Athropogenic vs Natural Climate Change
The ajacent thumbnail link takes you to an article by Forbes that concludes average global total emissions of volcanic CO2 are about 645 million tons, while people burning fossil fuels produce 29 billion tons of it every year, so humans make about 45x more than all the volcanoes do (including "Etna Burps"). Thus the meme is codswallop.
That however is far from the end of the argument! About 30,000 years ago the most recent great ice-age started to thaw and one can hardly blame that on human activities!
While nobody can deny that climate does change, is it changing the way our models predict? Do we understand what the mechanisms are and is atmospheric CO2 as pivotal as some would have us believe? Is the climate trend actually undesirable, and if so is it realistic to think we can do anything about it, what-so-ever?
Let's have a look at a recent Sky News presentation:
In summary: In recent decades predictions about arctic ice disappearing have been completely wrong. Evidence suggests that a few centuries ago, climate in the far North was much milder and now the polar ice is getting thicker again. They say that by far the dominant factor in Earth's climate appears to be solar cycles. The reality is that neither temperature nor sea level are rising in line with predictions from our mathematical models.
For instance, the explanation that global warming causes ice to melt could be negated as warmer seas have more evaporation and thus greater precipitation and build up of ice might take place in polar regions. It looks like the models we have are naive and their predictions are wrong.
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/angelic7/ap/plugins/ap_macros.head on line 163
A lot of activists and politicians have been jetsetting around from one climate summit to the next and signing all sorts of commitments for some decades now, so how are we doing?
However, when I consider that places like Greenland were historically amenable to agriculture, I wonder whether a warmer climate might actually be something we should welcome. Life thrives in an incubator, not in a refrigerator. Besides warming, CO2 is the fundamental nutrient for photosynthesis and NASA confirms that the rising atmospheric CO2 levels are greening our planet.
Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill
The purpose of the Zero Carbon Bill is to establish a framework which New Zealand can use to develop clear, stable climate change policies in accord with the Paris Agreement.
There was a consultation on this last year. I wrote that crippling our own industry while importing produce from countries that continue to pollute is the dumbest thing we can do for the climate and that we should instead protect our own industry and economy and prepare for inevitable coming changes as the Earth returns to her warmer high carbon natural state...
I don't feel that Paris agreement objectives were rational and I asked that they stop letting the UN dictate policy and start representing what we, the people of New Zealand are asking for.
It's time our politicians drop their virtue signalling and instead of dissipating our energies and canibalizing our economies in opposing climate change, they need to prepare our country for the inevitable: dwindling fossil fuel reserves, a variable climate and potentially rising sea levels. It's time we, the people, get wise to their pretenses and demand they represent the interests if our own country and citizens.