Matt Ridley, writing in the Wall Street Journal, states that it appears temperatures are not nearly as sensitive to CO2 as originally thought, and moreover, that even if the amount of gas doubles in the atmosphere, the minor warming we will experience will be beneficial. Heresy!
According to Nic Lewis, a UK activist who has caught the IPPC in serious mistakes previously and who has reviewed the leaked latest report from the UN committee, the old climate models have been shown to be wrong. From, “From Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change:”
We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in “radiative forcing” (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity. The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F). This is much lower than the IPCC’s current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).
Even more enraging to those of a certain political/ideological persuasion, that mild warming would have salutary results:
A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland’s ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.
Ridley concludes:
The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so.
Not. A. Chance. Global warming alarmism isn’t really about global warming. Rather, it is a misanthropic campaign that blames us for each and every weather event. It is about destroying national sovereignty and centralizing control of world economies into the hands of an unaccountable technocratic UN bureaucracy. It is about equality of results redistributionism that would transfer a huge chunk of wealth from the developed world to developing countries–which would have the awful ultimate impact of keeping them mired in destitution and cultural malaise because they would not be able to exploit resources. It is about elevating the moral value of “nature” to that of humans, as in “nature rights” and “ecocide.”
Want some proof? As global warming advocacy has lost steam, as I noted elsewhere, many of the same policies have now been proposed for an international campaign against obesity. If I am right about that, warming isn’t the cause of the campaign, it is the pretext.