.jpg)
Some thoughts on the passing scene in relation to the environment.
If the EPA regulates CO2, as they’ve been moving to do, will they regulate how often you can breath, or start using breath analyzers to determine how much CO2 different people exhale, to determine the “optimal diet and health state” to “reduce global climate change?” What about limiting the number of domestic animals you can have, because every dog, cat, and hamster you own is also a CO2 source? Given the government always ends up regulating everything it regulates to the maximum possible degree, why not? And if you’re going to regulate breathing why not make it so you can’t sell your house without having it energy audited, and brought into line with newer regulations on energy usage? Oops, they already thought of that one. They’ve thought of forcing you to use compact florescent light bulbs, as well—never mind these bulbs are an environmental hazard.
Let’s turn to another regulation the US Government is trying to put in place, Cap and Trade…. The first point to remember is Cap and Trade’s entire purpose is to reduce the usage of energy by increasing its cost. The two bottles of snake-oil they’re trying to sell us are reducing energy usage will have a major impact on the theoretical models of climate change, and reducing energy usage can be done without reducing anyone’s standard of living. But China, for instance, isn’t doing anything with reducing CO2 emissions. Why? Because theyr’e not willing to wreck their economy by capping their energy use. And politicians in the US are find with because they reason that if Americans didn’t buy so much stuff, then China wouldn’t emit as much CO2. So, China’s high emission of CO2 is America’s fault, and hence America needs to pay for it. Of course, the EPA has already admitted that the US taking unilateral action on “climate change” won’t help, even according to their rather dubious models. Even the folks over at NASA have said the Cap and Trade bill is worthless.
At the same time the US is talking about reducing the standard of living everywhere but Washington, DC, the “science” behind “man made climate change” becomes ever more dubious. For instance, there are an increasing number of newly discovered or reported impacts from the solar cycle, including coffee prices, atmospheric temperatures, and others. Global temperatures are now on a downslide, rather than an uptick, as well. And a new study has discovered there is something fundamentally wrong with the climate models folks have been using to tie CO2 levels to global temperatures. This study used the climate models to forecast weather in the past, just to see how well the models did. he results were not all that good.
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
The study noted that the same climate models the UN IPCC uses can only “explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth’s ancient past.” The study concluded that “something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM (Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum of 55 million years ago) and “unknown processes account for much of warming in the ancient hot spell.”
Related posts:
Recent Comments