PDF 
By Mike Gray
Four Texas A&M geographers recently estimated, after making arbitrary baseline assumptions, that “it will probably be decades before distinct changes from the current [30-year baseline] warming rate become apparent,” and they stated, therefore, that “we should expect decades to pass before impacts of the war against global warming become apparent”:
So what are the implications they derive from this result? First of all, as they say in one place, the war against global warming “will require a sustained commitment to stringent climate control policies for periods of decades or longer.” And as they say in another place, that war “will require unprecedented social, political, and economic commitments.”
Think about these statements. Without obtaining any empirical evidence — over a period of decades or longer — that the planet is even inching towards the catastrophic climatic future the world’s climate alarmists are predicting, we will be asked to endorse — or, perhaps more accurately, ordered to obey — a host of rules and regulations that pertain to a number of unprecedented “social, political, and economic” commitments, which will be imposed on the planet’s global population, but with an emphasis placed upon those people living in countries with the economic and technical capacity to produce and use greater amounts of fossil fuel-derived energy.
Yes, the world’s climate alarmists desire all mankind to place blind faith in the predictions of their climate models, and to do so for generations to come, and without any empirical evidence for the validity of their predictions, forcing us to adhere to liberty-destroying edicts, without any means of ever calling them into question.
So concludes the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Read more here.
What about biofuels? Can they be a viable alternative to conventional fuels accused of destroying the planet? Three Australian researchers recently presented a rosy picture, claiming that “first-generation biofuels are an existing, scalable form of renewable energy of the type that is ‘urgently required to mitigate climate change,’ which is an important thing to remember about their mindset in light of the findings and implications of their work.” Unfortunately:
When all is said and done, it is clear that it is only on the most productive arable land that biofuel agriculture turns a profit; and that profit comes not from normal economic considerations, but from farm subsidies paid by the government or the population at large. And the usurpation of the most productive arable land for biofuel production means there is an additional cost of reduced food and fiber production, which results in higher prices for these essential commodities, which prices are also paid by the population at large. And to add insult to injury, there is a negligible effect of biofuels on net energy production. Consequently, “if biofuels are to be embraced,” as Bryan et al. [the Australian researchers] comment in concluding their assessment of the issue, “additional policy design features and institutions are required to support farm subsidies.” And for this fact to be admitted by scientists who feel that first-generation biofuels are urgently required says a lot about their brutal honesty in publishing their not-so-glowing findings about biofuel costs and effectiveness.
Read more here.
Meanwhile, a letter to Congress from a group of scientists strongly contradicts a letter submitted earlier by “eighteen climate alarmists” whose aim, they say, “was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.” How accurate were the gang of eighteen? Not very, according to these scientists:
Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.
Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.
In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.
Read more here (PDF, 4 pages).
Continued support of the CO2 mistake is dividing environmental efforts and hurting progressive reforms and has grouped scientists with lying politicians promising to lower the seas and make the weather colder with taxes. And meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate control instead of needed population control.