The latest demonstration of said wackiness was a recent and no doubt little heard NPR radio interview of Peter Tans, the chief greenhouse gas scientist at NOAA. I say little heard because it is, after all, NPR radio, which probably has a listening audience of tens of people, no doubt other government-paid scientists.
Anyway, scientist Peter Tans says that in order to really fight climate change, carbon emission needs to be lowered to zero. Yes - you did read that right.
The NPR host Melissa Block throws a hanging curve over the plate.
Block: "How troubling is the new record number of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere - 400 ppm?"
Tans: "What troubles me is that we're still headed at full speed in a direction that we should not be going. We are at the beginning of bringing about huge changes in the Earth's climate and ecosystems. The potential is there for us to make life hard, really, for future generations."
Block: "And what would it take to reverse the carbon dioxide concentration levels that you're seeing now?"
Tans: "See, that is really at the core of why we have made so little progress. The problem with CO2 in particular is that climate - forcing of climate change by CO2 depends not so much on the rate at which we are admitting it. It depends primarily on the total amount of CO2 that we've emitted since preindustrial times. The implication is that if we want to stop this, we have to bring the omissions back down to zero."
Well, scientist Tans - we've heard some doozies, but that's the most ridiculous claim yet - zero carbon dioxide output. I'd say that will "make life hard, really, for future generations."
Tans failed to postulate on just how this would be achieved, and, of course, Ms. Block didn't think it important enough to follow-up with something like – gee - how in the heck would we do that?
Never mind that there's not a shred of evidence that man-made CO2 or even naturally occurring CO2 causes global warming. Once again, it all comes back to these scientists who depend solely on their precious computer models.
Innocuous CO2 data is loaded into faulty climate models and thus creating bogus climate impact models. Warming alarmists, also called climate scientists, despite the debunking of the CO2 hockey stick, still insist that increased CO2 leads to warming, when, historically, it's been the reverse.
Yet, climate researchers like Katja Frieler insist, "Impact models are the second step after the climate models, and it's a relevant step for what climate change means for humans." Just one poorly constructed model feeding into another, and then another, and so on. It's almost like it's predetermined - but upstanding men and women of science would never do such a thing, would they?
It's like building a machine that only makes ham & cheese sandwiches on rye bread with mustard. No matter what ingredients are loaded into the machine, it spits out a ham and cheese on rye with mustard.
The fact is that virtually every climate model has been either dead wrong, or the predictions haven't even been close.
In 2013, a leaked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document confessed as much. Mail Online reported: "The leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007."
"Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models."
"But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions." In other words, the "observed" warming wasn't observed at all, but most likely output from yet another bogus computer model. They do recognize the global warming 'pause' and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they can't explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
"They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower."
In other words, they have no clue why the climate does what it does, but simply refuse to admit their ignorance, or denounce their ridiculous computer models. Other than being a weatherman, where can one be wrong all the time and still maintain his or her employment?
Yet, facts never deter those like the esteemed Pieter Tans, chief greenhouse gas scientist with NOAA. None of these activists will be deterred until the country wises up to the scam of man-made global warming and shame these charlatans into going back underground. That and take their entire government largess away.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.