SONICFROG DOT NET

Why Climate Scientists Should NEVER Be Trusted With The Fate Of The World.

This quote:

Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years. (1)

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said.

Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

Gosh… Where to start.

“…halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.”

Economic growth has slowed over the last three years during this world wide near depression. Has it reduced carbon emissions worldwide? Answer is here.

…[it] “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods…

Including climate scientists, even after the shame of last years Dopenhagen failure, still insist on traveling to exotic locals all over the world in carbon emitting jets and riding in carbon emitting limousines in order to dictate to the world how the rest of us must never dream of ever doing these things…. Not Ever.

“Time of crisis”

???? That would be either the great depression, where 25 percent of the workforce was unemployed, or World War II, where young men were dying on the battlefield. Sounds swell. Also remember that the constant manufacturing and use of war machines sent both carbon emissions and pollution in general skyrocketing.

“Food that has traveled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.”

In order to grow a third world economy into a second, and eventually a first world country, those third world countries have to build things and grow things, and also be able to sell them abroad. That’s how every first world nation has become a first world nation. Every. Single. One. Not only will that mean the current third world countries would have to greatly increase their own energy generation in order to do these things, which means more burning of fossil fuels, but, if this brilliant man of knowledge has his way, these countries will have no market to sell to if we in the first world are all on rations and limit imported food…. DUH!

Oh… And they’ll need money. Lots of it. I suppose the central banks are to just crank up the printing press and print gobs more of the stuff, because, you know, that doesn’t effect the economic conditions at all (one example, see Germany 1923).

“….it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.”

Because that worked soooooo well for Europe under Kyoto. (hint, much of Europe, for a time, was able to make it look like they had reduced some of their CO2 emissions by outsourcing their energy generation needs to countries that had carbon credits… basically, they pulled an Enron with CO2)

“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

I absolutely can’t believe this educated person would say that. Really? REALLY???  Anyone else remember climate change and our CO2 emissions not being so bad ten years ago???? Did I miss that one???

Then why didn’t Kyoto freeze CO2 emissions at 2000 levels instead of 1990? I have to ask…. Why is it always “Ten Years“???? It doesn’t matter the years that it’s uttered, dire consequences are always Ten Years Away! Why not twelve, or thirteen, or two?

PS. If I recall, the 18 month target seemed to work pretty well for Prince Charles.  Maybe THAT should be our target.

Also see the follow-up post here.