Next week the world's elites will descend on Copenhagen Denmark to tell us all how we must cut back on energy use to save the planet. Never mind that in getting there, many aboard private jets, they will dump over 40,000 tons of carbon into the air, roughly the same amount of emissions Morocco put out altogether in 2006 (more celebrity carbon excess stories here).
All that celebrity/big government/world socialist zeal won't go unrewarded. Danish prostitutes have pledged to provide free services to attendees at the Copenhagen conference. The hookers are doing it to protest a Danish government warning not to enlist the girl's services even though prostitution is legal in Denmark.
The climate changers may want to take the girls up on their offer as as way to avoid interacting with the Speaker of the Danish Parliament. Here's what he said about globaloney:
“The problem is that lots of people go around saying that the climate change we see is a result of human activity. That is a very dangerous claim,” Parliamentary Speaker and former Finance Minister Thor Pedersen (Lib) tells DR.Meanwhile, Denmark's reputation for being green is bumping into it's own reality check. According to the European Environmental Agency in Copenhagen:
“Unfortunately I seem to experience that scientists say: ‘We have a theory’ – then that crosses the road to the politicians who say: ‘We know’. Who can be bothered to hear a scientist who says ‘I have a theory’ when politicians go around saying ‘I know’” Thor Pedersen says.
“I’m not saying that in the decade that the temperature has fallen or stagnated is enough to evaluate developments. But one should only say what one knows,” the Speaker adds.
“You should say that although we believed in our models, that the temperature would rise from 1998 to 2008, we have to admit that it has not risen. We cannot explain why it has not risen, but we believe we still have a problem. I’m just asking that people say what they actually know,” Pedersen tells DR.
Danes are bigger polluters than the Dutch. In 2006, the average Dane was good for a yearly carbon dioxide equivalent emission of 13 tons, while the average Dutch-person only emitted 12.7 tons, according to figures from the European Environmental Agency in Copenhagen.Oops!
So why does Denmark have such a 'green' reputation? Morten Møller of the Danish Energy Agency in Copenhagen has often asked himself the same question. He thinks it may have something to do with all the windmills dotting the Danish landscape.
It is true that the windmills have considerably reduced Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions, but increased road traffic has already undone the difference. The number of pigs held in Denmark has also increased, and pig excrement contains methane, which is 20 times more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide.
Still No Report of Climate Gate on Big Three Nightly News
14 days in a row and not a peep since the story broke. Don't the American people have a right to know?
Even If Draconian Measures Were Adopted, The Impact on Temp would be Nil!
Obama will go to Copenhagen and pledge that the United States will reduce our carbon emissions by 83% of our 2005 level by 2050. That means more than an 83% reduction in the energy we currently use today to heat and cool our homes, run our cars and feed the planet. It's an insane idea that will destroy the American economy and cause the price of energy to "skyrocket" as Obama already admitted his plan would do.
The problem is that there are few scientists out there who will honestly tell you that even if we were to undergo this radical restructuring of nearly every aspect of our daily lives that it will make the slightest difference to any climate change.
Prof. John Christy, a lead author of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, recipient of NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal and a frequent witness in hearings on Capitol Hill gave the following testimony (PDF) before the House Ways and Means Committee in February 2009:
Global Temperature Impact of vehicle reductions of CO2 (California AB1493)
The EPA is considering allowing California and other states to determine their own rules for CO2 emissions. I calculated, using IPCC climate models, that if the entire country adopted these rules, the impact would be a minuscule 0.01 °C by 2100. And, if the entire world did the same, the effect would be less than 0.04°C by 2100, an amount so tiny we cannot measure it with instruments, let alone notice it in anyway.
Global Temperature Impact of 1000 Nuclear Power Plants by 2020
The scale of CO2 emissions is simply enormous. Again using IPCC climate models, if
1000 new nuclear power plants could be operating by 2020 (about 10% of the world’s energy) this would affect the global temperature by only 0.07°C by 2050 and 0.15°C by 2100. We wouldn’t notice it, but this dent could just be detectable by our instruments. However, these values are very likely overstated as they are based on current models.
Four realizations of temperature through 2100 from the IPCC best estimateTo prove his point that our understanding of the impact CO2 plays on warming is flawed, Dr. Christy produced this additional chart:
model projections assuming business-as-usual emissions (A1B) and a climate sensitivity to CO2 of 2.6°C/2xCO2 (mid-range case). Red: base temperature projection of a warming of +2.76°C with purple being the result if the entire U.S. adopted the California AB1493 rule (43 mpg fleet average), which changes the temperature by only 0.01°C – this is indistinguishable from the Red curve. Blue: net result if entire world adhered to California AB1493 (net change of only 0.035 °C). Finally Green: net effect of replacing 10% of the energy by 2020 with 1000 nuclear power plants (1.4 GWt each) – a cooling of 0.15°C. However, the assumption of the “mid-range” sensitivity of 2.6 is very likely too high, so that actual impacts of these initiatives would be much less than the tiny amounts shown here.
“GISS” A, B, and C are model projections of global surface temperature fromIn laymen's terms: the models got it wrong and it would be foolish to spend $trillions on a problem that doesn't exist!
James Hansen in Senate testimony in 1988. “A” and “B” are two “business-asusual”
model projections of temperature which assume emissions similar to what has happened (though in actuality these estimates were a bit less than occurred). “C” is a model projection in which drastic CO2 cuts are assumed. “UAH” and “RSS” are two independent global satellite atmospheric temperature measurements (1979-2008) from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems adjusted to mimic surface temperature variations for an apples to apples comparison with the model projections (factor of 1.2, CCSP SAP 1.1, note all datasets are based on the 1979-1983 reference period). All model projections show high sensitivity to CO2 while the actual atmosphere does not. It is noteworthy that the model projection for drastic CO2 cuts still overshot the observations. This would be considered a failed hypothesis test for the models from 1988.
Wouldn't it be better if the folks attending the Copenhagen conference used their time to address real manmade problems like war and peace, hunger, illiteracy and disease?
P.S. Dr. Christy's lecture on climate change delivered to Auburn University in October 2007 is a one hour primer that shouldn't be missed by anyone wishing to better understand this issue: