New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as “truly sensational” by independent experts, indicates that humanity’s carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades.
“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO).
“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”
Berntsen and his colleagues’ results derive in large part from taking account of the way that global temperatures have remained flat for the last fourteen years or thereabouts, instead of climbing as they ought to have done with increased carbon levels.
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity,” explains the prof.
“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming.”
At the moment levels of CO2 stand at around 395 parts per million (ppm), climbing at around 2 ppm each year and accelerating. In pre-industrial times the levels is reckoned to have been 280 ppm. Depending on various factors, the amount of atmospheric CO2 might have doubled to 560-odd ppm around the year 2050.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that would be disastrous as it would probably mean 3°C warming or more: and the IPCC considers that anything above 2°C means terrible consequences for humanity. Thus the organisation has long sought to limit atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm, though this is regarded as a lost cause by many.
But Berntsen and his crew say that analysis is much too pessimistic. They consider that the likeliest result from doubled carbon (which would actually occur some decades after the doubled level was reached) would be just 1.9°C – within the IPCC target. According to the Research Council of Norway, the government arm which funded the new research:
When [the] researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.
This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.
Other recent research has suggested warming of this sort with doubled CO2, but so far the IPCC and the warmist-alarmist community generally has been reluctant to accept the new findings. However the state of the accepted science is beginning to change, with Britain’s Met Office lately revising its forecasts of warming sharply downwards.
Renowned Swedish climate boffin Caroline Leck, who was not involved in the research, commented:
“These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”
The Research Council’s announcement of the new results can be read here.
To quote Harry Binswanger “While President Obama is calling for more tilting at windmills, pun intended, the news on the climate front continues to go against him.”
We have spoken out in the past about the valuable contributions highly skilled immigrants have made at Google. From developing products like Google News and Google Maps to managing our business and global marketing operations, talented foreign-born individuals have played and will continue to play a vital role at Google and throughout our economy.
Our experiences here at Google and in the tech sector show us that immigrants to the U.S. are a powerful force for entrepreneurship and innovation at every level, from startups to multinational corporations.Immigrants have founded 40 percent of companies in the tech sector that were financed by venture capital and went on to become public in the U.S., among them Yahoo, eBay, Intel, and Google. And according to a recent Kauffman Foundation study, nearly a quarter of the engineering and technology companies founded in the U.S. between 2006 and 2012 had at least one key founder who was foreign-born. In 2012, these companies employed roughly 560,000 workers and generated $63 billion in sales.
Still, at a time when the U.S. economy needs it most, our immigration policies are stifling innovation. The 2013 cap for the H-1B visas that allow foreign high skilled talent to work temporarily in the U.S. was exhausted by June 2012, preventing tech companies from recruiting some of the world’s brightest minds. Additionally, the severe backlog of green card applications has forced many foreign-born, U.S. educated entrepreneurs to look elsewhere to start their businesses. Other countries, like Chile and Canada, have responded with immigration policies and programs that welcome these innovators who have been turned away from the U.S.This is why we strongly support the bipartisan efforts being made to reform our high skilled immigration laws. We look forward to working with Congress and the Obama Administration to ensure that talented individuals will continue to innovate in the U.S. – a critical part of getting the economy back on track and making it stronger for the long-run.
ARI has produced a free e-course based on Leonard Peikoff’s Philosophy of Education lectures. This course will answer the following questions.
What is education?
What is its basic purpose?
What subjects should children be learning in school?
How should these subjects be taught?
What can we do about the dismal state of today’s public schools?
This course presents an account of the philosophy of education from an Objectivist perspective. The course is adapted from recorded lectures that Dr. Leonard Peikoff gave at a conference for fans of Ayn Rand in 1985. Primary and secondary education are Dr. Peikoff’s focus, but many of the principles discussed apply to all levels of education.
Topics include: different theories of the basic purpose of education; how to teach thinking methods, with special emphasis on the principles of proper motivation, integration, and hierarchy; a proper curriculum; teacher’s colleges and the politics of education.
The two major US temperature databases have released their consolidated results for 2012, and as had been expected, global warming has failed to occur for approximately the fourteenth year running. One of the US agencies downgraded 2012 to tenth-hottest ever: it had been on track to rank as 9th hottest.
The tenth-hottest result comes from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the three main global databases used to assess planetary temperatures and the only one of the three not so far linked to political climate activism*.
