A CAR FROM GM ever again.
In attempting to “greenwash” itself, General Motors is advertising in support of the Chevrolet line that, when you buy a car from them, they will invest in — scorn quotes — “renewable” energy (Batclue: physics teaches us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefor, how is one able to “renew” energy?), and planting trees, all in aid of doing the equivalent of removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Setting aside the fact that the warmists have yet to demonstrate to any degree of certainty greater than zero that a degree or two of warming over the course of a century is a bad thing, let us consider: it has been conclusively demonstrated that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is not, never has, and never will happen under the circumstances described by the alarmists’ conjectures. (No rigorous theory has been advanced; no public testing of a theory has been permitted; CAGW cannot be a theory or even a hypothesis, it is — at best — a conjecture.) The numbers not only don’t add up, but the algorithms apparently used will deliver the same results regardless of the numeric inputs provided.
Therefor, to what purpose the “reduction of carbon” in the atmosphere. To cool the planet?
Consider that an examination of the “official” raw data purportedly used by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the Hadley Center at East Anglia University (EAU) in England (the dataset known as HadCRU, whose operators were the subjects of last year’s ClimateGate email and data leaks), shows no significant warming for 87% of the planet’s surface “between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s.”
Consider that the Surface Stations initiative showed that the overwhelming majority of stations (70%+) of stations showed a warming bias greater than the trend claimed by the warming alarmists.
Is it possible that, rather than warming, the actual global temperature trend over the preceding 100 years or so has been cooling?
Laying aside another fact — that humanity’s contribution to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere almost defines the term minuscule — let us assume that our actions can have an effect on the amount of CO2 in the air. That we can reduce the amount of carbon out there. What is the likely result? Perhaps cooling?
Aren’t the same people seeking to alarm us that the earth is about to parboil from our own hot breath the ones who constantly describe the knife’s-edge balance of the state of the atmosphere, that it might suddenly shift from one trend to another, without warning, and plunge us into either the furnace or the deep freeze? (Many, many orders of magnitude harder than turning a 100,000-ton ocean liner at sea, but never mind.)
And, given what is known about the temperature record purported to underpin the whole CAGW conjecture, (but which actually undermines it), isn’t any initiative to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 … rather reckless?
Are you sure you want to contribute to that? Or, would you prefer, in the coinage from the science fiction novel Fallen Angels, to “throw another log on the fire”?
Cross-posted at Eternity Road.