Once again we have impressive logic from the global warming crowd.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28861757/

Even if the world can cap carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming, expect to see droughts and sea level rise that span centuries, not just decades, according to a new study sponsored by the U.S. government.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," lead author Susan Solomon told reporters.

Instead, the team concluded, warming tied to higher CO2 "is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop..."

All the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation doesn't get even worse, Solomon said.

This is just getting ridiculous. The article says that even with a cap on emissions, warming (and all its supposed evils) is going to continue for another thousand years.

This report has essentially come to the conclusion that the planet is going to warm for another thousand years regardless of what we do. Apparently that's supposed to convey a sense of urgency and get us even more serious about reducing our emissions. But, being a logical person, it tells me that the damage is already done and there's really nothing we can do to stop it. So rather than trying to stop the inevitable, shouldn't we start getting ready to adapt?

Let's say we invest a trillion dollars (granted, that's a relatively trivial amount these days) in alternative energy and come up with a miraculous zero-emissions energy solution in five years. What happens? The planet warms and sea levels rise for another thousand years and we have to adapt.

On the other hand let's say we don't invest a trillion dollars and the private sector finds the same solution in, perhaps, twenty years. What happens? The planet warms and sea levels rise for another thousand years and we have to adapt. But at least we have a trillion dollars to put towards the adaptation.

In my opinion, the global warming scaremongering has reached such an absurd, fever pitch that their very conclusions now logically demand that we stop expending money and effort trying to reduce CO2 emissions. If reports like this are to believed, there's just no point. There was a time when the reports suggested we could make a difference by changing our behavior. They no longer do. It's too late. The scaremongering has gotten so extreme that in their very attempt to scare us into action, logic now demands we give it a lower priority.

Spending money and restricting freedom to stop something that science has concluded is inevitable is pointless.

The study, which relied on computer models and historical temperatures, was published in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Would those be the same computer models that can't predict whether or not Antarctica is supposed to be warming or cooling? Or is it based on the same "historical" temperature records that can't even agree on whether or not Antarctica is warming or cooling now?

"Additional contributions to sea level rise from the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets are too uncertain to quantify in the same way," Solomon said in a statement. "They could be even larger but we just don't have the same level of knowledge about those terms. We presented the minimum sea level rise that we can expect from well-understood physics, and we were surprised that it was so large."

That's funny because nothing from the human-induced global warming crowd surprises me anymore.