Skip to content

The Seventh Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

April 16, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

image

image

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

 

It is hard to know where to start with this load of garbage!

 

 

 

1) If climate change was not a serious danger, would 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to keep the warming below 2C?

Clearly National Geographic have failed to read what actually was agreed at Paris.

 

For a start, the Agreement itself actually states that, under the “pledges” made, emissions will continue to rise. To meet the 2C scenario, they would need to be cut by at least half.

 

image_thumb87

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/paris-agreement-will-lead-to-rise-in-ghg-emissions/

 

fig2exec_syr_update_v27apr2016_905_withlegend_thumb_thumb

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/why-the-uk-should-not-sign-the-paris-agreement/

 

Secondly, the vast majority of the 195 countries, including China and India, are designated as “developing” countries. As such, the Paris Agreement places no obligation on them at all to cut emissions, as it does on developed nations.

 

 

2) Switch to renewables

 

image

 

They claim that we can save the planet by switching to renewable energy. Yet even their own graph shows that, although the use of renewable energy will roughly double by 2040, this will be dwarfed by the increasing use of fossil fuels.

The reason for this is very simple – the demand for cheap, reliable energy is growing fast amongst developing countries, as their economies expand and the expectations of their people for a better standard of living grow.

Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is utterly incapable of meeting this demand.

The sort of emission cuts needed “to do something” would condemn billions of people to grinding poverty.

 

3) In the US, solar now employs more people than coal, oil and gas combined.

 

Given that solar only provides 0.4% of the US’s energy, this fatuous statement shows just how inefficient solar power really is.

 

image

BP Energy Review 2016

4) We can do something about it!

Who is this WE?

In the last decade or so, emissions have been slowly dropping in the US and EU, and now only account for 27% of global CO2.

Meanwhile, emissions in China and the rest of the world have been rocketing upwards.

 

image

BP Energy Review 2016

Even if US and EU emissions dropped to zero, it would only take global emissions back to their level in 2002, and make next to no difference to the climate.

 

 

 

 

This whole series from National Geographic has from start to finish been based on a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data.

Sadly this seems to sum up the low standards that it has now sunk to.

Advertisements
19 Comments
  1. April 16, 2017 12:18 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  2. April 16, 2017 12:22 pm

    The most efficient form of energy is obviously the one that has the fewest jobs per unit of energy created. (Leaving intermittency aside.) However, some folk would apparently be happy if the entire population was employed in green energy. They could then say of the UK that 60 million green jobs had been created.

    And give everyone a dynamo attached to an exercise bike.

    Presumably the metric of number of jobs per unit energy reveals just which energy sources are the most (in)efficient. Of course, “wind and sun are free”.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      April 16, 2017 3:48 pm

      This “jobs” metric needs an independent audit.
      A few years ago a city in the USA (Portland, Seattle, or another — ?) Installed large batteries in diesel-powered buses. On congested city streets, the buses were expected to use battery power. The drivers rarely did so (or they did not work — sorry, I’ve lost track of this).
      Nevertheless, the program developed the new occupation of “green driver” — that is, driving a mostly diesel bus, added to the number of green jobs.
      In the solar jobs category an installer of panels (roof or free standing) can be classed as a green job. I suspect a firm could offer to add heat retaining mass (think a few tonnes of rock and cement) to a house and the construction jobs would become green.

      I’ve put in a few LEDs and tiny solar powered walkway lights. In my retirement, I’ve become green.

      Okay, so the point is I do not trust “greens” because I think they just make stuff up.
      Thus, verify, verify, verify, . . . audit, audit, audit.

      • Les Johnson permalink
        April 16, 2017 5:21 pm

        The definition of “green jobs” is pretty, uh, liberal.

        Most green jobs are not new. Nor very high tech or high paying.

        For instance, according to the BLS, the septic-tank and portable-toilet servicing industry has nearly three times as many green jobs as are in the solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass power utilities combined.

        http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/22/garbage-collecting-a-green-job-according-to-government-yes/

        http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ggqcew.pdf

      • John Enns permalink
        April 17, 2017 3:31 am

        What you’re talking about is known as greenwashing. It’s really just a sales gimmick. The unintended consequence is that it breeds distrust.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        April 17, 2017 10:21 am

        The trouble is that the majority of ‘green’ jobs are virtually state employment since without shed-loads of taxpayers’ cash they wouldn’t exist. And the more people the state employs the worse your economy performs. It is similar to the old broken window adage – if somebody goes around breaking windows it helps the economy by providing work fixing them. Sadly this just wastes resources that could do something positive and beneficial. Just like pouring money down the ‘green’ jobs and renewables drain doesn’t provide any benefit in the long term.

