…the modelling, done by the world-renowned Hadley Centre at the Met
Office but using emissions calculated by the Stockholm Network,
highlighted three problems: ‘Current policy comes in too slowly, it
internationalises too slowly and it binds developing countries too
late.’Privately, many climate scientists believe it will be impossible to
meet the 2C target, but they are reluctant to say so because they do
not want to discourage moves to cut emissions.
Here is more and that is from The Guardian not National Review. I believe that some parts of the world will be in for a very rough ride.
By the way, while I was in Japan I read that a) about half the world’s people are consuming subsidized energy, not taxed energy, and b) Chinese energy-users are typically paying about half of the world price. Recent energy price increases in India have induced riots. Those are all signs of the magnitude of the problem.
“while I was in Japan I read that a) about half the world’s people are consuming subsidized energy, not taxed energy, and b) Chinese energy-users are typically paying about half of the world price.”
Interesting stuff. You recall where you saw that? I could use the cite.
Well, there’s a paper right there: “The effects of energy liberalization on C02 emmissions.”
We haven’t seen warming in 10 years. The past year and a half has seen a solar minimum drive temperatures down by 0.7C. Gore told us that 0.6C of warming over 100 years was “too fast to be natural”, but nature just slapped every global warming theorist across the face.
Whatever CO2′s forcing is in the atmosphere, it’s less than what we thought in the late 90′s, that’s painfully clear now. Man’s influence is much less than natural variability, which raises the question: what makes us think limiting CO2 output will change the climate or our lives in any noticeable way?
Comments on this entry are closed.