Skeptical scientists caution Obama on climate change fixes | The Detroit NewsGiven the suggested urgency, I contacted several noted climate experts to determine whether the United States can shape the climate of our own country without harming the climate of other nations. The three who responded to my inquiries were atmospheric scientist S. Fred Singer, a former government scientist and administrator who is president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project; climate studies scientist Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist who is now at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; and climate scientist John Christy, the former lead author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The trio, noted skeptics on the extent and impact of global warming, rejected the notion that the climate of a particular country or the Earth could be controlled for our benefit.
"Most unlikely," Singer wrote in an e-mail response to me.
"Not for the earth and especially not for any particular country," Spencer said.
Christy shared the view of his colleagues, while adding, "The natural climate forcings are much larger than the impact of a tiny change in emissions that current proposals strive to achieve."
While environmentalists, led by Al Gore, have grabbed the ear of Obama and his Democratic colleagues, I asked the three climate realists what advice they would give the new president before he races headlong down the expensive road of carbon offsets and alternative energy requirements.
"He should put off the environmentalists indefinitely," Spencer said. "Tell them we have to fix the economy first before we can afford unaffordable renewable energy 'solutions.' "
Christy warned against forcing expensive energy options on Americans while trying to move toward a "safe" climate because "you will (a) damage the economic opportunity for Americans, (b) have very little impact on emissions and (c) have no impact on whatever the climate is going to do."
Instead, Christy suggests Obama "promote research into energy systems that (a) reduce harmful emissions (carbon dioxide is not harmful), (b) enhance nuclear power, (c) keep costs low, (d) employ Americans, (e) enhance resilience to deal with climate variability (hurricanes, heat waves, blizzards) that we know will occur."
Singer kept his advice to one simple sentence: "Don't listen to con artists."
EU CO2 to drop 10 percent below 2007 levels | Environment | ReutersLONDON (Reuters) - European Union industrial emissions could fall by 10 percent below 2007 levels next year, Deutsche Bank said on Thursday, unnerving traders on the possibility of another price collapse in carbon permits.
The German bank said lower productivity from companies participating in the EU's emissions trading scheme will lead to a surplus in the emissions permits traded under the scheme over the next two years.
Wait a minute--why would the traders be "unnerved" by the prospect of lower CO2 emissions?! Shouldn't they be overjoyed that now maybe their grandchildren won't all die in a CO2-induced worldwide conflagration?
Posts
