How accurately do the
man-made global warming models predict future climate temperatures? Is there
any statistical significance to the predictions?
The burden of proof is on the man-made global warming alarmists.
They are the folks who want to spend huge amounts of money to fight the phantom
menace, so they have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that global warming
is occurring, that man's activities are causing the global warming and that
their solution, getting all of our energy from renewable energy sources, is the
most cost effective solution to the global warming problem. So far, I don’t
think global warming alarmists have met any of their burden of proof.
If
global warming was a scientific theory without a political program attached to
it, it might be easier to believe that its proponents were not cooking the
books. However, when you read something that says initially the data
didn't fit the hypothesis, so the data was adjusted, it tends to lessen
scientific credibility a lot. That's exactly what this sentence says: "the apparent slowdown was due
to measurement errors that, when corrected, show that global temperatures have
risen steadily." If you also notice that the Climate Research Unit
fought off a Freedom of Information lawsuit requesting a copy of their
unadjusted raw data by saying that it had accidentally been erased, you begin
to think something very unscientific is going on. Then you notice that
scientific papers that find evidence that global warming is not happening are
suppressed and their authors' careers are destroyed, global warming begins to
look more like a religion that science.
The cost of changes that the
alarmists want to impose is staggering. In the US, 33% of our electricity is
generated from burning coal. To meet the Paris climate goals, we will probably
have to scrap all coal fired generators. This represents trillions of dollars
in investment. Another 33% of electricity in the US is generated from burning
natural gas. Mean green organizations want all of these generators closed as
well. The US gets 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Almost all nuclear
generators in the US are over 20 years old. Over half are over 30 years old.
The number of nuclear plants decommissioned in the last several years easily
outnumbered the new nuclear generators.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Assuming that any global warming we see is man-made, the answer is
nuclear power, which emits no carbon at all. But alarmists don’t like nuclear
power. Assuming you don't like nuclear power, then we have to build a lot of
dams, probably killing a lot of snail darters and other endangered fish. We also have to
carpet sunny places like Death Valley with solar collectors without regard to
the possible extinction of obscure lizards. We also have to build wind turbines
and kill literally tons of migratory birds and ruin the view from Martha's
Vineyard. We also have to build a lot of high voltage transmission lines
through everybody's back yards to move the renewable power from where it’s
generated to where it’s used. But the environmentalists, who fervently believe
in global warming, fight all of these things.
Assuming you don't like any of
these options, you have to assume a miracle happens in order to stop the
carbon. Or we can go back to 19th century technology and live in an Amish
paradise. I’ve personally mucked out barns. Horses have a major pollution
problem. The expense of all of this gets obscene. The flimsy justification for
the economic ruin that the fight against global warming will cause, is a
statistically insignificant anomaly. Good luck with the politics of flimsy
justification, miracles and economic ruin!