The NOAA says that the 2012 average was 14.47±0.08°C, which makes it the tenth hottest in its records. Preliminary figures released last November ahead of the Doha carbon talks by the World Meteorological Organisation, which averages all three datasets, suggested that the year would be ninth hottest and NASA agrees. However the difference is not a big one: the projected WMO figure was 14.45°C.
However one slices it, the world has not warmed up noticeably since 1998 or so, though all three datasets show noticeable warming in the two decades prior to that.
As expected, the White House is putting the Rahm Emanuel crisis playbook into full force after the horrific events in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. Even if Congress is reluctant to pass any major piece of legislation on the matter, Vice President Joe Biden has already stated the White House is prepared to take nineteen executive actions in relation to gun control. Add this to the President’s proposals to limit the capacity of magazines to ten rounds and the implementation of a new assault weapons ban–not a reinstatement of the 1994 law. From whitehouse.gov:
Assault rifles have been used in several recent mass shootings. The shooters in Aurora and Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons.
In addition, President Obama is looking to enact further restrictions on the possession and transfer of amor piercing ammunition. While even the White House wholly abstains from connecting events like Tucson, Aurora, and Sandy Hook to this type of ammunition, it’s implied that if you’re in support of amor-piercing rounds then you’re in favor of police officers being exposed to increased levels of risk. The mentality of both the White House and the gun-ban left is inherently driven by an anti-freedom agenda.
First, it’s important to ask, “Why stop at ten rounds of ammunition per clip? Why not eight, or seven, maybe even six?” The killers of Aurora and Sandy Hook selected their targets because of an overwhelming certainty that their victims would put up a low level of resistance. In the former case, it was a dark and crowded movie theater. In the latter case, it was an elementary school. Regardless of what size magazines they used, they were determined to destroy and they chose those who were most vulnerable.
It’s also important to debunk the metaphysically impossible–the “assault weapon.” Basically, the American left would have all believe that a piece of machinery, an inanimate object, a weapon, a noun, has the attributes and capabilities of a volitional consciousness, the ability to assault, a verb. It’s perfectly legitimate to argue that these types of weapons are absurd for deer hunting but such weapons are vital for defense. Perhaps not from a typical criminal, but from government–the institution throughout history (especially the twentieth century) which has exercised the ability and willingness to slaughter millions–whether constricted by borders or not.
This same principle can be applied to armor piercing ammunition. In fact, the matter of ammunition is arguably more critical because of policies being implemented by the U.S. Air Force. Last summer, Judge Andrew Napolitano published a piece about unmanned drones flying and spying above private property as part of a new domestic surveillance program.
If gun rights advocates wish to continue to bear arms then they must stop insisting on gun rights and begin insisting on their individual rights. The second amendment is not an instrument to ensure longstanding hunting traditions, it’s to prevent a totalitarian government from rising to power. It’s to make sure that the first amendment stays firmly seated where it is in the Constitution. When speech is censored, the only means to communicate is through the muzzle of a gun.
Besides, if President Obama truly cared about gun violence, he would’ve gutted the Department of Justice after the Mexican government discovered that guns used in a birthday party massacre, in which the victims were mostly teenagers, were supplied courtesy of Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious program.
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, President Obama stated, “Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we’d pick up.”
I’m not trying to mock the President here – he is just repeating an old propaganda line that was hatched by Rand’s opponents – but I have to ask the “adults” who claim they outgrew Rand exactly what earth-shattering insight they have learned against her solution to the problem of universals? Against her solution to the is-ought problem? To her foundation of knowledge in the axiomatic validity of sense perception? To her theory of the locus of free will? How about her theory of aesthetics?
The reason I ask is that some of these issues and questions are more than two thousand years old, and no other philosopher has been able to crack them without ultimately lapsing into self-contradiction. So if anyone fancies that they are going to show up with their cracker barrel wisdom and invalidate her philosophy, even though no professional philosopher in half a century has been able to do so, I have to wonder what special knowledge they think they have. By all means, entertain us.
Perhaps these “adults” can also explain the part about feeling misunderstood, because it is rather opaque. When most of us feel misunderstood, we just restate our line of thinking until people understand it. In all seriousness, what on earth was that about? Are we to take that as some kind of psychological confession by leftists? What is an individual with such a mentality doing in the highest office in the land?