The BBC asks: “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” after noticing that despite the heat in the media, global temperatures have not risen in 11 years. It writes:
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. …
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
In other words, despite coming up Snake Eyes, the Global Warming crowd will continue to roll the dice.
How much evidence would be required to settle the argument? Another 10 or 200 years of data? Part of the problem is defining what constitutes a “winning outcome” for one side or the other. At the most basic level, there is some confusion in the public mind about whether the “Global Warming” means the world will get hotter or whether it simply means the coefficient of certain man-generated climate variables is positive. Other variables, like solar output, cosmic ray intensity, or terrestrial geological activity could dominate the trend line whatever the coefficient in front of the carbon dioxide variable might be. Mankind is not the only player at the table. That big old earth under our feet and the even bigger sun in the sky, not to mention other cosmic stuff gets to win the pot every now and again. In some scenarios the world could cool even if a human contribution to warming were signficant and actually existed — and it’s not proved as the BBC article asserts. If in fact other variables were pushing temperatures down might a human warming effect actually be a “good” thing?
What is meant by “good” and “bad” changes with respect to Global Warming anyway? Changes in temperature are inputs into another model which measures “good” and “bad”. What is the numéraire of goodness or badness? Is it total biodiversity? Is it human welfare? Assuming we could agree on the measurement, what is the effect of temperature change on that utility function? It has been assumed, but are the models showing a direct correlation between a rise in temperature and “badness” in any better shape the the AGW model itself? Or are they simply the political equivalent of each other. Has anybody asked you whether you would agree to live in a world one degree hotter in the next ten years if you could double your real income? Has anybody polled starving Africans asking them the same thing? The BBC suggests that global temperatures have not risen over the past 11 years. But even if AGW were proved, it would still be necessary to show that the opportunity cost of curtailing human activity would be worth that avoided reduction. Proving that a cup of coffee has stays warmer longer if you are drinking it at work (as opposed to being at home) is separable from showing that the ill effects of drinking a slightly warmer cup of coffee are worth losing your job for.
Despite the setback to their models, the Global Warming people can still play two trump cards: the “runaway” greenhouse effect and precautionary principle. They can claim that even though we’ve not observed any temperature increases, when they come it will escalate so quickly that it rapidly lead to catastrophe. In other words, the fact the forest is quiet doesn’t mean there’s no T-Rex out there. It just means it hasn’t showed up yet. The “precautionary principle” rests upon scenarios of this type. We must sprinkle the anti-dinosaur powder around the clearing in case the they show up. “The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” So in response to the observed fact that 11 years have passed without a rise in global temperatures, the Global Warmists will reply, “prove that the temperatures won’t rise in the future”.
But “precautionary principle” cuts both ways. Can those who are pushing carbon controls prove that their prescriptions won’t cause irreversible public harm by crippling economic growth or even destroy the environment via poorly understood nonlinear side-effects? And can they say with confidence that reducing the energy available to mankind won’t condemn it before the low-probability, but high impact events that strike the earth on occasion? How would a society running on windmills deflect a colossal space rock found to be heading on a collision for earth? Maybe it would not have the telescopes to know anyway and therefore the problem would not arise in a civilization of bucolic ignorance. In any event, the precautionary principle suffers from the problem that it can be countered by simply inventing one disaster scenario to pit against another.
Of course none of this matters. Even the eleven years of non-warming the BBC reports is irrelevant. The science itself is unimportant. Not even twenty years of freezing winters would cool the ardor of activists. There are too many political careers and too much money riding on the Truth of Global Warming for that train to be canceled. We’ve got to get aboard whether we like it not.
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
Government sponsored research leads to government approved results.
Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
Sheesh!
What a title! What a sense a yuma!
But boy does this issue ever highlight the whole modern problem. The EU consitution, how it was passed is another example. Teisday we see if the senate is gonna make healthcare yet another. We just HAD to keep taking more and more of the conflict out of civic life –until we took too much out. now the system structure is so good, we can’t stop a damn thing –it careens into what it careens into.
Good morning BC. Wretch, u hit it on the head. Too much has been invested. Logic has no place with these fools as evidenced by a recent exchange I had with a believer. Despite these facts she still insisted that what proponents suggest is a good thing. Indifference to the plight of miners, oil workers etc due to cap and tax is evident. What humanitarians.
Yep. They tried to control us with the specters of air pollution, over-population, a new ice age, acid rain, and ozone holes but nothing stuck until Al Gore, as V.P., dedicated 5 bil to study the negative affects of man-made global warming (not its existence). Now, as Wretchard writes “There are too many political careers and too much money riding on the Truth of Global Warming for that train to be canceled.”
And for that unintended stroke of brilliance, Gore was awarded the Nobel prize.
“Coal is making us sick…” – Harry Reid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqR0Ui0g3wI
When one has a degree of certainty of this order about something that is patently untrue, you enter into the realm of faith, not science. People go to war in defense of their faith. The left will go to war for this.
The global warming meme seems to be a vehicle to accomplish three goals of the leadership elites: Global governance, increasing energy costs and redistributing wealth. There is an environmentalist faction that does believe that man can stop time and keep the earth in this moment forever. But the elites just use them for their emotional value.
Global elites see AGW as a means of ruling the masses (for the subject’s own good of course). Increasing the price of dwindling energy resources will be necessary and increasing the price now will allow the development and implementation of other sources. Corporations seem to embrace AGW because they can pass the costs directly to the consumer and develop new customers in the third world as wealth is redistributed globally.
So the train has left the station despite the lack of science. All that is left is for all good subjects to believe, have faith and pay the price.
Meanwhile, God and His creation go about their business.
Global cooling, reduction in food harvest, bad flu pandemic, fool for President, botched foreign policy and war, ayup: “Mr. Ringo please call your office.”
Excellent post Richard, and you have it exactly right. As an astro-physicist and lawyer. I have seen nothing, from either perspective, which validates any aspect of the global warming hypothesis and our response thereto. GW is BS, plain and simple: it is politics and not science. If substantial dollars continue to be spent on this tomfoolery, it will eventually take its place beside “Holland tulips” in terms of mankind’s stupidity. Those GW whores who benefit through government employment on this non-issue (Hansen comes to mind), government contracts, or university grants, are going to continue advocating the “science” so as to keep their rice bowls full. The issue cries out for unbiased, honest scientific debunking. Unfortunately, with Wizard Obama controlling the levers on the curtain, nothing but politics matters: logic and scientific reasoning will not prevail. The climate changes. Period. Antarctic is cooling, adding ice, rather than warming. The carbon content in the atmosphere shows some cyclicity, but out of phase with any “warming” trends. The means of measuring temperature, whether at altitude or on the surface are imprecise, too sparse, based on sensors located in areas which may or may not be indicative of any “global” trends. Mankind’s contribution to climate and weather is uncertain at best, and doubtful from a common sense point of view: a couple of belches from any number of the world’s active volcanos, or an energetic burst from the sun do immensely more than Uncle Bob’s failure to tune his Oldsmobile. We know so little about the earth’s climate, and about the factors which influence the climate, that it is irrational to ascribe one factor — in this case carbon dioxide — as “causative” of anything. Water vapor, methane, contrails from 45,000 high altitude flights per day over the US, and any number of other factors are probably far greater players on the great stage. Good arguments can be made that CO2 cools, rather than heats the planet, through photosynthesis and greening, vice the greenhouse effect. This tactic of the GW activists to cherry-pick data, failing to openly publish data, modifying raw data to fit a desired end result. and accepting the views of those who have irons in the fire while ignoring antithetical opinions is anathema to rational thought and embarrassing in terms of public dicourse. These guys look foolish to those of us who do “science” instead of politics.
