Nov

22

Drinking the IPCC bath water

November 22, 2007 |

Environment Minister Barry Penner Tuesday introduced Bill 44, the Greehouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which mandates that province’s emissions be trimmed by 33 per cent below current levels by 2020.

The law also calls for “realistic, economically viable” interim targets be set by the end of 2008. And it mandates reduction of emissions by at least 80 per cent below 2007 levels by 2050. times colonist

People wonder why I prattle on about the flaws in so called “climate science”. The BC government has just demonstrated why. “Penner said B.C.’s 2050 target is supported by the best available science.” Unfortuantely, virtually all of that “science” is predicated on the flawed studies of Mann et. al. and has never been subjected to a rigorous audit.

The problem is that the BC government is embarking on a 13 year program which will cost the BC economy billions of dollars to control the emissions of gases whose effects on climate are not at all well understood. (To give just one example: it is not obvious that levels of CO2 and temperature co-relate a) at all, b) in the linear manner asserted by the IPCC.) Worse, even if one assumes some CO2 effect, there is not the slightest chance this program will make any difference to climate change simply because China and other rapidly industrializing nations are vastly increasing their outputs of CO2.

Increasingly, the pillars of the AGW temple are shaking. While the Arctic ice cover may be shrinking, the Antarctic cover is rapidly increasing. It is becoming apparent that the Medieval Warm Period was considerably warmer than the temperatures we are currently experiencing, even the IPCC has abandoned the Mannian “hockeystick” and, in its most recent report, has suggested things like sea level rise are more on the order of a foot over the next century rather than the 20 feet Algore and the alarmists have been claiming. Increasingly, even the instrument temperature record is looking as if it is largely reflecting urban heat island and weather station siting effects rather than a genuine increase in teperature.

Citing “the best available science” suggests that the science is settled. It is not and it is becoming less settled with each passing day.

Rather than announcing targets it would make a good deal more sense for the BC Government to fund a serious look at the science which underlies the global warming hysteria. Which will not happen because, for the moment, the alarmist view remains politically attractive. I suspect that will change when, and if, the BC government starts the taxing and restrictions required in its quixotic quest for Green.


Comments

1 Comment so far

  1. eric on November 28, 2007 9:24 am

    The IPCC’c specific mandate is to report, not objectively, on the possible human effect on climate change. Even where there evidence that any change is due to sunspots or otherwise it is not their mandate to report such.

    They may have some good points but were they to discover natural causes their mandate would expire and they’d be out of work.

    It’s the same as industry reporting on itself. When this happens it’s poo, pooed big time!

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind