By Olivia Murray
“Climate” science is almost always junk science—forecasts from human-programmed computer-based guesses, endless doomsday predictions that never manifest, and an ever-changing narrative, oscillating between global warming and global cooling.
But when junk science comes out and completely undermines progressive policy initiatives by showing how utterly irrelevant and worthless such initiatives are? It’s a silver lining, and pretty tasty schadenfreude.
According to a new article out on Tuesday from Anthropocene Magazine, new “scientific” findings suggest that all the “climate change” ideas and schemes the left foists onto taxpayers to avoid this strikingly vague “existential crisis” don’t mean anything unless they can sequester an unidentified level of carbon from the air and store it for at least a millennium.
The item’s author, Sarah DeWeerdt, reports on a study conducted in part by “climate scientist” Cyril Brunner of the Zurich-based ETH Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, writing this:
But the time scale of carbon sequestration matters a lot, Brunner and his colleagues demonstrate.
The researchers used a simplified climate model to find out how different durations of carbon storage would affect total warming. Only 1,000-year carbon storage strategies will avoid further warming from residual carbon emissions, the researchers report in the journal Communications Earth & Environment.
This only works if you store it until 3024? This is hilariously ludicrous… but it gets even more absurd:
Shorter-term strategies that only hold carbon for 100 years will result in the re-release of that carbon long before the emissions that are being offset would leave the atmosphere naturally. The result of these short-term strategies: excess, unaccounted-for emissions, and more warming.
All those “shorter-term” schemes they’ve been peddling have, according to them, been making things worse! Now, I personally don’t see a lot of evidence that humans really have any impact on the climate—except perhaps, the “cloud-seeding” and spraying of chemicals across the skies—but nonetheless, this is what they’re claiming… so thanks a lot you jack***es!
The sad reality about this is that although this is a great example of how asinine and unrealistic the agenda and vision of the progressive left climate fantasists are, it won’t sober them up—as one would reasonably expect—and it’ll become the basis for even more maniacal “climate change mitigation” plans.
Heaven help us.