By Thomas Lifson at American Thinker
The increase in the atmospheric trace gas of CO2 has so far failed to deliver the catastrophic consequences predicted by the alarmists like Al Gore. The headlines about “the end of snow” are now an embarrassment after a winter of abundant frozen precipitation. At least a decade ago, the fraudsters relabeled their purported peril “climate change,” allowing any unusual weather to be blamed on mankind’s use of fossil fuels.
Now another rebranding is being proposed. Michael Walsh noticed, at PJ Media:
The Left, in the form of the think thank RAND, has gone full Luddite:
Since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, society has organized efforts to limit the magnitude of climate change around the concept of stabilization – that is, accepting some climate change but holding it within acceptable bounds. This report offers an initial exploration of the concept of climate restoration – that is, approaches that seek to return atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to preindustrial levels within one to two generations. Using a simple integrated assessment model, the analysis examines climate restoration through the lens of risk management under conditions of deep uncertainty, exploring the technology, economic, and policy conditions under which it might be possible to achieve various climate restoration goals and the conditions under which society might be better off with (rather than without) a climate restoration goal. This report also explores near-term actions that might help manage the risks of climate restoration.
“Luddite” is a good term, for it connotes opposition to the Industrial Revolution, which was (and remains in its “Information Age” version) dependent on the combustion of carbon-based fuels for electrical generation and transportation. The longing for some imagined paradise of living in harmony with nature is even more pervasive in modern history.
Of course, anyone even slightly familiar with the history of the Earth’s climate knows there is no one climate to be restored. We have had ice ages that covered much of the land on which Americans now live in glaciers. Is that the climate we wish to be restored?
Proponents claim they merely want to get rid of the “pollutants” – i.e., CO2, which is necessary for life and is used by plants to grow. (Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 already are increasing crop yields.) But buried in this phraseology is the hidden assumption that the atmosphere, not solar activity, controls climate. This is a ridiculous assumption on its face, since the ultimate source of our energy – atmospheric and carbon-based deposits – is the Sun.
By the way, solar activity is crashing now.
“Climate restoration” is the “New Coke” of climate alarmism.
What about Climate Justice
Climate restoration is just another term for geoengineering. The greenies know that China and India won’t stop emitting CO2 so they think that by geoengineering the atmosphere they can take CO2 out of the atmosphere. That plan is genocidal suicide and is the worst madness ever thought of. We need more CO2 NOT less. i have actually become scared of the whole greenie philosophy. It is madness on the grandest of scales.
Has anyone calculated the cubic tons per day of carbon dioxide absorbed by plants on a global scale? The more CO2, the more plant life and plant cover we have, and since plants not only release O2 into the atmosphere, but also water vapor through the tops of these fine chlorophyll-laden atmosphere cleaners, well – the more plant cover, the higher the water load in the atmosphere, which should increase rainfall in many, many, many areas that NEED it.
Okay, rant over. I have difficulty with the voluminous lack of understanding by the Warmians/CAGWers/Greenbeans of basic biology/botany and how important this symbiotic relationship is for life to exist.
Are these ignoramuses trying to destroy this planet? Because that is what seems to be their entire intent – kill off everything so that we have a Mad Max desert world.
This is called “carbon cycle”, “agronomy” and “photosynthesis” , and of course this is seriously (not “climate science” way) studied, crops depend on it.
You can begin with Wikipedia, although warmunist colonized the “carbon cycle” article
So the “climate restorers” want to go back to the 19th century when there were no cars or planes emitting CO2 into the air, but even then there were railroads (which burned coal to make steam), and the blast furnaces used to make steel were coal-fired. So let’s go back to the 18th century, when there were no railroads and no steel, and everything moved at the speed of horses, and people burned candles to see in the dark after sunset, since there were no electric lights.
So let’s imagine a city like New York, with its cars and subways replaced by millions of horse-drawn carriages. Where would they get the hay and oats to feed all those horses? Ship it in from the countryside on horse-drawn carts? Then imagine all those horses relieving themselves in the streets–who would clean up all that horse manure? If it washed into the gutters after a heavy rain, wouldn’t that be a breeding area for infectious diseases? Wouldn’t decomposing horse manure produce methane, which would also heat up the climate 20 times more than the same mass of CO2? Besides which, horses also exhale CO2, whether or not they’re pulling a cart.