The truly bad actors, however are those who advocate GW from a political standpoint. They are alarmists, and not statesmen. Algore shows his true character in exploiting his former status as a VP and Presidential candidate for GW ends and personal enrichment. A true leader and humanitarian would never have taken his path.
“How would a society running on windmills deflect a colossal space rock found to be heading on a collision for earth?”
Or at a lower and more likely level, would a society that rides solar electric power monorails from town to town, has learned to value the errant winds of summer through open windows over the use of air conditioning, and employs bicycles for local transportation, react to a tidal wave in Indonesia or a typhoon in the Philippines by saying “Quick, Batman! Let’s crank up a few of our dozen available nuclear powered aircraft carriers, load them with helicopters, and rush to their aid”?
Nope, there won’t be any nuke flat tops and all those monorail pilots won’t learn how to fly choppers on the way to the disaster scene. Our reaction will be limited to some strong words of regret and encouragement from our multicultural President and perhaps a Discovery Channel special next year, when the Windjammer cruise ship gets back with the film crew. If the pirates that rule the waves don’t get them, that is.
The great disconnect is between the assumed condition and the presumed remedy. Even if Global Warming was not 3 parts hokum it does not logically follow that the solution is the imposition of controls rooted in the prejudices of 18th century elitism, 19th century socialism and 20th century totalitarianism. As Al Smith said “The cure for the evils of Democracy is more Democracy.” The cure for the problems of Capitalism (externalities wrought by economic liberty) is more Capitalism. If anyone is ruining the environment it is the Socialists. The Soviets just about ruined Lake Baikal, the Caspian is drying up and China is a Socialist environmental disaster.
If we choose failure, as I noted on the last thread, our ruins will speak of our failure.
When you are a carpenter. Every thing is solved with a hammer.
When you are liberal, every crisis is solved with more socialism.
If you are Fat AlGore, if the end agenda is socialism then a bogus Warming is just the ticket.
Gore has run to the front of the Global Warming parade and he has done very well for himself.
The churches also have their stake in the global warming game. Most mainline denominations have a global warming initiative in place. The denominational committees, basing their work on “settled science” (and often including scientists on their national and congregagtion-level committees), are going to be getting increasingly frosty receptions at the Sunday morning presentations.
Jews and Christians had such a great opportunity to “repair the earth” if only global warming were real. Salvation of some kind or another has to be the job of a religion. Without global warming, the churches will need to double-down on health care, in which, the President says, the people of faith (such a meaningless phrase) are partners in God’s work.
Whatever happened to the tens of millions that Oprah and David Ho promised us will die of Aids unless untold billions were spent on the Aids racket? The trouble with science in the public arena today is that there is way too much money and influence involved. Far too many researchers have a vested interest in perpetuating their agendas. This is in stark contrast to layman’s idea of disinterested white-coat experts subjecting all hypotheses to rigorous tests, ready at a moment’s notice to drop even their most cherished ideas if contradicted. Bertrand Russell in his book – Why I am not a Christian – claimed that scientists in contrast to the benighted priests held truths only provisionally being constantly on the lookout, day and night for contradictory experiments. This heroic image bears little resemblance to the lives of ordinary scientists who have mortgages to pay off and children to feed. The press plays along, as only a few reporters have the education and patience to match wits with the scientists.
The stranded ships of the Aral Sea. The ideology that produced this is now shaping US policy.
http://ocho.uwaterloo.ca/~pfieguth/Personal/EnergyLimits/Figures/desert-ships.gif
Psychic energies are not destroyed but transformed or transferred. The apocalyptic energy that invests this particular dystopian vision (AGW) can be transferred to other causes and scenarios. The AGW hypothesis will slowly be revealed as ever more dubious, given science’s bias toward facts and growing awareness of the complexity of climate.
However, the real question going begging is: how could it have been so easy to convert an entire world to an idea so counter intuitive and false? How could a common chemical, rare, innocuous and even necessary for life can be transformed by mere rhetoric into a pernicious threat to muster the resources of all nations?
A society that can so easily deceive itself about this can be talked into anything. (Or has been.)
Psychic energies are not destroyed but transformed or transferred. The apocalyptic energy that invests this particular dystopian vision (AGW) can be transferred to other causes and scenarios. The AGW hypothesis will slowly be revealed as ever more dubious, given science’s bias toward facts and growing awareness of the complexity of climate.
However, the real question going begging is: how could it have been so easy to convert an entire world to an idea so counter intuitive and false? How could a common chemical, rare, innocuous and even necessary for life can be transformed by mere rhetoric into a pernicious threat to muster the resources of all nations?
A society that can deceive itself about this can be talked into anything. (Or has been.)
(Sorry; hit submit twice)
What is the purpose of the focus on man made global warming?
1. It puts man at the center of the universe, positing god-like powers to affect the planet. It is thus anti-Copernican in its stealth way.
2. It bends the moral compass of those who are in denial about the threat of Islamo-terrorism and those who were formerly in denial about Soviet communism, by giving them something to fight.
3. It creates a “war” whose casualties will exempt the elite. (See the carbon footprint of Al Gore as an example.)
4. It is congruent with those who desire to rid the world of the scourge of Western Civilization and its technological superiority.
5. It will reduce economic and eventually political freedom for individuals and return us to a modern variation of feudalism.
Unfortunately, since the combination of deconstructionism and relativism have now contaminated two generations, facts have become unpersuasive and data has morphed into just a matter of opinion. Welcome back to the Dark Ages.
the real question going begging is: how could it have been so easy to convert an entire world to an idea so counter intuitive and false?
This is part of that bigger problem Wretchard mentions on occasion. Obama, Wright, AGW, etc., are all just symptoms of something gone deeply haywire in our civilization. The gathering pace of events and the fin de cycle feeling we are getting comes from this haywire fault causing more and more systems to lock up. We’re approaching a reboot. Hopefully a soft-reboot, but that depends on whether any of the core regulator subsystems can avoid being crashed by the spreading fault.
I was skeptical before, but “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (still available on You Tube, last I looked) claimed that the ice core samples, on which this whole AGW theory is based, distinctly show that all historical global warming LEADS carbon dioxide increase, it doesn’t lag it. In other words, carbon dioxide increase is an effect, not a cause. So Al Gore’s graph showing an historical correlation between CO2 and warming, while correct, is irrelevant. This seems to trump everything the AGW crowd says, but I’ve never heard anyone else discuss it. And, of course, the science IS irrelevant. It’s all politics. And, as always, the Left has only one goal: destroy capitalism. And we’ll all be happy under the enlightened rule of our Betters, just like those happy peasants were in their liesurely, bucolic existence working for the nobility back in the Dark Ages. We can all be just like Hobbits in the Shire again. Um, with Saruman and a few orcs living in the castle up on the hill. But who wouldn’t want that??
