Frequent WUWT commenter and tips contributor Pierre Gosselin has a new blog titled
NoTricksZone Climate News from Germany in English
Be sure to add it to your bookmarks. Here’s an entry that I found interesting.
Crash Of 2009 – Scientists Say Climate Policy Needs Radical New Direction
In a just published 43-page paper, leading scientists and professors are calling for a completely new direction in climate policy after what they call “The Crash of 2009″.
In its Executive Summary, the paper states that climate policy “has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years”, adding:
…UNFCCC/Kyoto model was structurally flawed and doomed to fail because it systematically misunderstood the nature of climate change as a policy issue between 1985 and 2009.
In my view this paper reveals that many scientists and policymakers are now realising what many of us already knew: Radical regulation and taxation of carbon is not going to work. The paper proposes a much watered down version of what governments, interest groups and activists were previously pushing for. Its authors are still calling for a tranformation in energy supply and consumption, but in a more measured and targeted approach using low taxes and through the development of unsubsidised energy sources.
The authors say of their paper:
It explains radical and practical ways to reduce non-CO2 human forcing of climate. It argues that improved climate-risk management is a valid policy goal, and is not simply congruent with carbon policy.
Well at least governments now have an option: they can continue to allow energy policy to be formulated and driven by zealots, or they can hand the job over to the lukewarmers, who are promising a less painful approach that respects human dignity.
==========================
Check out his blog NoTricksZone Climate News from Germany in English
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The lukewarmers are at least waking up to political reality,but they have a huge problem: the policies they now advocate cannot *possibly* reduce CO2 emissions by anywhere *near* the amount that *Their* warming theories say is required.
So, by the logic of what they themselves hold to be true, there is no reason to follow their policies because it would be pointless feel-good handwaving that can not possibly achieve their goals.
On the other hand, if they admit that their warming theories are NOT true, then there’s even less reason for anyone to adhere to their ideas.
So they’ve just put out a paper that’s in favor of a plan that is useless no matter what your assumptions are, on the basis that this is all that is politically possible at the time.
Not what I would call a strong argument, and certainly not one that is going to attract much support from any direction.
I knew it was worse than we thought.
Be fair, there has been no warming for fifteen years either. Obviously we are doing enough. Thank you for your help, warmists, but we think we’ll be OK now.
This is good news. I haven’t read the paper yet but so glad to see that perhaps real scientists are winning the battle over the zealots and fascists of AGW. If the climate science community would renounce the zealots (con men and corporations) who have positioned themselves to profit from the CO2 trading scam, many of us would cheer the day. Now is the right time to embrace energy efficiency and help the average taxpaying citizen to live a better more comfortable life through education and efficiency. Breaking the backs of people with burdensome taxation is a prescription of failure. Thank you WUWT.
I think the point is to (mostly) ignore climate change when making energy policy. It’s a good idea.
It’s also true that fundamental energy research investment is unlikely to take place in the private sector, and that government sponsored R&D in that area is a good idea.
They also get the point that the third world will burn carbon as long as it’s cheaper, and that there are good reasons from national security points of view to develop energy alternatives (nuclear, solar).
All this is rational.
I guess we can hope that if this strategy is adopted, the delay in focus on CO2 will allow enough time to see how little effect it actually has on climate.
It’s just a verbalization of Pielke Jr’s “painless decarbonization”.
A bunch of sociologists sitting around, wishing a magic “low/no carbon energy” supply can be dreamed up by technology if we just “invest” in the research with a low (no pain) CARBON TAX.
They all still believe that man is at fault for this “unprecedented climate change” in a world where natural processes would otherwise stay neutral.
Back here in the UK after the coldest winter for 30 years people will be skiing into June.
Frost forecast for tonight and the road gritters are still out on roads at sea level.
When will we have a reality check.
I am in agreement with the hands-off sentiment towards this milktoast paper. It is defeatist in tone and provides no human related, CO2 related, scientific base for its proposed climate change mitigation policies.
It should have been a paper explaining the scientific reasons why cap and trade that is tied to CO2 AGW is nonsense. Cap and trade on dirty particulate ladened emissions versus particulate clean stacks is worthwhile. Cap and trade on landfill throw away versus recycling is worthwhile. Cap and trade on mercury water spoilage versus mercury cleanup is worthwhile. And all of these have a scientific base readily established. China’s air quality problem will not be fixed one iota with CO2 cap and trade, no matter the degree. It can only be solved when particulate matter is dealt with.
