I've been very busy lately and, frankly, haven't had time to scour the world for news. So, today's items come to you from The Drudge Report. I was interested to see three story's listed involving global warming.First, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee scientists have published a study showing, get this Al Gore, climate change over the past 100 years is "all natural." Temperature shifts have been caused by natural synchronization of forces over global climate systems. The reasoning too theoretical and mathematical for me but the conclusion is clear . . . human beings aren't causing global warming. Rather, the earth is complex and we have no idea why it was warming and is cooling.
Second, a researcher at Florida State University has published a report showing that hurricane and cyclone activity "has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years." Storm "energy levels" have dropped to where they were in the 1970s. "This should not be a surprise to scientists since the natural variability in climate dominates any detectible or perceived global warming impact." Take note all you global warming nuts.
Finally, third, some good news from the U.S. Senate . . . eight Democrats have joined 25 Republicans and indicated their opposition to White House plans to ram through a "cap and trade" bill as part of the budget process (which, by Senate rules, is a process immune to filibuster). Kudos to these 33 Senators for realizing that, in the words of their joint letter, "legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate." But, here's a question . . . where were the other 31 Republicans?
2 comments:
Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gases emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.
“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.
Your comment assumes that "climate change" is real, is devastatingly bad, is caused by humans, and can be stopped by humans. All those assumptions are faulty.
And the thought that massive government programs to solve a non-existent problem is a good idea is not a good thought.
Post a Comment