Since both China and India have eschewed any of the looney left’s ideas on decreasing what is not increasing it is but a nullity to spend any time working to make America the ALgore Comedy Store..
China and India have both declared it’s full coal burning steam ahead in their race toward harnessing modernity.
Nobel laureate Paul Ehrlich was a PC guru too.
Somehow his prognostications didn’t work out.
I wonder what George Soros thinks about all this now. He is always the biggest contributor and facilitator of the loony left’s projects, including all that flows from Gore’s dictum that “global warming is settled science.” But it is also true that Soros does not appear to believe in “settled science.” I recently looked over one of his many books trying to understand what the man really wants, and I find Soros’s principle of “radical fallability” — i.e. he states that all our understanding is fallable and must be continually reexamined in light of the possibility of new evidence. George – look at global warming again!
“The End” from Oct 10 posits the outcome.
“2010 to Yuma” from Oct. 11 posits the mechanism.
As the band REM said in the song, “It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine..”
Well, I don’t feel fine about it, but the end of the world as we have known it may very well be coming to pass. Not with an apocalyptic BANG! of nuclear war, but the slow grinding away of our values, wealth, optimism and our Republic.
As we slip into the velvet bonds of crytpo-fascism justified by our AGW/Health care crisis!/Whirled Peas/ whatever, consider the underlying cause. Flying Squirrel (hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit our of my hat!) has it right, approximately. There is a tremendous amount of psychic energy invested in the downfall of “the world as we know it.”
Leonard Peikoff once wrote a book called “The Ominous Parallels”, where he indicated how the United States could fall into fascism (by severl paths). He concluded the book with Franklin’s famous quote about what kind of government the Constitutional convention of 1787 had given us.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
To which Peikoff added, “A philosophy, if you can find one.”
To fight off the fetid tide coming in, of which Obama is just part of the flotsam, we need a coherent intellectual and philosphical argument. Being conservative alone is not enough. Being against the Left is not enough. Most of the regular posters here know, at least intuitively, what is wrong. It’s not enough to illuminate rampant silly feminism, irrational finances from the CRA, etc.
There has to be a coherent underlying argument that clearly identifies why all of this is destroying the Republic with a death of a thousand cuts. It’s chaos, it’s the political entropy of the perverse logic of the Obama Administration, it’s the rotteness of the academy. It’s all this and much, much more.
The bad ideas have to be driven out with better, stronger ideas. Where to find them today, I don’t know.
the key tell to what’s behind this cap and tax is the high degree of orderly cohesion in the astounding destruction ongoing in the breach re nuclear power, nat gas conversion, and draconian coal regulations. Three energy solutions that are being sandbagged and stonewalled by the left –most of which is just following party line and has no idea that it is executing a gray-war policy intended to turn USA into the colony of a tranzi combination that as soon as the defending elements in USA are neutralized, will than mine and drill this country like a bat outta hell.
Last Friday Occidental Petroleum bought Citigroup’s oil-trading arm Phibro. Now, the ongoing kerfuffle over that Phibro trader having made “too much money” –all makes sense as a familiar gimmick –Citibank thanks to their two year vig chase of 06 and 07 now a “govt bank”, was (unnecessarily as it don’t fool the watchers and the rest ain’t watching) establishing a rationale for fire-selling (against shareholder interests BTW) a powerful and profitable subsidiary, well positioned in the rising energy wars.
Occidental of course is the Armand Hammer oil company, Armand Hammer the patron and financier and patronage recipient of both the Gore family and and Kremlin Russian leaders all th way back to Lenin. Oxy has some considerable number of shares well known to be owned by KGB associates –run a search, take a look.
Anyhoo, if the ‘dark-pools’ manipulating oil in summer ’08 (FBI has admitted it happened, but will not name perps) are not duplicable going forward as the Obamas regulate away the gaps they have used so well (to prevent being am”bushed”), Phibro, a USA charter with shanghai, honk kong, london, dubai, etcetera offices, can now openly trade the 25 million minimum buy-ins required. there’ll be enough of them to provide the cloward-piven “i’ll show you what’s wrong with capitalism” chaos if & when anybody wants to do another 08.
Another weird corporate move last week, P&G sold off their reproductive and contraceptive drug unit with facilities in Bermuda, to a small Irish biotech, Warner-Chilcott, which has re-domiciled just recently in Ireland. The oddity was the price –it was so low, it is as if P&G just wanted to get it done and over with. The price and terms assure WC financial strength immediately and tremendous growth is possible with the bargain bonanza of process, workforce (about 1500) and capital. it makes me think of those anti-population obaman czars and wonder if we need to start being careful about things we shoot into our kids against such things as high-lethality but low probability disease –such as the cervical cancer that got the Gardisil vaccine into so many teenaged girls all around the world. I mean, jeez, you wouldn’t turn down some device that would grant freedom from getting eaten by a great white shark or getting struck by lightning, would you.
I just hope these Mad Boomers of the Junk Science White House will hurry up and shuffle off before they find a way to do something really sneaky and nasty to humanity. They’ll never have a better chance than now –<a href="nd they KNOW it.
Oh, and another little jangle, Emergent Bio Solutions, which makes the bioThrax for the government (Anthrax antidote), is according to Jim Cramer last week a buy as it is moving into 'recombinant' anthrax vaccine, as well as new meds for 'typhoid, hepatitis, and chlamydia'. gets ya to wondering –now that trust has gone at least halfway through the looking glass (what with this viperish chicago pol + green rad order) –how bad some of these epidemics –esp of urological & reproductive systems –really are. 'course i don't get out much so what do i know –well come to think of it i do know one thing –we need to be on guard as never before –i mean in every way –in December 1941 way, in biotech bottles in your medicine cabinet way. these are not ordinary pols –we want to think they are, because they are after all in our tradition known as ”in politics”. But –Ha –what a captured illusion –where else would they be?
“Of course none of this matters. Even the eleven years of non-warming the BBC reports is irrelevant. The science itself is unimportant”
Exactly…It’s a political tool specifically designed to destroy western market economies. It’s working.
“Precautionary principle”? Prove something will ‘not’ happen? Prove a negative? Can you prove my wife’s not poisoning my coffee?
Or that there’s just no sign of it yet?
E. Nigma: “Where to find them today, I don’t know.” It isn’t a question of finding them. All of us here know what they are. It is a question of applying them and of reversing the tide.
I’m coming to the conclusion that there ar two classes of people on the other side. One class has all the bad faith and ill intent many have described here, and understand what they are doing. The second, and I think there are many more of these, would just like to buy the world a Coke, don’t think it will cost much, think its “mean” not do do it, don’t want to be unfashionable, etc.
I’ve been debating health care with some folks on another blog. Several of them are at least semi-rational, and I’m willing to grant good will on their part. They see a problem, and want to see it fixed, albeit almost entirely with other people’s money.
They assume semi-infinite resources, hence there really are no trade-offs. Whatever the problem – not enough health care, etc. – it can be resolved with a tax so light as to be essentially unfelt. After all, there have been many other social programs enacted and their costs seem bearable. At its core, its an emotional argument – “who could begrudge a few pennies a day to address (insert heart-wrenching social problem here, with photos of children).
