Saving the planet takes your breath away

December 1, 2009

Literally. The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has declared that regulating carbon emissions may not be enough to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change. We must remove carbon from the air itself!

Carbon must be sucked from air, says IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri

In an interview with The Times, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), proposed that new techniques should be applied to help to mop up atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide that have been pumped into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

“There are enough technologies in existence to allow for mitigation,” he said. “At some point we will have to cross over and start sucking some of those gases out of the atmosphere.”

Speaking days before the start of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, Dr Pachauri, who collected the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC with Al Gore, said that such a strategy needed to be pursued as a matter of urgency.

The Indian scientist, 69, also said that the target adopted by the 192 governments that are due to attend the conference, of restricting average global temperature rises to less than 2C (3.6F), may be insufficient to prevent catastrophic warming impacts such as a rise in sea levels of between 0.5m and 1.4m (1.6ft and 4.6ft) and enough to devastate many coastal cities around the world such as Shanghai, Calcutta and Dhaka. Instead, he said, a 1.5C rise was a safer target.

Dr Pachauri raised the prospect of so-called geo-engineering, whereby carbon dioxide is actively stripped from the atmosphere. A range of techniques have been proposed including seeding artificial clouds over oceans to reflect sunlight back into space, sowing the oceans with iron ore to boost plankton growth and using carbon capture and storage technology to fix emissions from power stations.

Right. So to deal with a “crisis” that now has every indication of being created by green statists in government and their hysteria-pimp enablers at CRU and other institutes of “higher learning,” we not only have to cripple the most productive economies in the world that have created the highest standard of living humanity has ever seen, we must re-engineer the atmosphere itself!

They laughed me in Vienna, the fools!

So, who is this Pachauri guy, anyway, besides being the head of the IPCC and the man who would save us from carbon dioxide? Why, he’s also the Great and Powerful Oz trusted scientist who assures us there is no problem with research at CRU. None at all. Nothing to see here. Move along:

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he told The Guardian.

(…)

“So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

(via The Jawa Report)

Transparent, eh? No possibility, says he? Oh, really?

Anyway, back to Dr. Lizardo’s Pachauri’s suggestions, perhaps he needs to review the literature on plants and the oceans as carbon sinks, since the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2 has hardly changed since 1850. If there is no excess of carbon in the atmosphere, then there is no need for great, big devices to scrub the atmosphere, or huge government programs to build them – or aging Indian scientists anxious to get their hands on research grants to design those devices, grants that would be funded by the taxes those governments would have to impose.

Lord, save me from the people who would save me.

(via Heliogenic Climate Change)

Advertisements

In other words, they were lying

December 1, 2009

Byron York looks at the Democratic discomfort over President Obama’s (grudging) decision to sent 30-34,000 more troops to Afghanistan and comes to a conclusion: when they all said during the campaign that the war in Afghanistan was the good war they could support, they lied:

Other top Democrats adopted the get-tough approach, at least when it came time to campaign.  In September 2006, as she was leading the effort that would result in Democrats taking over the House and her becoming speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said George W. Bush “took his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. “We had a presence over there the past few years, but not to the extent that we needed to get the job done,” Pelosi said. The phrase “took his eye off the ball” became a Democratic mantra about the supposed neglect of Afghanistan — a situation that would be remedied by electing ready-to-fight Democrats.

But now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan.  “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently.  There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.

It is in that atmosphere that Obama makes his West Point speech.  He had to make certain promises to get elected.  Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office.  So he is sending more troops.  But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.

And then they wonder why so many people don’t take the Democrats seriously when it comes to national security.