The American Spectator

I’ve noted in the past (and friends at the Science and Public Policy Institute have studied ad nauseum) that initiatives pursued by global warming alarmists will accomplish nothing in terms of temperature rise averted. Twas repeated just a few weeks ago for Spectator:

But instead of boldly proclaiming the great thermostatic results their policies will produce, (alarmists) run away from the science they so adamantly claim that they stand behind.

How? Because they cannot explain how much greenhouse gas reduction — in whatever quantities they propose — will cause global temperatures to change. For all their jargon-filled technological conversations about how to “solve the problem,” they only measure their goals in terms of emissions averted or reduced — usually quantified in “million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent,” or MMtCO2e. How’s that for an absurd acronym?

SPPI in particular has examined what various policies (that is, destruction of their economies via the elimination of fossil fuels) pursued by the states would produce in terms of global warming avoided, which is always “undetectable.” Environmental scientist Chip Knappenberger, in doing this analysis, applied a model created by former Al Gore adviser Thomas Wigley at the National Center for Atmospheric Research to reach his conclusions.

Well, now Knappenberger has applied the broadly accepted model (I assume it’s the same one, but if not, Wigley is still the main scientist behind it) to the proposed Waxman-Markey global warming energy tax legislation. The Beverly Hills Congressman (wouldn’t bananas in tailpipes work just as well?) has been selling pieces of the bill off order to buy votes from committee members. Knappenberger found:

The bottom line is that a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80 percent, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey climate bill will only produce a global temperature “savings” during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC.

Whatta deal: the economy gets hammered by billions of dollars in energy taxes and we spare ourselves maybe a single drop of sweat during the next half-century.

Knappenberger does a good job explaining the modeling (as much as should be necessary for a layman) and the results, so go read for yourself.

Hat tip: Marc Morano.