The earth is OK…, as comedian George Carlin says: “it is not going anywhere, We do, so pack your sh*s folks!”
So drink your “soma” right away, conveniently flavoured with potassium cyanide or sodium arsenate, if you wish,, and fly away from us!
well,
if it’s luke warm, then there’s no catastrophe to worry about. That is unless we head into a full bore glaciation period again. otherwise, it’s viva la revolution verde as all the plants rejoice from near suffocation.
The fundamental problem with these types of papers is that it is the same scientists that “found” the CO2 problem discussing how to deal with it. The politicians and the activists take great pains to tell us that we have to listen to the climatologists about CO2’s effect on the climate because they are the trained experts in the field. However, in reviewing the program of study for climatology, I have not seen even on class in planetary systems engineering.
The scientific community completely ignores our community (the engineering community) that actually knows what to do to create a sustainable planetary energy system that preserves and expands the material prosperity of the west and the rest of the world.
This is why, at the end of the day that their ideas are rejected by the citizens of the world. The solutions that are proposed are not materially different from the ideas who have their genesis in the book “Limits to Growth” from the 1960’s. The limits to growth idea is fatally flawed in that it failed to understand what limits means in the engineering sense (all of our limits are tied the availability of energy), and how we in the engineering and physical sciences community know how to overcome those limits.
It is time for scientists in the climate community to reject that type of thinking and look toward a more positive outcome for all mankind.
Even without any climate considerations, the US at least is left with energy dependence on supplies that are limited and not within it’s borders. This is a bad national security situation, and will probably look worse 40 yrs from now. I’m not sure how this point could be remotely controversial (?). The fact that you may not believe CO2 emissions represent a big problem, or that the problem has been overstated and manipulated, does not lead you to the conclusion that carbon based energy supplies are a good long run strategic bet for the US, and probably are not a good bet for most developed countries without their own supplies.
Please note that one of the authors, Dr. Reiner Grundmann, publiished this report at Hans von Storch’s website:
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-direction-for-climate-policy.html
Any competent and realistic analysis of present and future global energy use and resource mix unequivocally shows that the environmental extremists proposals of worldwide CO2 reductions of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 were simply preposterous without creating a massive economic depression across the entire world. When that stark economic reality is combined with the hopelessly flawed and contrived data and analysis manufactured by climate fear alarmist’s to falsely portray a man made global warming crisis to drive the purely political climate change agenda it is inevitable that a completely different approach must be undertaken by the climate fear charlatans.
wow it was worse than we thought.
On an unrelated thought wave, I just wanted to share something I chanced upon. http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/05/29_space.shtml
This is interesting but I have no clear idea of whether any of this has the slightest impact on our planets weather/climate or the electrical inputs to our sun.
Sorry, wrong choice of words:
Please note that one of the authors, Dr. Reiner Grundmann, publicised the release of this report at Hans von Storch’s website:
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-direction-for-climate-policy.html
Big problem in the proposal: Globalization.
Tying most of the economies of the world into single knot opened the door to the era of globalist domination.
There is a crisis for humanity, and it’s called an economic disaster of global proportions.
It’s the straw that broke Climate Change’s back.
Now, there is a call for a small tax.
Guess what: The globalists won’t pay a dime and the populations are broke.
Whre is the crash? 14 Eminences to produce this paper is an insult to our intellect and an assault to our pockets.
I never went beyond the Executive Summary, I have never seen anything like that and is definitevely worst than I thought.
“Radical new direction”….how about the truth?
At what point in time do we take money from other people and they run out of money??
Today they are screaming eco terror in congress and blaming BP so the pick pockets can snitch your wallet by the new cap and tax bill.
Governments will fund new research to prove that they need new tax revenues to fund new research.
The Lukewarmers are evidently part of the problem rather than the solution. They would have accomplished more by remaining silent and watching from the side lines.
Mesa says:
May 11, 2010 at 9:02 am
Even without any climate considerations, the US at least is left with energy dependence on supplies that are limited and not within it’s borders…. does not lead you to the conclusion that carbon based energy supplies are a good long run strategic bet for the US, and probably are not a good bet for most developed countries without their own supplies.
______________________________________________________________________
THAT is a Fallacy: The USA has plenty of uranium, oil coal and other minerals. It is all just tied up in red tape or difficult to get to so we do not use it.
” The U.S. is sitting on the world’s- largest untapped oil reserves – reserves energy experts know exist…estimated at 2.3 trillion barrels… sufficient to meet 300 years of demand – at today’s levels…” http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html