Sunday, December 11th 2011, 12:39 PM EST
Not only is the Kyoto Protocol technically flawed, the so-called science behind it is utter twaddle. Never mind complicated things like non-linear mathematics or, indeed, mathematics of any sort. The alarmists can't possibly know how to predict the future of Earth's climate because they can't explain its past.
At one point the UN's famous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tried to tell us the climate story was pretty simple. Their infamous "hockey stick" graph showed temperature constant for 1,000 years, then shooting up sharply in the 20th century as Industrial Man started pumping CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. On top of the technical jiggery-pokery, this account brazenly misrepresented the past.
As the IPCC itself admitted in 1990, we've long known about a "Medieval Warm Period" starting around 1000 AD followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1600 until the mid-19th century. The former explains why the Viking settlement flourished then perished in Greenland. And slower tree growth producing denser wood during the latter may account for the superb resonance of Stradivarius violins. But whatever made the Medieval Warm Period warm, it certainly wasn't manmade GHGs. Nor did we cause the Little Ice Age.
So ask the warmers with their spuriously precise predictions of a "greenhouse effect" involving floods, famines, hurricanes a'blowin and a bad moon rising: Can you plug in known year 1000 data and have your computer model produce a Medieval War Period then let New Yorkers walk across the ice from Manhatten to Staten Island in 1780 and drop snow on Dickens' London Christmases? If not, why should anyone believe you can plug in year 2000 data and predict 2215 or 2875?
It's not just the Middle Ages. Can your models explain the sudden, irregular, dramatic temperature reversals that sent glaciers rampaging south then fleeing north about a dozen times over the last million years? Or anything else we actually do know about Earth's climate? For instance:
1. It has been highly variable, from the sauna-like Cretaceous (145- 65 million years ago) to the frozen snowball Cryogenian Period (850-630 million years ago).
2. It often changes suddenly, swinging wildly up and down, even within trend lines.
3. All previous changes were certainly not caused by man-made GHGs so the essence of Kyoto science is that whatever causal mechanisms drove climate change for 4 billion years were suddenly replaced a century ago by a whole new set for reasons no one has attempted to explain.
This uncertainty is not good news or cause for complacency. For instance the Younger Dryas, about 12,000 years ago, just as the last glaciation was ending, saw a terrifyingly sudden, precipitous drop in temperature, as much as two degrees per decade for half a century.
Were such a thing to occur today billions would die, mostly in poor countries. If you think warming is bad, imagine cooling. But that doesn't make me one of those fatuous people who say "bring it on" to global warming. Gentle warming clearly has benefited mankind since the ice age ended but a dramatic increase would not. Any sudden change would be very bad. The problem is, we have no idea what might cause it, when or how and even if we did we probably couldn't avoid it.
Did a cloud of interstellar dust trigger the dreadful Cryogenic snowball Earth? Well, the planet has no steering wheel. Do sunspots drive short-term temperature change (when they decrease so does the "solar wind" of charged particles, letting more cosmic rays reach Earth and promote formation of low-altitude clouds that reflect the sun's heat back into space)? Well, you can't regulate the sun.
Should we encounter sudden temperature change, the best defence would be wealth: productive resources able to replace failed agricultural systems, energy to heat or cool ourselves to survive new climatic patterns, new irrigation or drainage systems. The worst defence would be to inflict massive harm on our economies in pursuit of environmental phantoms.
It's not just that Kyoto couldn't stop man-made global warming if it were happening. It's that the whole process is driven by fake science.
If they can't explain the past they can't predict the future. And if they won't discuss the past, you know they can't explain it.
Click source for more