Actual Effects of Global Warming Legislation on Temperature

C.M. Phippen

Like so many ecological/environmental scares that have been presented to us over the past 40 years, the science of global warming is anything but settled.

We were warned in the late 1960s that as a result of increasing population, the US would inevitably face mass starvation and that, “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” It was prophesied that food riots would ensue in the 1980s and that 60 million Americans would die of starvation.

We were also warned that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years as a result of pesticide use and that by 1999, the population of the US would drop to 22.6 million. Newsweek reported that because of the increased dust, cloud cover, and water vapor in the atmosphere, “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.”

We were told that “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” and that if present trends were to continue “the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. . . . twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

I remember, during the 1970s in New York, being taught this “science” in school as though it were fact. All of this matters because many of the same individuals and groups who endorsed the aforementioned apocalyptical prophesies are at the forefront of the current global warming hysteria.

This is one of a series of articles which will address various aspects of the debate surrounding climate change, its impact on our earth, and our impact on it.

I begin with this question: Before examining any of the science, and assuming the accuracy of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports with regard to the effect of CO2 on temperature, what would be the “savings” of temperature increase through the implementation of climate legislation over time?

If we were to reduce US CO2 output to zero, based on the assumptions made by believers in anthropogenic global warming regarding the effect of those emissions on temperature, the resulting decrease in global temperature would be 0.152°C immediately. This is, of course, wildly unrealistic and would return us immediately to the stone age (as opposed to slowly, over time, so we won’t notice quite so much).

We pretty much all realize by now that if Kyoto were adhered to by all signing countries, the total reduction in temperature increase would amount to .19°C over 50 years, a miniscule amount that would have “no discernable effect on global climate.” We also are all pretty much aware by now that the countries that bound themselves to the Kyoto protocol haven’t done well at actually reducing emissions.

Environmental scientist Chip Knappenberger writes that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to over 80% by the year 2050, the goal of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, would produce global temperature savings over the next 50 years of about 0.05°C. By the year 2100, the decrease in the temperature increase is projected to be between .112°C and .195°C. His projections are determined using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, or MAGICC. These projected reductions in temperature would have the grand effect of simply pushing back the “inevitable” by 2 to 5 years.

I have searched and dug and investigated, and NOWHERE can I find any sort of rebuttal to this analysis. In fact, every analysis I do find says basically the same thing. NOWHERE is the issue even discussed among global warming believers. The argument seems to be that Waxman-Markey is simply needed in order to mitigate global warming. End of story. And that, apparently, is how the debate ended.

We will next look at the economic impact of global warming legislation.

11 Responses to “Actual Effects of Global Warming Legislation on Temperature”

  • Tyson F. Gautreaux Says:

    Hmm… Interesting! I always love reading the posts on this website.

  • free make up samples Says:

    While this topic can be very challenging for most people, my opinion is that there has to be a middle or common ground that we all can find. I do appreciate that you’ve added relevant and rational commentary here though. Very much thanks to you!

  • Iva Gallagher Says:

    Whooo I can’t believe I never watch this blog before, good read

  • Alycia Nicole Says:

    You should add a subscribers section to this blog, I think I’m addicted

  • Eddie Bansag Says:

    Excellent post, couldn’t agree more

  • florida health insurance Says:

    Personally, I don’t care who is in the White House, as long as they get things done. That means I don’t care if they are Republican or Democrat or Independant. The only fools I truly see are the ones that behave like children….. they can’t make the rules so they throw a fit. You complain about this President’s spending, and when he finally starts talking about controlling spending, you complain about that. Grand Obstructionist Party indeed.

  • Towel rails heated Says:

    Certainly got us thinking here are work, expect a few replies later

  • florida car insurance Says:

    Climategate Forecast…“• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.] Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

  • Arron Dibenedetto Says:

    This is an interesting blog you have her but I can’t seem to find the RSS subscribe button.

  • chat forum Says:

    Hi, great site, where did you come up with the info in this summary? Im glad I found it though, I will be checking back soon to see what other articles you have.