You just don't get it. I know when someone does not have a quantifiable answer and anyone can research and figure that out. And I am an expert on using an information system to gather, collate, organize and analyze information. I am not aware of any experts I rely on.
I presume the FED has a better understanding today about how the economic organism function than in the past.
I would not second guess them and I find little interest in how they think. But climate science is about lying selling lies about OMG danger that is at best minor warming of a degree. My science comprehension gut says will never be measurable as it is some fraction of a degree and because of greening effect may actually be a micro lowering of temperatures.
So pissing away all kinds of money that could buy food and other stuff that could greatly help poorer people is an evil based upon lies. No different than any endeavor to make money based upon fraud and paid for by taxing productive people.
The following is backed up by real observations Quantifiable observation. The agw bogey man is speculation that has OMG bad impact based upon faulty physics. And more and more the central experts are shown in science error.
The benefits of carbon dioxide
Published on: Tuesday, 20 October, 2015
Global greening may save more lives and forests than warming costs
My Times Column on the surprisingly large benefits of carbon dioxide emissions:
France’s leading television weather forecaster, Philippe Verdier, was taken off air last week for writing that there are “positive consequences” of climate change. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of mathematical physics and astrophysics at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, declared last week that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are “enormously beneficial”. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, said in a lecture last week that we should “celebrate carbon dioxide”.
Are these three prominent but very different people right? Should we at least consider seriously, before we go into a massive international negotiation based on the assumption that carbon dioxide is bad, whether we might be mistaken? Most politicians today consider such a view to be so beyond the pale as to be mad or possibly criminal.
Yet the benefits of carbon dioxide emissions are not even controversial in scientific circles. As Richard Betts of the Met Office tweeted last week, the “CO2 fertilisation effect” — the fact that rising emissions are making plants grow better — is not news and is discussed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The satellite data show that there has been roughly a 14 per cent increase in the amount of green vegetation on the planet since 1982, that this has happened in all ecosystems, but especially in arid tropical areas, and that it is in large part due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
Last week also saw the publication of a comprehensive report on “Carbon Dioxide — the Good News” for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by the independent American scientist Indur Goklany, to which Freeman Dyson wrote the foreword. The report was thoroughly peer-reviewed, as was almost all of the voluminous literature it cited. (Full disclosure: I helped edit the report.)
Goklany points out that whereas the benefits of carbon dioxide are huge and here now, the harms are still speculative and almost all in the distant future. There has so far been — as the IPCC confirms — no measurable increase in droughts, floods or storms worldwide, no reversal in the continuing rapid decline in deaths due to insect-borne diseases, and no measurable impacts of the continuing very slow rise in global sea levels. In stark terms, Bangladesh is still gaining land from sedimentation in its rivers’ deltas, has suffered no increase in cyclones, but has benefited from reduced malnourishment to the tune of billions of dollars from higher crop yields as a result of carbon dioxide emissions. |
