Global Warming Became Climate Change—Which is Becoming Global Restoration—All Scams

You knew this had to be coming.  First it was “global warming”, which the facts totally discredited.  Then you had “climate change”, which was rational minds thought about it, about knew was a natural occurrence.  So we spent trillions on junk science and trying to proved we were sensitive.  Now, we have the “climate restoration” movement—an effort to blackmail productive countries—like the Paris agreements meant to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and loss of our economy

“Since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, society has organized efforts to limit the magnitude of climate change around the concept of stabilization — that is, accepting some climate change but holding it within acceptable bounds. This report offers an initial exploration of the concept of  climate restoration — that is, approaches that seek to return atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to preindustrial levels within one to two generations. Using a simple integrated assessment model, the analysis examines climate restoration through the lens of risk management under conditions of deep uncertainty, exploring the technology, economic, and policy conditions under which it might be possible to achieve various climate restoration goals and the conditions under which society might be better off with (rather than without) a climate restoration goal. This report also explores near-term actions that might help manage the risks of climate restoration.

Of course, it is the United Nations, of which we pay more than 25% of its operating costs as Americans, that wants to destroy our economy.  This is the same organization that could not pass a resolution denouncing Syria for killing its people with gas.  When will President Trump start tweeting about the abuses of the UN—those would be good and needed tweets.

220px-Al_Gore

Forget ‘Climate Change’ — Now It’s ‘Climate Restoration’

By Michael Walsh, PJ Media,  4/14/18

In the end, somehow we knew it would come to this. The Left, in the form of the think thank, RAND, has gone full Luddite:

Since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, society has organized efforts to limit the magnitude of climate change around the concept of stabilization — that is, accepting some climate change but holding it within acceptable bounds. This report offers an initial exploration of the concept of  climate restoration — that is, approaches that seek to return atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to preindustrial levels within one to two generations. Using a simple integrated assessment model, the analysis examines climate restoration through the lens of risk management under conditions of deep uncertainty, exploring the technology, economic, and policy conditions under which it might be possible to achieve various climate restoration goals and the conditions under which society might be better off with (rather than without) a climate restoration goal. This report also explores near-term actions that might help manage the risks of climate restoration.

Take a moment and try to grasp how utterly demented this is. So great is the cultural-Marxist hatred for modernity — Marx himself was a child of the Industrial Revolution and developed his crackpot scheme based on mid-19th-century conditions — that, like the Luddite, they wish to return to some halcyon period before… well, you draw the line wherever you like.

Key Findings

  • Restoring atmospheric concentrations to preindustrial levels could prove possible at acceptable cost in two scenarios: (1) a best-case carbon capture scenario in which direct air capture technology achieves its most optimistic cost and performance assumptions and (2) a low-cost capture and abatement scenario in which reducing greenhouse gas emissions also proves relatively inexpensive.
  • Setting a climate restoration goal could catalyze the deployment of negative emissions technologies that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. But such a goal could also reduce the likelihood of successfully decarbonizing the global economy. Pursuing a climate restoration goal would avoid such a moral hazard under conditions in which successful negative emissions technology is at least half as likely as successful decarbonization.
  • If climate restoration proves possible and catalytic, it would reduce the risks of extreme climate change and make meeting other climate goals more likely.
  • In the longer term, the pursuit of climate restoration has some favorable policy persistence characteristics. If the technology proves viable, a growing climate restoration industry might promote policies favorable to its continuation and growth.

How many climate-change angels can dance on the head of a pin? RAND is here to find out.

Recommendations

  • An ambitious climate restoration goal might seek to achieve preindustrial concentrations, not by 2050 but toward the end of the 21st century — perhaps by 2075, according to some reckonings the 300th anniversary of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
  • To avoid the risk of overshoot, a climate restoration goal might best be combined with a 2°C temperature target.
  • Climate restoration would be a public good. Efforts to ensure the necessary funding for midcentury climate restoration activities would benefit from near-term attention to longer-term financing mechanisms.
  • Adopting a risk management framework and regarding the approach to climate change as a process of policy experimentation could help society achieve the opportunities offered by a climate restoration goal and avoid the adverse effects.

King Canute, call your office — you knew you couldn’t command the tides to halt, but RAND is pretty sure they can.

 

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.