effects are on the environment, how the environment reacts to those effects to counter them, what this means in terms of macro conditions, expected results of those conditions over time, and so on and so forth. I can go from the global heat exchange equations all the way to the quantum principles inherent in one carbon and two oxygen atoms bonding together covalently. But it wouldn't do much good... people today tend to ignore anything they don't understand, and their understanding is based primarily on bias. I have to dumb down most of my posts on the science just to get people to even consider challenging their beliefs. So I do... and in the process, I observe this behavior and still, to this day, wonder "Why?"

Human nature is fascinating.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Ironic response, but one that I would expect from Phage.

It is ironic because the 0.01C (0.013C) "possible" temperature reduction was admitted by Obama's EPA administrator Gina McCarthy as being right if the U.S. implemented the "US Clean Power Plan (USCPP)." Which would destroy the U.S. economy, and would also destroy most American's lives as the price of energy would increase to unprecedented levels which most Americans could not be able to afford.

Instead of using the false claim now used by Phage, and other AGW proponents, McCarthy claimed in front of Congress that implementing the "USCPP" should not be measured by how much temperatures in the world "could be lowered" (0.01C), but that instead having the U.S. implement such policy would be a leading example for other countries to follow...

McCarthy also admitted that the "USCPP" climate rule is "about reinventing a global economy' aka "redistribution of wealth." Which btw that redistribution of wealth would not be seen by regular people in other nations, but it would serve to enrich the elites in those other countries.

Similar to how the Obama administration used trillions of U.S taxpayer dollars, which he claimed at first the U.S. government didn't know where it went, until a couple Republican Senators with then Senator Ron Paul audited the IRS, and then found out those trillions of U.S taxpayer dollars were sent to Europe for the "too big to fall" banking institutions in Europe... The regular people in Europe didn't get a red cent, instead the money was given to the banking elites in Europe.

Over a period of twenty months, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy repeatedly concedes that the Agency's sweeping climate-regulation of America's fossil fuel-fired power plants will have no impact on the Earth's climate. McCarthy openly admits that the Clean Power Plan "is not about end of pipe controls." Instead, she says the rule is about "driving investment in renewables..., [and] advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution". McCarthy says, "That's what... reinventing a global economy looks like."
...

EPA Chief concedes no climate impact from climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

No matter how many times AGW proponents keep lying, these "climate policies" are just an excuse for "reinventing the global economy/redistributing the wealth of the west/aka implementing global socialism", and it has nothing to do with "saving the planet."

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I've written extensively on the sham that is Man-Made Climate Change.

Allow me to be succinct.

The proponents are claiming that if they don't get your money and your freedoms and your liberties, the sun will rise in the west and set in the east.

They show proof of their good works by pointing to the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

They say this will change unless you give them more money. They also claim that they are working hard so far because the sun has not risen in the west and set in the east.

Perhaps we should all stop bickering about climate change and just plant some more goddamned tree's and let nature do its job. A job which it has been doing long before humans arrived, and likely, long after humans become extinct.

Chinese governmen (who would have guessed) say they have planted more than 66 billion trees across 13 provinces in the country's north since the programme began in 1978.

Ecosia Web search engine (that feeds from google) redicts their profits to planting of tree's and claims 80+ million tree's planted by cosia users. So if you want help but don't want pay money go use something akin to Ecosia

a reply to: glend

The increased atmospheric CO2, and warmer climate not being caused by atmospheric CO2, is doing more than if all countries were planting trees.

If many of us are complaining is because what the left wants will not solve anything and would just implement a global socialist dictatorship meanwhile "99% of the world would be as poor as dirt thanks to the left's climate policies, and the climate will continue changing on Earth as it has done for 4.6 billion years."

a reply to: DBCowboy

A lot of us have been doing that for a very long time. But the left continues wanting to push for these policies and will not stop until the whole world is under a world socialist dictatorship.

It seems that the large majority of the left are suckers whom want 99% of the people to be in pain and suffering. That's what these "socialist programs" will bring us into.

a reply to: Phage

Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis.

I seem to recall the scientific method being the gold standard of "credible scientific analysis." The backbone of scientific method is encouraging and embracing challenges and tests run against your hypothesis... physicstoday.scitation.org...

It's amusing to see people using "credible scientific analysis" as a crutch against those who challenge the establishment blessed narratives, most of which are so deeply beholden to the agencies and establishments driving the narrative that their very livlihood depends on regurgitating the doomsday scenarios and, more importantly, the falsehood that climate changes are driven by humanity and require aggressive taxation and loss of freedoms and rights to combat it. YES, Global Warming is a man-made problem... the problem was invented by a bunch of politicians and asshats who realized if they made up a problem and convinced enough of the pleebs that it exists, then they could expand their power over those pleebs in the greatest degrees seen since the days of emperors and kings.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Allow me to be succinct.

No.

We all have a great desire to bask in your loquaciousness.

TheRedneck

Meanwhile, and like always, the AGW crowd in the forums ignore FACTS even when those facts are presented by an environmentalist such as Dr. Bjorn Lomborg...

This only shows the AGW crowd don't want facts, and don't care if they cause all economies to collapse, mass starvation, and more death and suffering... They want to impose their ideas/policies and to hell with Earth and it's people...