City streets are a lot cleaner with people riding cars and subways than riding the same number of horses!
Let’s see what the dictionary tells us:
Restoration from Old French and Latin “restauration”
“the event in British history when Charles II was made king in 1660 after a period in which there was no king or queen.
I get it, when there is no king or queen, Charles the III will take the throne and the crown. He’s against carbon but he talks to his plants all day. Clearly they don’t talk back. What will these global warming elites think of next.
Well…… Maybe they DO talk back to Prince Charles. Maybe HE can hear them.them
Our children won’t know what global warming is!
ROFL
As a believer in a “Supreme Being”, it is my opinion that humans were put on this earth in order to restore carbon dioxide to levels best suited to the continuation of life for the long term. At 280 ppm, the level of this life giving trace gas came perilously close to the 180 ppm at which plants die. At 400 ppm, the approximate current level of carbon dioxide, we are less than half way to the level at which most plant thrive, which is about 1,000 ppm. Only a specie with a brain could have developed strategies to recirculate this important life giving gas back into the atmosphere.
“Riding the gravy train”, Pink Floyd, “Have a cigar”.
We do not need to worry. The current interglacial period cannot last much longer but it still may be thousands of years before the next ice age takes hold. But the coming ice age may not last much more than 100,000 years before another interglacial period takes hold. At least the current interglacial period has not been as warm as the previous one. Exactly what climate do they wish to restore.
According to the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one should conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational the the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Mankind has been unable to change one weather event let alone change the climate. So the big question is what climate does one wish to restore and how can we force the sun and the oceans to provide the desired climate.
Ah, one has to admire the hold TheMagicMolecule has over the weak-minded Left.
The Luddites were not anti technology and they did not harken back to some mystical better time. They fought against the deskilling of the workforce. They lost that battle and apparently also lost the right to historical accuracy in how they are portrayed. Luuddites had nothing in common with the looney toons who want a colder world with less life on it. How about the followers of Koba the Dread as a historical analog? Stalin collectivized the farms which destroyed agricultural production, he started five year plans which destroyed industrial production, he signed a peace treaty with Hitler and then murdered most of his senior officers just before the war started. The ability to never see the flaws in a failing system must surely be a trait of communists. Warmunists it is.
“At least a decade ago, the fraudsters relabeled their purported peril “climate change,” allowing any unusual weather to be blamed on mankind’s use of fossil fuels.”
wrong.
the theory was first called the carbon dioxide theory of climate change in 1955.
and when the ipcc was formed…it was called the ipcc… not the ipgw.
increased warming is one aspect of climate change, but climate is more than temperature.
there are good skeptical arguments. the claim that global warning was renamed to climate change is factually wrong.
ffs.. ipcc. its in the name.
It’s true that ‘climate change’ is in the name, but the concept was initially sold to the public as global warming, and this was in stark contrast to the prior fears of global cooling and the ‘imminent ice age’. What’s happened lately is that the global warming core of the climate change idea is mostly implied rather than stated. This leaves the alarmists with a conveniently vague term ‘climate change’ which could mean just about anything, and leads to absurdities such as governments proposing to ‘fight climate change’. One wonders if these idiots care whether or not their statements actually have any useful meaning.
err no. The concept was not “sold” as global warming. Like I said, since 1955 it has been known and described as climate change. Global “cooling”. another red herring.
cliamte change is not vague. just read the science.
I think you are both right, and that doesn’t matter at all.
whether this is called “global warming” or “climate change”, this is just the latest rebranded “let save the world” usual band. Let’s call it the Fifth International.
through the lens of risk management under conditions of deep uncertainty, exploring the technology, economic, and policy conditions
If they had one risk management member of the team they would have been told that the risk is low with high impact. Therefore, RoI is poor. Not worth worrying about
From the article: “Since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, society has organized efforts to limit the magnitude of climate change around the concept of stabilization – that is, accepting some climate change but holding it within acceptable bounds.”
Hubris.
“restoration” … as in 1660? 1815?
Restorationism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism ?
Well, at least it make them show their reactionary faces, those so called “progressives”
Counter brand it as white privilege trying to keep POC around the world down, and you will have these guys scurrying.