Framed that way, we will lose the argument. Will will lose the argument on energy, immigration, etc. Appeals to the superior virtue of liberty, limited government, etc. just will not move enough people.
Almost no one is going to read a new Federalist Papers. I think to win, we will have to put forward equally compelling emotional arguments. Think youtube. Think Acorn videos. Think AlGore et al getting off his private jet, a tour of Rangel’s Caribbean villa, sob stories of people waiting for health care in Canada, unemployed miners in WV.
Batman @ 16: It puts man at the center of the universe, positing god-like powers to affect the planet. It is thus anti-Copernican in its stealth way.
Right. Scientism, or Cargo Cult science, the magic is in the motions of pretending to know, of saying words and waving arms. Seeing these attitudes in a world which (still) contains actual working computers, jet airliners, telephones and such, is the height of something or other.
Welcome to the New Dark Ages.
Rockies-Phillies Game canceled due to 17F temps:
http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_13533903
Two possible responses by the Religious Left ©
1) AlGore releases a memo: “We have always been at war with Global Cooling.”
2) Government scientists say that the Sun is masking the effects of AGW.
It will be interesting to watch the effects of cognitive dissonance on the statements and policies of the true believers.
Ok, so… Lessee… Global Warming, The “Right” War, Socialized Medicine…
They’ve jumped the shark, so what’s the fall-back position for the Dems? How are they going to “Not Look Stupid” and escape becoming trivialized by saner people?
Self-destruction of the Party? Naw, too many converts….
Take up arms? Not enough practice – they are targets..
Restrict freedoms? Hmmm…
Note the entirely emotional tone of this debate on windmills in France …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/10/AR2009101001901.html?hpid=artslot
Socialism is basically a reactionary attempt to cure the excesses of liberty.
Please see Hayak’s The Counter Revolution of Science.
http://www.archive.org/stream/counterrevolutio030197mbp/counterrevolutio030197mbp_djvu.txt
It does this in many different ways. The goal is always total domination of the population and redistribution of wealth.
I like to think (rather simplistically) of a color coded catorization of Socilisms
1) Red Socialism – the standard Marxist/economic theory that is opnly taught at universities by well paid communists.
2) Brown Socialis – the idea that wealth should be redistributed based on skin color. This has a limited following and will frighten off people with this years out of fasion tone.
3) Green Socialism – the idea that we need to control the economic activity (human actions) to save the earth. This is a liberal/wealthy conciet that has great apeal in the US and with the rulers of countries who will benefit from the economic redistribution (try selling non-development to poor folks south of the equator).
I am sure there are other types/colors of socialism we could all think of (e.g., red cross socalism). The basis of all of these schemes is the idea that property is owned by the state and not the individual. This assumption must be stated plainly in an argument with the enemies of liberty. It will make obviouse to all their final solution.
On the now closed “Exit, stage left; …” thread Doug linked to today’s Thomas Friedman column in the NYT.
Beware of low flying pigs.
The BBC attempt at fairness will be mitigated by the UK Government’s $6 million TV ad targeting climate change doubters. The Ad premiered last night during prime time show Coronation Street.
“The advertisement attempts to make adults feel guilty about their legacy to their children (Video.
It features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of “a very very strange” world with “horrible consequences” for today’s children.
The storybook shows a British town deep under water, with people and animals drowning. Carbon dioxide is depicted as rising in clouds of black soot from cars and homes, including from a woman’s hairdryer. The soot gathers into a jagged-toothed monster menacing the town.
The daughter asks her father if the story has a happy ending and a voiceover cuts in, saying: “It’s up to us how the story ends” and directs viewers to the Government’s Act on CO2 website.”
Video
#31 Langley
You are right. Socialism, or rather collectivism, has been a Solution in search of a Justification for more than a century. And the reasons are purely secondary–it is the Solution that counts. If all of the reasons currently in vogue for instituting collectivist measures were conclusively shown to be false new reasons would arise immediately like toad stools after a heavy summer rain.
The important thing is the Solution. Any justification will do, and whether its true or not is immaterial.
7: DougRek
“Algore shows his true character in exploiting his former status as a VP and Presidential candidate for GW ends and personal enrichment. A true leader and humanitarian would never have taken his path.”
Yes, and he showed his total disdain for the rest of US when he and his minions polluted the election of 2000 with 30-some days of uncertainty and contest.
If Algore had obeyed black and white Florida election law, and contested the election after it had been certified, he might have been given the oath of office 1/20 instead of W. But he didn’t and instead had 300 million plus on tenterhooks for a month. Egotistical bastid.
tomw
Almost no one is going to read a new Federalist Papers. I think to win, we will have to put forward equally compelling emotional arguments
I think Old Guy is on the right track, and the secret is making the Algores and Obamunists look mean. Rush Limbaugh said once that the thing Liberals hate the most is to be called mean. It’s the worst insult you can make against that second set of folks, the ones who just want to buy the world a coke.
And I think that’s the secret to pulling them over to our side and gutting the support for Leftism. Point out how damned mean the malicious folks on the Left are. That’s what Palin did with her “Death Panels” post, pointed out how mean government health care would have to be. That’s what O’Keefe and Giles did with the Acorn videos, pointing out how casually mean the average Acornista was to 13-year old girls kidnapped into slavery. Poliwood is committing suicide with the feel-good crowd by supporting the mean child-raping behavior of Polanski.
It’s their achilles heel. Feudalism is not a nice philosophy, and our neo-feudalists are at heart mean and nasty people. Expose them for what they are and watch their support crumble.
“The Socialist Phenomenon” by Igor Shafarevich has changed my concept of socialism from a strictly economic formulation to “an individual only has significance as part of the group”.
http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
With this in mind, I see corporate “team” propaganda as a masking term for socialism / communism introduced to control the individual. Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Collective Brigades used in the gulags allowing prisoner work sites far outside the camp fence with a relatively small number of armed guards.
Claudia Rosett on Obama’s Nobel prize –
“What, more specifically, might they be expecting of Obama? For starters, Norway, along with neighboring Sweden and Denmark, has been banging the drum for America to hand over to the United Nations enormous control over and constraints upon the U.S. economy, in the name of (warming/cooling/take-your-pick) climate change. Thus did Norway’s Nobel committee bestow its favors in 2007 on Al Gore and the UN’s Self-Interested Panel of Politically Corrupted Science — excuse me, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And this December the UN is convening a big climate conference in Copenhagen, with which the U.N. hopes to “seal” its growth-stunting UN-enriching climate “deal.”
Whatever Obama’s instincts to sign on wholesale, one might hope they would be balanced by the realities of the huge cost and burden this would impose on Americans. This is what hangs in the balance for the overlapping crew of U.N. and Scandinavian gurus who have carved out a profitable niche for themselves as doom-saying oracles of world weather. If Obama was in any way put off by the Olympic slap in Copenhagen last week, Norway has just handed him a feel-good consolation prize; a message that he can return to Scandinavia without losing face.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/what-price-for-obamas-nobel-prize/
The science for global warming may be settled but the evidence is not.
I tried posting and nothing is coming through. This is a test.
