A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

I have long thought that we have no chance of dealing sensibly with climate change.

This Ecologist article should make for sobering reading but I doubt its contents will even make mainstream news. Here is the opening sentence:
There will be enough fossil fuel-burning stuff – cars, homes, factories, power plants – built by next year to blow through our carbon budget for a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018

  1. Pingback: A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018 | Medway Green Party's Blog

  2. I understand how you people must be concerned with the perceived danger of Global Warming.

    Please let me outline some real science. This is not propaganda please be assured this is how science is supposed to work. What I am going to outline below is absolutely scientific and logical. The fact that I and others can bring out what is below is why such people as Al Gore and in fact all other people who are happy to call people like me deniers. The irony of this is that Al Gore, Michael Mann and many people who know better are the deniers because they are first and foremost denying science. What I say below is simple, but it will require some thought and concentration on the part of the reader. The reader will need to watch the short video and spend a little time understanding Dr Spencer’s graph.

    Bearing in mind, that in order to reduce the temperature of the world by limiting or abolishing the production of CO2, is a horrendously expensive task world wide please read on.

    This attempt to limit CO2, in itself, regardless of what the climate is doing, can only lead to disastrous rises in the cost of energy which in turn will lead to economic collapse of world economies along with of course disastrous effects on the world populace.
    (Yup I majored in economics – class of 1981 – and for me this is easy to see).

    You see, our economies are based on fossil energy, Coal, Gas and Oil etc. and unless equally or less expensive substitutes are found, without these things, most of us will starve and/or freeze to death.
    But perhaps, as you postulate on your site, if we are not going to ruin the planet, maybe the above cost will be worthwhile?

    So at the very least, trying to cool the planet is a very serious thing to attempt and I am sure that you would agree that we should not go down this road unless we have absolute proof that humans are warming the planet and that the predictions we are hearing from some sources are scientifically confirmed

    Fortunately there is a scientific method which allows us to decide whether the above is true or not.

    If you read Karl Popper and if you wish to take it even further, William of Ockham, you can find the basis of the scientific disproof of a hypothesis.

    This quick video will help.
    Richard Feynman on disproving a hypothesis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    And Dr Roy Spencer Graph showing Models and empirical measurements.

    (The accompanying commentary for the above can be found on Dr Spencer’s website archive Blogs June 2013)

    This is a good example of Popper’s disproval of a hypothesis. In this case the models are the hypothesis’, (or law as Feynman describes them) and the actual temperature measurements, some of which are from satellites, represent the empirical measurements.

    Therefore it is very obvious that the models fall under Feynman’s rejection. There is therefore no scientific evidence that the earth is warming, (or cooling), other than what has already been observed throughout history.

    Unfortunately, governments like excuses to issue new laws. As most governments nowadays, (including that of New Zealand), are sliding steadily to the left, this gives them an excuse to issue more laws and regulations of the sort which we must obey at the cost of trading a little of our freedom and democracy.

    This includes laws associated with perceived Anthropogenic Climate Change, and it is apparent in many cases that the politicians know better but have no scruples satisfying the public with pointless and erroneous legislation.

    We see this happening in our society at this very moment especially as common law is also being replaced with regulative legislation in most sectors. Common law traditionally is/was at arms length from governments. Regulations by legislation are not.

    So please take the time to study these things. I understand how difficult it is to give up beliefs that you have accumulated, but one must remain logical and scientific in these things. To be otherwise means one is being dishonest with ones self.

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  3. Thanks for your reply.

    I am very familiar with climate models in principle because I spent much of my working life in IT.
    You must understand the difference between empirical data, (data that you can see, feel and count), and data produced by result of a hypothesis, of which data produced by climate models, is a good example in this case.

    You obviously did not take the time to watch the video carefully and then think about the two groups of data shown Dr Spencer’s graph.

    I am familiar with Skeptical Science and have had long discussions with them in the past. I believe they are considerably misleading and refuse to accept empirical facts which disprove much of what they say.

    Ocean Acidity is a different but no doubt related subject, but one cannot cover everything in a short essay.

    Population Growth is a problem in itself, I am only talking about the temperature of the atmosphere.

    Your final link which I visited, I find confusing as there is very poor labeling of most of the graphs. IPCC reports are not good examples of this thing at best because there tends to be political influences in their results, especially if one takes data from “summaries for stake holders”.

    Neither could I see curves on any of the graphs that indicated satellite data.

    Accurate and reliable measurement of the atmosphere is only possible by satellite because land bases do not at all measure the earth’s surface evenly whereas this problem is overcome by satellite records.

    If you have a spread sheet and wish to take the time, you could replicate Dr Spencer’s graph as the data will be at his web site and also at the website of the various satellites that he uses.

    However, I hope you can take the trouble to understand both Richard Feynman and Dr Spencer because this is the root of real science, and although in these times this method is ignored, those that ignore it are the true deniers of our age.

    Cheers

    Roger

    • I could have provided a number of websites showing that climate models are not as inaccurate as you contend. I will leave readers to make up their own minds.

      I mentioned ocean acidification because you oppose limiting carbon dioxide emissions (as shown by your statement “this attempt to limit CO2, in itself, regardless of what the climate is doing, can only lead to disastrous rises in the cost of energy which in turn will lead to economic collapse of world economies along with of course disastrous effects on the world populace”).

      I never mentioned population growth.

      You made economics central to your statement but failed to mention the inherent unsustainability of such economics. Furthermore, you made no mention of the use of the environment as a free dumping ground for fossil fuel emissions (not just carbon dioxide). A read of “Coal’s Assault on Human Health”, a report by the non-profit Physicians for Social Responsibility, is worthwhile.

      I will not be participating in a continued debate on the subject of climate change.

    • “I never mentioned population growth.”

      Forgive me, perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of your sentence below

      b) the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet despite economics being central to the above argument

      And of course, you do not seem to consider my assertion You see, our economies are based on fossil energy, Coal, Gas and Oil etc. and unless equally or less expensive substitutes are found, without these things, most of us will starve and/or freeze to death.

      You have to admit, that it would be somewhat stupid if we killed ourselves over a scientifically unproven hypothesis – yet for instance you quote me a website which is funded by the Rockefellers, who have publically stated that population reduction is their agenda, and they are not volunteering to lead by example.

      Unfortunately this agenda shared by a considerable number of similar groups.

      For example

      http://green-agenda.com/index.html

      It is not silly to look carefully at sources of websites before one uses them to backup your assertions.
      Nice chatting.

      Cheers

      Roger

  4. PS I notice that http://www.carbonbrief.org is financed by the European Climate Foundation, which in turn is financed in part by the Rockefeller Brothers fund.

    The Rockefellers in my view are not philanthropists as they claim, but only invest money where think they can make a political difference according to their own aims.

    You can find the funders on carbonbrief.org fairly easily and http://www.rfb.org has a search facility where you can see the funding for “Stichting European Climate Foundation” which has the same website as the European Climate Foundation.

    I am always very wary of organisations like this because they are generally politically based.

    Cheers

    Roger

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.