Despite all the evidence to the contrary, climate alarmists, dressed in lab coats, and calling themselves scientists are becoming wackier with every passing year.
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.
Tans says that in order to really fight climate change, carbon emission needs to be lowered to zero.
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.”
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 “How in the heck would we do that?” In reality, all life forms we would all have to stop breathing since they emit CO2.
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 man-made computer models that depend on CO2 emissions from power plants to operate.
Consider the headline from the November 2, 1922 Anchorage Daily Times and the first line of the article: “The Arctic ocean is warming up, and icebergs are growing scarcer in some places, the seals finding the waters too hot…”
Innocuous CO2 data are loaded into faulty climate models 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 that “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?
The fact is, 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. The Daily Mail Online reported that “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.”
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.