by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:

Meh.

Without significant reductions in greenhouse emissions, the annual average global temperature could increase 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 Celsius) or more by the end of this century, compared with preindustrial temperatures, the report says.

I’ll take the under on that.

Nine degrees Fahrenheit or 5C?  Nobody credible can back that number up.

Nobody.

This is scaremongering bullcrap that has no basis in anything credible.  It’s the so-called “climate” equivalent of the Daisy campaign ad, which incidentally won a Presidential election.  In other words — propaganda.

Let me further point out that CO2 is what makes plants grow.  Those involved in the clandestine production of marijuana have for decades purchased CO2 cylinders and grown in sealed, enclosed rooms where they can bump up the CO2 content from the usual atmospheric content to two or three times that.  This remains safe to be in as a human or other animal but it radically accelerates the growth of plants.

Since we seem to think that exponential population expansion on the planet remains a good idea and something to pursue, especially by people who have little or no industry and ability to support themselves, such an increase is the only way they do not starve and, when they begin to, decide to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction to take what they cannot afford to buy.

Never mind that the “report” says nothing about the other fact — despite our growth in population, which has averaged about 1% annually for the last 100 years and continues to the United States for the first time recorded an actual decrease in CO2 emissions last year.

Did we use less energy per-capita to accomplish this?  No.

That decrease came about because we have cheap natural gas and market forces converted a large amount of what was other, more-CO2-emitting sources of energy to it (mostly in utility power generation.)  As a result despite our energy use going up our CO2 emissions went down.

But we’re the problem you see, not the Chinese and Indians, never mind the entirety of sub-Saharan Africa, which is either in the “industrial, dirty and polluting boom” paradigm or worse — has yet to enter it.  And by the way those people are the vast majority of the population on the planet and they are not going to submit to living in straw huts for all eternity.

The very premise that we can somehow “solve” this or have any material impact on it in the United States is just flat-out nuts.  We’re already reducing our emissions per-capita, never mind that I’m not buying the claims in the first place and even if they’re correct I argue that we get more benefit than cost so long as we continue to, as a planet, insist on increasing the human population.

The alternative to that isn’t very pleasant either.  Forcibly reducing population tends to come from pretty nasty events such as wars, genocides and similar.  I’m sure none of these tree-huggers are really going to suggest that — right Buehler?

“In Houston, communities of color have endured back to back major weather events without the acknowledgment from Washington that climate change is the cause. We’ve known for years that it’s true and it’s important to our organizing and our local policy efforts that information like this is not only considered, but believed and acted upon.”

Communities of color?

Since when does the climate (or weather) only hit black people?

This is the very sort of statement that belies the fact that this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with control and, in fact, communism.

As I pointed out in Leverage we have the means to replace all domestic oil consumption with coal — but not in the way you think of it.  This also replaces all fossil-fired electrical generation and doing so would cut our CO2 emissions roughly in half.  Now I don’t happen to believe for a minute that doing so would make a tinker’s cuss worth of difference in terms of climate, but the fact remains that there are answers to this question that do not involve living in huts and reverting to 3rd century living standards, which is exactly what many of these “proponents” argue for.

Read More @ Market-Ticker.org