The Nature editorial (Dec 15, The Mask Slips) talks about science and policy in parallel universes. Quite correctif you mean separate and disconnected. The Durban Accord (COP 17) was never about climate, let alone science. It was all about money:
(1) How to assure continuing government careers for 200 delegations, with annual vacations paid by taxpayers.
(2) How to transfer $100 billion a year from industrialized nations to LDCs (or more precisely, to their kleptocratic rulers), using climate justice or climate guilt (depending on who is doing the talking).
(3) How to gain a national advantage by setting differential. emission limits.
By now it should be obvious that:
(1) The enshrined temperature limit of +2 deg C is based on fiction and has no scientific basis. As a global average, so climate models tell us, it will mean warmer winter nights in Siberia and Canada; perhaps -35 deg instead of -40; and little warming in the tropics.
(2) It should also be obvious that even strenuous and economy-killing efforts at mitigation of CO2, will have little effect on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, let alone on climate. If a demonstration is needed, just look at the lack of warming since 1998, in spite of rapidly rising emissions of greenhouse gases.
So, yes, I would agree with the editorial, if properly expanded.
|Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute).|
Distinguished astrophysicist S. Fred Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data, the limitations of attempting to computer climate models, solar variability, the effects of clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate, and factors that could mitigate any human impacts on world climate.