Reconsider reasons for regulating carbon dioxide emissions – Watt?

Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

Now, The Washington Post reported that EPA administrators are considering recommending EPA's 2009 carbon dioxide hazard discovery to the White House. Let's look at some reasons why this may be a good thing.

science

The science of human-caused climate change is even more uncertain, you have been believed. The global average surface temperature of the Earth seems to have warmed by 1 degree. C was around the last century. In different thermometer-based datasets, the magnitude of warming remains uncertain, and warming is weaker in the global “reanalysis” dataset using all available data types. However, regardless of the level of warming, it can be mostly artificial.

But we really don't know.

As I have always pointed out, the increased global energy imbalance is due to the increase Artificially caused CO2 emissions (yes, I believe we are the reason) are less accurate than what we know Natural Energy flows through the climate system. This means that the recent warming may be natural and we will never know.

I am not like this, only uncertainty in climate science is rarely discussed. The climate model (forgetting?) for future forecasts of climate change has been adjusted, so the increase in carbon dioxide is the only cause of warming. These models themselves do not have all the necessary physics (mainly due to cloud process uncertainty) to determine whether our climate system is in equilibrium before carbon dioxide increases. (And, no, I don't think warming will cause the ocean to stay away from CO2 – this effect is very small compared to the size of human sources).

As most readers here know, for years, I have been saying that the science of “climate change” is undermined by large government scientific budgets, ideological worldview biases and group ideas. Even my career depends on Congress’s confidence that this issue deserves a lot of budget.

New science is nearly impossible to publish in peer-reviewed literature that in any way contrary to the current narrative that points to humans being responsible for the “climate crisis” caused by our carbon dioxide emissions, a natural result of fossil fuel burning. Now, the “peer review” is in the hands of climate scientists whose research careers depend on continuing government funding. If the “problem” of global warming is much lower than previously imagined, then the funding for this study could dry up.

The most serious scientific papers are the media of all media, which are then exaggerated and distorted by the news media. As a result, the public is very biased about the real understanding of scientists.

As Roger Pielke Jr. points out for years, even the official IPCC report has not claimed that our greenhouse gas emissions are causing severe weather changes. Now every bad weather event in the news is faithfully bound to human causality in some inference, but people take these news reports seriously at a historical low to the public opinion of mainstream news media. Bad weather has always existed and will always exist. The storm losses are only increased by the increase in infrastructure, and everyone wants to live on the shore.

The only clear long-term change I know is 50% decline Since the 1950s, it has been a violent tornado.

But if your primary source of information is Al Gore’s books, your favorite environmental think tank (you can give you an annual calendar), or mainstream media, you will never know any good climate news.

Fees and benefits

If there is no cost to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, I might be more supportive of the regulations that choose winners and losers than let the market decide. However, humans do need energy, so human thriving depends on abundant and affordable energy. In developed countries, we may have too much wealth to spend expensive new forms of energy (although our rapidly increasing national debt all think we don't have too much wealth to waste), but most poor people in the world continue to work hard to pay for our relatively abundant energy…if they can even use it.

Dangerous discoveries in 2009

The Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide belongs to the EPA Clean Air Act, so if it is considered a threat to human health and welfare, the EPA will need to regulate it.

However, this “threat to human health and welfare” business weakens two ways.

For example, I can say that most people die too early, and these premature deaths are dominated by what we eat (or don’t eat). The incidence of obesity and related diseases is increasing. So, given the threat of food to humanity and welfare, why not just ban food? Food is a threat to human health and welfarealso.

Obviously, we don't do this because food is necessary for life. But the same is true for carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis requires carbon dioxide, which in turn requires food chains onshore and in the ocean. Since the 1980s, NASA-based satellite measurements have recorded an increase in CO2. Global agricultural productivity is estimated to be getting better (with greater drought resistance) in a carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere, increasing by trillions of dollars.

I have read the technical support documentation for 2009 EF. It is full of melancholy and doom. Any benefits to more CO2 will be underlined while touting costs. Its authorship appears to be influenced by environmental activists, and most have their own agendas. Now, most of this science sounds more like Al Gore's original alert book balance (cited me, but could not correctly obtain my scientific contribution), rather than a balanced assessment of the science of climate change.

So, fifteen years, we now know more. The horrible scene originally predicted is actually not coming, or at least greatly exaggerated. The decade-long deadline for “doing something” about the “climate crisis” has passed… a few times. Even the IPCC (which only allows scientists who tend toward alarmists) admits that by 2100, we are unlikely to see significant changes in bad weather, which is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide.

It makes sense to rethink hazard discovery now.

Related