Re: McChrystal letter closed thread. (and thus OT)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563101,00.html
Code Pink Supports Afghan War?
When are people going to realize that Socialism has nothing to do with economics?
I dunno why I can’t post the rest of my point. Any way I sent it to Wretchard. Maybe he will post it.
One last time:
Re: McChrystal letter closed thread. (and thus OT)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563101,00.html
Code Pink Supports Afghan War?
But one report says the group is now rethinking its position on the Afghanistan war. The Christian Science Monitor reports that during a recent trip to Kabul, local Afghan women told Code Pinkers the situation is a lot more complicated than they think. Afghan member of Parliament and women’s activist Shinkai Karokhail told the group’s founders: “In the current situation of terrorism, we cannot say troops should be withdrawn.”
Those concerns convinced the founders that setting a deadline is not in Afghanistan’s best interest. Medea Benjamin, Code Pink co-founder, said: “We would leave with the same parameters of an exit strategy but we might perhaps be more flexible about a timeline… So many people are saying that, ‘If the U.S. troops left — the country would collapse. We’d go into a civil war.’ A palpable sense of fear, that is making us start to reconsider that.”
It is amazing what even accepting a little responsibility can do.
Let us not forget that a lot of vets (Ds as well as Rs – The founder of Swift Boats was a D) caused Kerry to lose to Bush. If Obama turns his back on the troops he loses them.
And then with responsibility for the women of Afghanistan adopted by Code Pink (they actually want to live up to their ideals – even if it tarnishes some of their others – as long as it is they who care and not Bush)
A debacle in Afg. for the women of that country (more videoed stonings of women) would not just be a point for the opposition. It would ruin what is left of his self image. The guy has got to be really hurting. The knife to the gut from Media Benjamin has got to be his “Et Tu Brutus” moment.
@25 The Old Guy
“Almost no one is going to read a new Federalist Papers. I think to win, we will have to put forward equally compelling emotional arguments.”
The problem with emotional appeals is that they are too easily thwarted by other appeals to the subject’s vanity. You’ve got Al Gore in a Lear jet? The left already has a library of evil capitalists with same. They’ve been at for years. And let’s not kid ourselves, the left is congenitally immune to evidence of hypocrisy. Look no further than their hue and cry over one poster of Obama with a toothbrush mustache after 8 years of sustained caricature of Bush as a simian-brained Hitler clone.
That said, no-one is immune to self-interest. As you noted, the true believers on the left are relatively few but they hold sway with many who just want to feel good about themselves and their attitude toward the great unwashed. It’s also characteristic of these people that they have short attention spans and need it kept simple. Nobody kept it shorter and simpler than Frederic Bastiat. I hope my fellow BCers will forgive me for beating this drum again but I believe a wider dissemination of his writings would go a long way towards disabusing the brainwashed young of the pernicious notion that socialism is a benign idea that was merely implemented the wrong way in communist countries.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
We will soon hear about how a heroic SWAT team freed Thomas Friedman from captivity in Rush Limbaugh’s closet in Florida.
Wait, breaking news, photography of the rescue from the evil disgiused Rush has just been revealed. http//:tinyurl.com/yzvo4wq
RE: Danny #20
apparently Soros has given up on the idea of provisional knowledge wrt climate change model, and decided to go all in on global warming:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aMU3BkV3yqPU
But hey, at least the climate change models are still Falsifiable (since they are false)
“The Socialist Phenomenon” by Igor Shafarevich has changed my concept of socialism from a strictly economic formulation to “an individual only has significance as part of the group.”
There’s a slow train comin’ for sure.
Things that used to provide foundational cohesion for American society:
1. Religion and religion-based values. When Americans believed in traditional religion, government was secondary, as in “One Nation Under God.” The flawed Church Visible saw itself as part of the Church Triumphant, which was (rightly considered) not an earthly but an eschatological concept. Now that modern belief is an attenuated version of a more substantial thing, the hope for “Kingdom Come” seeks fulfillment in the here and now. (Aside: hope for individual fulfillment does not apply to about-to-be-born infants if mother says so.)
2. Family. Used to be thought of in context of religion. See #1. Or in terms of economic unit. See #3.
3. Thrift, conservative finance. Used to be thought of in context of religion. See # 1. Would a balanced budget or taxing limit succeed to curb legislative spending? See example of California and wring hands.
What’s the short-term game plan? Elect new legislators and executives while conservative voters s are still in the majority and dismantle (or slow down) the redistributive and governmentalizing legislation of recent year.
Bob Dylan called all of this a long time ago (with nice guitar work by Mark Knopfler):
“Big-time negotiators, false healers and woman haters,
Masters of the bluff and masters of the proposition
But the enemy I see wears a cloak of decency,
All non-believers and men stealers talkin’ in the name of religion
And there’s a slow, slow train comin’ up around the bend.”
Yes, it will take decades, or even centuries to definitively tease the anthropogenic forcings from natural cycles. From the measurement perspective, we just don’t have enough data in the temporal series to identify all of the natural cycles. We must graft proxy data onto the left hand tail of the time series – resulting in an error term greater than the changes predicted by the models. From an analysis perspective, we are expecting a non-linear system to behave like a gaussian distribution. The gamble of the modelers is that a derivative of a derivative, annual mean global temperature, will reveal discernible and meaningful linear trends. How this datum translates into linkages with specific predictions of the effects of “Climate Change” is a question of intuition and art rather than empirical science.
We live on the flank of a volcano. We know that it very well might erupt at any time. We are compelled to sacrifice virgins, “do something” to placate the angry gods.
Richard writes: “There are too many political careers and too much money riding on the Truth of Global Warming for that train to be canceled. We’ve got to get aboard whether we like it not.”
Um, not necessarily. I will not climb on that wagon and if forced will do my utmost to derail that particular train.
Just because the ones who say it is so does not mean they are right. And, my sense is that they are spectacularly wrong.
Sarychev Peak volcano shows how insignificant we humans really are.
Batman @ 16 said: “Welcome back to the Dark Ages.”
Batman, we have just spent a temporary reprieve from those times. The Dark Ages are the normal condition. The past 150 years are the anomaly.
E. Nigma @ 21: “The bad ideas have to be driven out with better, stronger ideas. Where to find them today, I don’t know.”
Sure you do. You are just frightened to do it because it posits LOSS OF CONTROL. But, in losing the chimeral control of the modern world you will gain the real control of deep and abiding faith.
“Vanity is one of my favorites.”
A few years ago it became a trope of the Left, how conservatives were acting on superstition and myth while liberal positions were rational and scientific and “fact-based”.
What a crock!!!
Here is what I wanted to say about McChrystal, Code Pink and Afghanistan
If there is a lack of correspondence between the data and the theory that is supposed explain it, the theory must be revised.
When one makes historical or scientific conclusions, one must base one’s commentary upon facts. Otherwise, the effect is analogous to the politics of Lysenko. Or Ward Churchill.
It is less noteworthy that the weather has been colder in the last ten years than that the BBC is reporting it. Unfortunately, I see the entire issue of the climate as vastly overpoliticized.
I think it was a bad idea for proponents of renewable energy to base their advocacy upon a “Chicken Little” strategy of scaring people with a vision of environmental apocalypse. Even if the data of “global warming” were correct, it was a bad idea. There are excellent reasons to shift the world economy away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy, but those reasons are geopolitical in nature.
Let’s all give thanks to good Al Gore
Though God knows I don’t know what for
He’s been a malign force for decades now
He got us in this warming stew
He engineered Kyoto too
And for it all he took a Nobel bow
We’ve crazy folks who scream in pain
That warming temperatures will gain
And cause the earth to turn to dusty motes
Where every living thing will die
And even liberals will fry
Collapsing with Bushhitler in their throats
The seas will rise upon the land
And drown our cities out of hand
With hurricane tornadoes in to boot
How can they know which scene to pick
Why it is on the hockey stick
Which must be true because it looks so cute
So close the factories and jobs
Don’t mind the unemployment mobs
It’s all for goddess Gaea don’t you know
We do believe that humankind
Will die but then we do not mind
For haven’t we all had a long run show
Actual science is irrelevant to the Global Warming lobby. If they actually believed in science, this crowd wouldn’t overlap so thoroughly with the New Age crowd. Perhaps there are exceptions out there, but the Global Warming true believers I have talked to are also huge believers in all manner of conspiracy theories, mystical energies, and fake medicine.
Global Warming devotion has two purposes. The first is to provide an alternate religion to people who feel oppressed by of Judeo-Christian morality, but in the end, can’t escape the universal human need for faith and higher purpose.
The second, more nefarious purpose, is that it provides an opportunity to revive all of the methods and doctrines of Socialist totalitarianism. Only this time, the cover story isn’t that we aren’t saving the proletariat, it is that we are saving the planet.
Lacking anything substantive to add to this fine thread – since my views are amply voiced by the likes of Walt, Alexis, Luddy, Life, Konyok, Mary and others, I’ll just add two thoughts:
(1) To respond to Luddy’s long (for him) post, if you consume lots of those niftily packaged, foil-topped stuffs from American competitors’ food and ‘ceutical factories, like Yoplait’s 6oz. yogurts for example, that contain synthetic chemical coloring agents, then you are more vulnerable to cross-border Sunnstein-ian experiments. This’ll make me sound like a “sustainability Yippie” to say this but, you may want to buy the less pretty 2lb jugs of plain yogurt, and add real fruits, real vanilla or honey to it for flavor instead. I use “Mountain High” brand from Englewood, CO.
And, another big plus is, in addition to avoiding FD&C carcinogen # whatever, it’s a hell of a lot cheaper, too!
Also, Luddy, I knew those guys were talking down “big Oil” so they could buy in cheap! I just knew it! What other industries have they been badmouthing?
(2) As for Wretchard’s implied cinematographic allusion, I’m a big fan of Russel Crowe’s remake of 3:10 to Yuma. While there’s still a train that needs gettin’ on…it ends instead with the certainty that Crowe’s character, Ben Wade, will get back off the train again, and with the nagging surety that the “law,” the Chicago railway barons, and the sense of honor – all that compels Christian Bale’s character to get Ben Wade on the train in the first place – are, every one of them, false tokens.
I hate to say it, but, the black and white Ford/Heflin version, produced to such great acclaim by Heilweil in 1957, was cut for a different time and a different country – a country for old men. Mangold’s nuanced version turns Heilweil’s on its head, and, in my opinion, it better fits the times.
If the “clinging” American consumer is Ben Wade, then, in Mangold’s version, Al Gore gets shot at the depot, and, although it starts to rain finally in Bisbee (ie. eventually consumers “go green”), Gore is not there at the end to wave at his smiling wife, her hair glistening in the pouring rain. And his son William is left to ponder this pungent stew of reality as he ages to manhood.
It is, without a doubt, the better film.
“Even the eleven years of non-warming the BBC reports is irrelevant. The science itself is unimportant.”
—
You are precisely correct. Hence, in my opinion the issue must be addressed, if it is to be addressed successfully, at a different level.
The Didache, which had been part of the canon for some of the early Christian churches, then lost until just over a century ago, explicitly addressed the issue of false prophets who preyed on the faithful while pretending to be about the Lord’s business.
It did not recommend that the faithful engage each fraud on his own terms. Rather, it provided a handbook with rules for detecting and then guidance for dealing with those “Christmongers” who sought only personal gain in the name of Christ.
In the recent past, Karl Popper provided a similar service for modern science. Alas, Popper is now 15 years in the grave – fifteen years which has witnessed relentless attack on the rules and guidance he had put forth. During his life, Popper defended his reasoning with great vigor, and by so doing provided a bulwark against the claim that Marxist ‘Historism’ was valid science. He made enemies who now seek to bury his work.
Academic Marxists provide only one of the driving forces which makes the global warming bandwagon appear to be so robust against criticism. They are joined by those seeking a number of domestic and international political agendas, and by those who seek to profit from research grants with rich fringe benefits. Many voices. Strident voices.
However, the global warming crowd has overstepped. They have placed themselves in a vulnerable place and, if we can keep Poppers work from being forgotten – as the Didache was – and build on it, we may be able to restore a measure of common sense to politics, a measure of integrity to science, and, while we are about it, deliver a blow to the Marxist claim that a communist future is preordained by scientific determinism.
AGW Ultimatum:
The Czech heretic is insane*. Either get on board, or else.
…-
Chamberlain:
“How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!”*
(quotes)
…-
“Czech Cabinet in emergency session to force President Klaus to sign Lisbon treaty”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6870167.ece
*A proposed final solution is the Stalin Solution:
*”It could also ask parliament to state that President Klaus is no longer competent to exercise the post of President.”
…-
President Klaus denies global warming | ABC Prague
4 May 2007 … According to Czech president Vaclav Klaus, there is no danger of global warming caused by humans. He believes, that the theory of global …
http://www.abcprague.com/…/president-klaus-denies-global-warming
Bluddy, what the el? Welcome back and Konyak too!
Prince Albert has odored hisself a place in the rank files with the likes of a certain other VP named Burr with Chilling effect. Albert and Aaron an occidental oxymoron of vice if ever a pair was. Like the Congressional Ethics involved in writing most legislation, or Incredibly Convincing which describes accurately the evidence for A) Global Warming, B) bush lied, C) Senator’s Frank N Dodd explaining how they apply the concept of budgetary constraint or (with a nod to Health Care Insurance Reform) a mandatory option.
33. Langley and 36. Tcobb
Both Red Socialism and Brown Socialism seem to require that after you confiscate the wealth from somebody, you need to redistribute it to more deserving somebody elses. The “beauth” of green socialism, is that after confiscating that wealth, there is NO need to redistribute it again. There is just the challenge, well on its way to be ing solved, of convincing all the somebodies that it is noble and good to live in penury forever without any dreams of rising back out of the mire. it seizes the horn of that old cliche about socialism making everyone equally poor, and transforms it into a seeming virtue. Dumb trustifarians will buy into it.
“We’ve got to get aboard whether we like it not.”
Oh, hell no we don’t!
So, basically, the argument is, free people burn natural resources too fast –but the question is begged, ‘compared to what?’ Suppose we’d turned to sustainability doctrine in 1000 AD –would we ever have founded these societies unimaginable in the dark ages?
If not why not? Could it be that no innovation since then has lacked a market drive?
‘Sustainability’ itself is limited –it can’t stop time (Earth critters live at solar whim, and suns have life spans) so nothing is sustainable going forward, and to play at going backward, in a pilgrimage to ‘sustainability’, is certainly, tho a satisfyingly brutalist communist hunter-gatherer cartoon, to self-unselect (in our inevitable evolving) from the higher-powered (because a higher power shows in it?) drive to go or return to the heavens aboves.
While science uses past data and speculation, the latter depends on the cooperation of the future. – Speculation is not a science.
I think Michael Crichton was right – unless the precautionary principle can be proven to have no ill effects, it cannot be applied!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
How ignorant of the left. You could get the entire country aligned with a goal of de-funding the Saudis by decreasing, if not eliminating, our use of their oil.
You cannot get a thinking people aligned with a goal that is demonstrably false. If this were a trial, the loss/destruction of the original data would be fatal to the case.
The only way Cap and Tax will get any support is because most people–including the moronic congresscritters who will vote for it–have been duped by the fall-in-line one-world media propagandists who now openly speak of AGW as FACT, period. The masses are too stupid to connect the dots that draconian carbon controls will lead to huge taxes and massive job losses on the middle class. All of this going down during the biggest economic crisis in 70 years is a criminal act by our government and the special interest groups who play them like puppets in DC. When and if the public wakes up it will only be after the disaster has entirely sunk in, and it will require a Revolution to overturn the damage being done right now.
Class Clown Post 57: Bingo.
Is California still burning?
all those carbon credits going up in smoke!
If California stopped burning all those polar bears would be saved.
Correction for the BBC: An idiot at NASA claimed ’98 was the hottest, based on fudged data. Turns out the decade of the Dust Bowl had several years of hottest temperature for the century. The warming cycle peaked in the thirties. Now no one knows if we are moving into a short or long cooling cycle, or a new ice age. But the cap and trade scam is gonna make special people a lot of money so let’s carry on with our destruction of the American economy. We must transform America at all costs.
72. Gary Ogletree:Thatks for that note–I was also under the impression that NASA had stated that the hottest years on record were in the 30′s…
The importance of the BBC article pales in comparison to recent posts concerning the foundation data for the global warming hypothesis. The data from East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) appear lost. As a result none of the conclusions from the CRU has been or can be independently verified. The EPA, the UN, Kyoto, etc. have based their cries for a curb on green house gases on these data from the CRU. As a scientist I view this situation with the greatest of alarm for multiple reason: 1) It is an essential tenet of scientific research is that independent scientists must be able to verify the scientific process from raw data, to analysis to conclusion; 2) Without independent verification of the process mistakes can be made and have been made many times; 3) Without independent verification of the raw data, fraud can and has occurred many times; 4) Many have suggested unprecedented changes in human behavior on the basis of this data, which cannot be verified.
Unfortunately, many innocents are seduced by this scientific, political and philosophical fraud to demand drastic reductions in green house gases. They do not understand that the consequences could be another Dark Age and an end to freedom, as we know it. Somewhat more difficult to identify are the villains who see this end as a means to their false utopia by any means necessary, including scientific fraud. I can only urge rational people to intervene in the strongest way to prevent what may be the greatest fraud perpetrated on the entire world.
I firmly believe that what has come to be known as environmentalism is part of the universal religious impulse. It is a reversion to animism in the absence of the anthropomorphic deity. I’m not an atheist, most people would consider me something of a deist, and I want to make clear that I’m not here to religion bash, but at this point…I’m ranking environmentalism with creationism.
And yes, this is the artist formerly known as billslayer.
Twenty years ago, the two biggest issues of our era emerged: AGW and Islamofascism. The latter emerged when the fatwa against Salman Rushdie was issued. Not many people, even on the right, figured out what this meant, but I knew right away. “They want to rule us,” I thought with astonishment. And the pantywaist response of Western civilization suggested they could eventually do it.
My thoughts were vindicated by 9/11, though plenty of people are still in denial about what it meant.
As for AGW, the true believers have never had a 9/11 to help them out. Wisconsin with average summer temps of 115 might do the trick, but it just never happened. And lately we’ve been in a cool spell. So, they have to rely on dubious claims about what is happening in the Arctic. I’ve told my mother, “Global warming can’t just happen in the Arctic. Eventually it has to happen here, but that doesn’t look very likely.” Though she’s on the right, she’s not on the Internet and gets all her news from the MSM. Too bad.
“Framed that way, we will lose the argument. Will will lose the argument on energy, immigration, etc. Appeals to the superior virtue of liberty, limited government, etc. just will not move enough people.”
I think The Old Guy @ 27 makes a good argument. Taking this further, we can not continue to downplay charisma as an essential tool for conservatives.
JMH @ 38: Yes, Rush Limbaugh has argued with enough ‘Liberals’ to know how to dismantle them. He says that you need to point out the meanness of their arguments and policy. The other point Rush makes about framing his arguments is to remind people that conservatives care about people.
It is wrong to abandon the substance of conservatism; freedom, liberty, history and science, but more is required to convince a cynical listener. Perhaps ironically, as more people become convinced that AGW theory has been a lie (or exaggeration) to further politics thus increasing their cynicism, emotional credentials become more important, and arguments in science fall on deaf ears.
As long as it is kosher for the climate change alarmist crowd to put the cart before the horse(in other words, determine the conclusion first,and then cherry pick the data which confirms the conclusion, and disregard the rest), they will continue to smear those who put the cart after the horse (letting the data lead to the conclusion, instead of the other way ’round) and
hold in disrepute those who champion those who put the horse in front of the cart.
Any sign that they are wrong is simply, and utterly, verboten.
Wisconsin with average summer temps of 115 might do the trick, but it just never happened.
I have found that I can get a cheap laugh from even the die-hard liberals here by mentioning global warming. Especially over Memorial Day weekend, when we were all still wearing sweaters.
I note this thread is refreshingly free of trolls. The revelation that temps aren’t rising coupled with the fact that it is the Beeb reporting such heresy must really wreck havoc in their little skulls.
When Carson’s water didn’t run out by 1964, Paul Erlich shouted “Look over here at Ozone”.
When the Ozone layer closed by itself (since shown to be cyclic) even before R12 and Fleurocaron got profitably (for him) retooled, the whole chorus sang “Ooops! Look over there. It’s Global Cooling.”
When the fresh evidence looked like a warming cycle instead, they all screamed, “Look over there, it’s Global WARMING!”
Now it’s equivocal, so they shout “Climate Change” to win either way.
Why don’t supposedly educated people remember the panics of water-ozone-cooling-warming-climate that these simple minded demogogues have used?
BECAUSE TEACHERS HAVE FAILED and boomers are uneducated.
Why must we pay the consequences in taxes and ruinous policies?
#22 E. NIGMA HAS THE ANSWER. “…where to find them?”
There is no net benefit to continued reliance on fossil fuels.
The article cited by the author does not call into question the science of AGW – it merely points out the obvious. Yes, temperatures vary over time, and there are cyclical forces at play – but the overall trend is not in question, and the basis for the science is still sound.
