The Earth won’t spontaneously combust after 2020 anymore

Good news proles, I mean citizens! According to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) the year 2020 no longer presents a tipping point past which carbon emission must not exceed 44 billion tons. Let’s take a closer look at this Yahoo! Finance article:

But with real-world emissions rising far beyond that level, UNEP has since last year downplayed its focus on 2020 as a make-or-break year for emissions reductions.

In this year’s Emissions Gap report, a summary of which was released Friday, UNEP says the world can still reach the 2-degree target with emissions of 52 billion tons by 2020, which is just slightly below today’s level.

The new analysis assumes that emissions cuts will drop faster after 2030 than was assumed in previous reports.

So the numbers on how Global Cooling Global Warming climate change act in whatever way the U.N. wants it to? I wonder how their models factor in methane and water vapor? I suppose that only carbon dioxide matters to the UNEP.

UNEP chief scientist Jacqueline McGlade told The Associated Press the earlier assessments weren’t wrong, but were based on emissions scenarios that are ‘no longer realistic.’

Our estimates and guesswork science isn’t wrong, it’s just not realistic.

The 2-degree target was adopted in U.N. climate talks in 2010. Two degrees of warming compared with pre-industrial times, is widely seen as a level where climate change becomes unmanageable, with fast-rising sea levels, intensifying droughts and other impacts.

Scientists say temperatures have already risen more than 0.8 degrees C (1.4 degrees F) since the industrial revolution, and that the warming is mostly man-made, mainly due to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

In what way was the climate manageable to begin with? Could the U.N. control the Sun? Does the U.N. control volcanoes? Also, don’t talk about how most of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere in recent years is not from man-made activities.

UNEP now places little emphasis on its earlier view that emissions must peak before 2020. Last year it just said emissions “need to peak soon” and this year’s summary didn’t even mention a peaking year.”

I most definitely trust these people to make accurate climate predictions and you should too.

Its scenarios assume the world will be able to remove more greenhouse gas from the atmosphere than what is added by human activity in the latter half of the century to make up for overshooting benchmarks earlier, which Geden called a “dubious” concept.

The idea of so-called “negative emissions” is that humans would plant more emissions-absorbing forests and crops, and deploy expensive technologies that capture emissions from the energy and industry sectors.

The UNEP reports are based on scientific assessments by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

The gall of such individuals is simply stunning. I guess that’s why they can keep pushing the date of destruction back even further. Many of the same people who are complaining about Global Warming climate change were the same people whining about Global Cooling in the 1960s and 1970s. Before, the hypothesis was that pollution and particulates would block sunlight. Now, carbon dioxide is contributing to a positive feedback loop. Why didn’t the Earth warm in the 1970s then? I guess that environmentalists forgot that they should try to disprove their hypothesis prior to reaching a conclusion.

big-freeze Global_Cooling_1 The+Big+Freeze

Can’t get enough of this consensus.

Don’t be a climate heretic and talk of how satellite data shows how there has been no warming trend for almost two decades. Any who disagree with the consensus opinion will be sued, especially if you make a joke about the hockey stick graph. I guess that progs will keep talking about how last year was about 0.03°C warmer than the year before.

clip_image038_thumb clip_image0022 clip_image008_thumb1 clip_image010_thumb1

In another news report, the World Bank is claiming that climate change will put 100 million in poverty. What is the requisite action of advanced countries? Money, and lots of it of course.

Climate change could push more than 100 million people into extreme poverty by 2030 by disrupting agriculture and fueling the spread of malaria and other diseases, the World Bank said in a report Sunday.

This photo was randomly placed into the story by the Associated Press. I guess a man working on junk cars is related somehow.

‘They have fewer resources and receive less support from family, community, the financial system, and even social safety nets to prevent, cope and adapt,’ the Washington-based World Bank said.

How to help poor countries — and poor communities within countries — deal with climate change is one of the crunch issues in talks on a global climate accord that’s supposed to be adopted next month in Paris.

The social safety nets of some countries aren’t large enough, and need to be subsidized by the evil, wretched white man.

Those who say that rich countries aren’t doing enough to help the poor said the report added emphasis to demands for billions of dollars in so-called climate finance to developing countries.

‘The statistics in the World Bank report are suitably shocking and I hope they force world leaders to sit up and take notice,’ said Mohamed Adow of Christian Aid. ‘The Paris deal needs to support the poor and vulnerable communities to cope with unavoidable climate crises better, and to be more resilient to a changed climate.’

Just as it was with Global Cooling, a warming planet is unavoidable (due to man’s activity of course) and you need to give up trillions in the war on climate change.

Despite pledges to rein in emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming gases, climate change isn’t likely to stop anytime soon. Carbon emissions are expected to rise for many years as China, India and other developing countries expand the use of fossil fuels to power their economies.”

So no matter what Western countries do, carbon dioxide emission will go up anyway. That’s good to know.

Stephane Hallegatte, one of the authors, told The Associated Press that one of the unique features of the report was that instead of analyzing the macro-economic impact of climate change it was based in part on surveys of 1.4 million people in 92 countries.

‘When we ask people why they fall into poverty there are three major factors,’ he said. ‘Agricultural shocks, including an increase in food prices; natural disasters such as floods, droughts, storms; and health issues, including malaria, diarrhea.'”

Predictions of millions (or billions) dying from famine is nothing new. I’ve talked to some progs about how mankind should spread throughout the planets and stars and they didn’t seem to think that was a good option. I probably should save that discussion for another post though.

The U.S. and other countries have collectively pledged to scale up climate financing to developed countries to $100 billion annually by 2020 to help them adapt to climate change and reduce their emissions. Developing countries are calling for commitments beyond 2020 in the Paris agreement but rich nations are reluctant to make firm promises, in part due to budget uncertainties.

A recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated climate finance flows to developing countries reached $62 billion in 2014.”

Clearly, $100 billion is not enough in the war on climate change. You must be ready to give up at least 38% of your income (minimum) as it is in the Workers’ Paradise of Denmark to even begin satiating the demands of environmentalists. Are you ready to sacrifice comrade?

Yahoo! Finance-UN report raises ceiling for greenhouse gas pollution

Yahoo! News-World Bank: Climate change could result in 100 million poor

Bonus Round-I have some questions for any who believe the current ideology on Global Warming climate change:

1)Between carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor what wavelength of radiation is absorbed and which is the worst greenhouse gas?

2)Do methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor all evenly mix in the atmosphere and what effect would this have?

3)Do the climate models that the IPCC have used account for all greenhouse gases?

4)How would environmentalists control energy input from the Sun? A giant soletta perhaps?

5)What is the grid size used by typical climate models and what effects would this have on any calculations?

6)Since temperature greatly effects the solubility of gases in solution, wouldn’t a warming planet cause the oceans to release gases?

7)What proportion of carbon dioxide release is due to anthropogenic causes?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )


Connecting to %s