  3. Broadlands permalink
    April 16, 2017 12:57 pm

    There has been previous discussion of this topic. Basically, it boils down to what one ppm of CO2 weighs and how human technology can do anything realistic about it. According to the CDIAC one ppm of CO2 is two gigatons… two billion metric tons of CO2. It must be captured and stored (safely) somewhere. This is essentially reburying what took nature millions of years to bury. And, if emissions are ever to get to zero, it must all be done with “alternative” energy. This is not a problem that can be ignored by those Marching for Climate Change. The odds are good that few of these well-intended folk even know about it. And, the cost? Estimated at around $130 per ton? Trillions. And… this does not remove but ONE ppm, never mind the absurd goal of going back to 1987 and 350 ppm. Rebury 50 ppm? Now that’s really big money!

    • Russ Wood permalink
      April 16, 2017 3:41 pm

      Of course this ignores Nature’s way of capturing CO2 – trees! So, the Greenies should be planting trees and stopping people from cutting them down! Er –

      • Broadlands permalink
        April 16, 2017 6:12 pm

        Actually Russ, Nature’s way will not do anything long-term because Nature’s way also reverses photosynthetic “sequestration” by the mol-for-mol oxidation of the carbon produced… by the oxygen produced. Thus, only if carbon is buried, long-term, away from recycling can that do anything to the atmosphere. Think Nature’s coal and oil. Then think Human “carbon capture and store”…RE-burial. Planting trees?… using alternative energy? Not very well conceived, like the entire negative emission mission.

  4. quaesoveritas permalink
    April 16, 2017 1:11 pm

    This morning, the BBC reported that “celebrities including Andy Murray and Debra Meaden”, (those well known climate experts), had signed a letter, urging the PM not to avoid watering down legislation on climate change and wildlife protection after Brexit, although this is not given great prominence on the BBC website.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39592515

    What I object to mostly about this is the conflation of “climate change” and “wildlife protection” as if they were the same thing.

    Apparently it is not possible to believe in the protection of wildlife, without also believing in “climate change” but I think that the two things are entirely separate.

    Personally I am very concerned about the protection of wildlife, but I find it difficult to support any organisation which links that to “climate change”.

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      April 16, 2017 1:13 pm

      Sorry, should read “urging the PM “urging the PM to avoid watering down “

    • A C Osborn permalink
      April 16, 2017 1:26 pm

      I think that you will find that they are actually mutually exclusive under current “Green initiatives”, other than th EU wild area rulings which would rather drown towns and cities than upset frogs, newts and wild fowl.

      • Athelstan permalink
        April 16, 2017 4:10 pm

        The eco fookwits are constantly meddling in the natural order and if they ain’t floodin’ out towns, whether it be by ‘reintroducing’ raptors and decimating local populations of anything which moves, halting through exercise of law the extermination of vermin and predators, ie foxes and badgers or via birdmincers killing off songbirds, nocturnal insect killers – bats and for god sake Moonbat wants to ‘rewild’ Wales or summat – see Cardiff on a Saturday night.

        The ecotwats law of unintended consequences – none of it is good for Gaia and then they all luv the EU and tell me, growing food crops to make ethanol for auto vehicles, biomass converters poisoning local landscapes, chipping forest in North America to burn in Yorkshire ex coal plants [FFS] and of course… why is throwing millions of tons of fish – good for the environment?
        And covering good arable farmland with PV arrays…………….I could go on and on.

        Other than inventing unnecessary, half baked uncalled for SOLUTIONS wasting £$€billions in defunct technological idiocy…….Can anyone do any good – if, they’re adherents of the Temple of Green?

        For a start get the rivers dredged, burn coal and pull down the birdmincers and leave nature to get on with it.

  5. April 16, 2017 3:32 pm

    It’s not just NatGeo using ‘a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data’.

    The rest of the climate scare propagandists in the media and elsewhere are at it too, some on a daily basis.

    Btw how are the more frequent and/or more intense hurricanes going these days/years?

    • Broadlands permalink
      April 16, 2017 3:52 pm

      Those harsh weather events? Is it conceivable that “natural fluctuations” have overwhelmed our ability to control climate by adding CO2? Haven’t we been told that El-Ninos have been exacerbated by our adding and reaching 400 ppm? Al Gore said that El-Ninos were “boosted” by our added CO2. The “science is settled”!

      • April 16, 2017 6:08 pm

        Al Gore and his scriptwriters can say anything they like, but that doesn’t make it correct.

  6. Bloke down the pub permalink
    April 16, 2017 4:13 pm

    Paul, could you please create a single link to the whole of this series of National Geographic posts, so that it can be linked to on twitter and brought to a wider audience.

  7. Robin Guenier permalink
    April 17, 2017 8:47 am

    A nit pick, Paul. That paragraph 17 you cite is not from the Paris Agreement itself but from a document entitled “Draft decision -/CP.21” setting out the background to the adoption of the Agreement. However the exemption of the “developing” countries from any obligation to make emission cuts is set out in Article 4 of the Agreement. Its paragraph 4. reads as follows:

    “4. Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy- wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.”

  8. Steve Borodin permalink
    April 23, 2017 1:30 pm

    Nothing this technologically and scientifically illiterate has been published since Moses. My guess is:

    It was published on April 1st.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: