IPCC Technological Assumptions Slow Fight Against Global Warming
April 6, 2008
Boston (dbTechno) - According to a new study, there are many technological challenges which will slow the fight against global warming, and reduction of CO2 emissions. The authors of the study have stated that the Intergovernmental Panel on Clime Change (IPCC) has failed to fund technological advances needed to continue the fight.
The study stated that the IPCC believes that technology will simply advance over time, in an overly optimistic manner.
The authors of the study include Roger Pielke Jr. from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Tom Wigley from the National Center for Atmosphere Research in Boulder, and Christopher Green McGill University in Montreal.
They believe that the overly optimistic ideas of the IPCC simply will not fly. Their study states that action is going to be needed to advance technology.
Technology will play a major role in the reduction of emissions in the future. Without policy and proper funding, technology will not advance at a rate needed to successfully fight global warming.
They state that the IPCC believes the reductions will occur automatically, without any type of policy intervention or action. The authors of the study state though that this is not the case.
Pielke states that the IPCC report assures all that the majority of emissions reductions required will occur automatically.
If technology does not advance through policy and proper funding, it may enter a stalled state, causing the fight against global warming to greatly slow.
The study has been published in the journal Nature.
Comments
One Response to “IPCC Technological Assumptions Slow Fight Against Global Warming”
All comments are moderated.
If your comment is approved, it will be posted within 24 hours
Breaking News
Antidepressant Interfeers With Breast Cancer Drug tamoxifenBoston (DbTechNo) - The antidepressant drug paxil has been shown to interfeer with a leading breast cancer drug called tamoxifen. According...
Kendra Wilkinson Tweets About Super Bowl BreakdownBoston (DbTechNo) - Former Playboy bunny and wife of Hank Basket has come out and explained why she started crying after...
Brad and Angelina Take Eldest Son to Super BowlBoston (DbTechNo) - Both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were at the Super Bowl last night and appeared to be as happy as ever. The...
How can responsible scientists continue to believe that man’s CO2 emissions have anything to do with climate change? There is not even strong evidence, never mind proof, that this is true. The IPCC’s own scientists are coming forward to say that the IPCC press releases contradict their scientific reports. In addition, the IPCC has been forced to withdraw things like the “hockey stick” graph which as called the “smoking gun” of man’s responsibility for global warming because of statistical errors and chicanery in suppressing data series which did not fit the desired result.
In addition, every year it seems the IPCC’s followers made predictions that “next year will be the hottest ever; or the number of hurricanes will be the largest ever; or the polar bears will be decimated.” Wrong, every prediction was wrong. And, when the computer models were re-run using actual 20th century data, they all produced forecasts which were materially wrong, overstating today’s temperatures substantially.
The IPCC has ignored the possibility that it is the sun’s variations which cause climate change; even though solar theorists correctly predict the climate and the CO2 theories do not. Even the man-on-the-street asks “if the other planets, even Pluto, is warming in the same pattern as the earth, how can man’s CO2 emissions possibly be blamed for climate change considering the influence of the sun?”
We can only think that the reason scientists and policy makers are so blind about this is because they see visions of hundreds of billions of dollars of research and grant money spent, establishment of a carbon trading industry, and even more money taxed from the public to support politicians’ insatiable appetite for political and personal gain, and control.
Increasingly, scientists are discarding the CO2 theory because it does not fit observations, has no predictive value and has been fraudulently pushed by a large number of politicians in the IPCC who have run roughshod over the science. It is even written in the IPCC procedures that if the science disagrees with the public announcements that the science reports have to changed! And, regrettably, the press has ballooned this story into an international crisis with little basis in fact.
The defenders of the man-caused CO2 theory usually point to climate effects like melting glaciers, reduction of the ice pack in the arctic, reduction of snow cover on Mr. Kilimanjaro, increase in one degree in the 20th century, rise in ocean levels, etc., but they reject all natural explanations to sell their man-caused CO2 greenhouse warming theory which cannot forecast anything correctly.
How long can this go on?