World leaders last night hailed a groundbreaking deal paving the way for a “substantial” reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with a view to halving them by 2050. The compromise agreement fell short of the original aims of Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, but was more ambitious than many expected.
It was clinched after President Bush was persuaded that his own plan for a climate change conference in the autumn would be part of efforts to reach a global agreement through the UN. Against expectations, he also allowed the 50 per cent target shared by most leading industrial countries to appear in the final G8 communiqué. Some saw Mr Bush’s shift as a parting gift to Tony Blair after their last one-to-one meeting.
Mrs Merkel and Mr Blair called the agreement a “huge success”, emphasising that America was now at the heart of the attempts to reach a worldwide deal to succeed the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Some campaigners welcomed the compromise as an important advance; others said it was weak and did not go far enough because they omitted the target of limiting temperature increases to 2C (3.6F).
And hopefully, Congress will do the same thing as last time.
TEC can play its own role–small but immediately efficacious–in fighting GHG emissions by closing and consolidating its numerous underperforming parishes. One wonders how much energy is used to heat and cool buildings that stand largely empty on an average Sunday. (There is a way to find a segue to TEC in every story posted on T19 by the way.)
When it is shown to be with some degree of science proof, I will back such measures. Right now I am being told this. We see records showing a temperature rise. It must be real. I must be the fault of evil industry.
The only true statement is we see records showing a temperature rise. It is not clear that this means global warming, there is other evidence which do not concur with that finding. Even granting there is warming it is not clear it is not a natural cycle. In short, it is politically correct junk science.
The shame is that good science which will properly answer this and other important questions is being shouted down. I have been an engineer for over thirty years and if I were to base any of my work on such poor evidence, I could expect to be on the wrong end of legal action. But in the world of the politically correct, if it anti-industry it must be good. To the politically correct junk science is as good as real science if the result is what you want.
How many people die for lack of food or medicine as the result of lack of economic growth? We it be more or less than those who died because DDT was banned as the result of junk science?
On second thought . . .
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110010186
Actually, an increase in the average temperature of a thermodynamic system can occur even when there is a net heat loss.