It is easy to cherry pick data and pretend that AGW is not happening – it is much more difficult to face the reality that fossil fuels and deforestation are having a global impact that may be irreversible. The loss of biodiversity, and the potential for ecological disaster, are more than sufficient to justify invoking the precautionary principle.
There is no compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels – unless you are making a profit on them.
Peace.
DS
I find it ironic that some of those organizations that now espouse AGW, were some of the same organizations screaming ice age (or some other form of “end of civilization” disaster) in the 70′s. You’d think they’d a) make up their mind, or b) realize that climate varies.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something,”
“civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
one of my favorites:
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Kenneth Watt, Ecologist (if people don’t buy into the nitrogen scenario, change it to CO2)
And the winner is:
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” also Kenneth Watt, ecologist. (Someone needs to tell the Goracle.)
All of the above were from *1970*, biologists, ecologists, (re: “respected scientists) etc. published in the “veritas” of mass communication that exist only to dispense truth to the masses.
so gives truth to the statement “he who does not believe in something, will believe in anything.”
Buddy @ #2, not to pick on ya, but…
Your “sense of Yuma” comment almost made me Pima pants.
Hyuck, hyuck!
Oh it’s gonna be much hotter I mean setting the middle east afire with nukes is bound to heat up something.
A leftard will reliably be shut down for a moment when told we are living in a very special era, an ice-age that is only two and one-half million years along, the previous glaciation ending 260 million years ago. Man is quite clever enough to stop the next onslaught of ice, and also clever enough to face himself the wrong direction as it hits him in the ass.
Planet fever alarm is for the amusement of the idle. A good parlor game is necessarily based on some fiction, with scoring rules based on some equally fictitious criterion. If reality was allowed to come into it, it would not be a game, it would be old-fashioned work!
Prophets like Al Gore are perfecting the art of harnessing the latent energy of boredom. He should have gotten the Nobel prize for physics!
Practicing a craft, and serving your fellow humans is the authentic vaccine against boredom. It will immunize you against misplaced worries towards contrived perils such as planet fever alarm, because you will be busy enough with the real challenges of life.
David S. you darling girl,
Don’t ever let the facts get in the way of dogma.
Piece
(of dogma doo doo)
PM
S/83; well ya gotta control the old flagstaff, y’know. however such a sight would be so hilarious, bystanders mesa verde moment always!
(*ughsomebodyshootme*)
81. David S:Strangely enough, I would have to agree with the esteemed David S…sortof. I think we should ditch fossil fuels and go 100% nuclear, but not over any fashionable pseudo-religion, just for purposes of non dependence on other nations.
And no, solar and wind are not going to do it, so dont go there. Yes, this is the artist formerly known as billslayer.
@79 Donna V
“I note this thread is refreshingly free of trolls.”
Most of the time we’re blessed in that regard here at BC, probably because most of the crowd has migrated to PJM with our esteemed and beloved host.
The exception @81 is what happens when PJM puts Belmont Club front and center. But never fear, s/he won’t last long in this hotel. The trolls who wander in here, whether by accident or design, invariably find it’s too hard for them to keep up.
@ David S. and PM: Play nice
Get yourselves a lantern, and go looking for an honest Climatologist,one whose career does not depend on agreeing with the State; 3 2 B sure.
What they tell you three times is true, and he, she, and it will all tell you we do not know, but the way to bet is ICE, and forced Gore cooling may tip the balance the wrong way, resulting in more cooling over a shorter time
(~ 100 years to glaciation) than previously thought possible, resulting in the Four Horse-
men herding us to the Norse Hell, the coldest place in the Nine Worlds.
The dumbest thing we could ever do is move away from fossil fuels. Hydrocarbon fuels sources are abundantly abundant; they will last for centuries.
We are well adept at using them safely and efficiently in energy production and many other things.
The by-products of energy production, CO2 and water, fit neatly into natural carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen cycles.
If you are concerned about deforestation, then promote Capitalism and the use of fossil fuels in poor countries and you will see their environments improve immensely.
@81. David S: – There is no net benefit to continued reliance on fossil fuels. … There is no compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels…
Another example of clueless, agenda-driven ignorance.
The net benefit to continued use of fossil fuels is inescapable: right now, the overwhelming majority of energy production uses it. No alternative to fossil fuels has any chance whatsoever of filling the world’s energy needs within a practical timeframe. Thanks to the insanity of ‘central planning’, even nuclear energy – the most attractive alternative to oil and coal – is decades away from being able to fill this need.
So the compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels is that it’s presently the only feasible way to keep you from freezing to death in the winter and power the multitude of computers and associated equipment and systems that provide you with the means to litter cyberspace with your adolescent nonsense.
Oh, and speaking of cherry-picked data used to perpetuate the AGW scam and bring down the developed world’s economies… the dog ate it.
Well, at least it would help the auto industry if everyone ran out and bought a clown car (he said, from the Detroit area)
Check out the priceless link, from an unlikely source, if you missed it last year.
The “global warming” worriers are anti-science, both in their predictions about the climate and their remedy. (1) The climate continually changes and has done for 4 billion years, long before the existence of mankind. We are now in an interglacial period – the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago and the next will be in 10,000 years (based on a cycle of 20,000 years of changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun). (2) Carbon dioxide is food for the green plants. It is produced by plants and animals, including the “global warming” worriers. Their attacks on carbon dioxide as a pollutant – see the latest EPA ruling – would mean that all plants and animals would have to stop breathing, and the green plants would wither away.
@92 Goy has it correct; but we haven’t heard from Boris yet – who is sure to tell us how ignorant we all are…maybe he’s posting as someone else?
What is wrong with you people? Don’t you know it’s Global Climate Change now, not warming! Every hot day, cold day, windy day, hurricane, earthquake, etc proves the case.
Batman says:5. It will reduce economic and eventually political freedom for individuals and return us to a modern variation of feudalism.
The hidden agenda has been and always will be ‘population control’ IMHO.
It’s the only variable that can be controlled to ensure a positive outcome in AGW think.
Replacement technologies are too far off to be effective in the short term. All the wood appears to be lining up behind one arrowhead.
I think Batman is on to something. Holy Heatsinks Batman.
@92. goy:
The net benefit to continued use of fossil fuels is inescapable: right now, the overwhelming majority of energy production uses it.
That’s not an argument, that’s an observation. Backwards thinking. You aren’t even addressing the costs of continued reliance on fossil fuels.
No alternative to fossil fuels has any chance whatsoever of filling the world’s energy needs within a practical timeframe.
Total nonsense. Pushing the shift away from fossil fuels into the future only makes the transition more expensive.
Thanks to the insanity of ‘central planning’, even nuclear energy – the most attractive alternative to oil and coal – is decades away from being able to fill this need.
Nuclear energy is not the long-term solution to energy independence. The drawbacks in terms of nuclear waste and terrorism risk are far too great, and the ultimate cost is higher than the alternatives.
So the compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels is that it’s presently the only feasible way to keep you from freezing to death in the winter and power the multitude of computers and associated equipment and systems that provide you with the means to litter cyberspace with your adolescent nonsense.
That is a fine argument if you ignore reality. The long term consequences of relying on fossil fuels will make it more likely that people will freeze to death in the winter, and go without electrical power. Fossil fuels are not a secure source of energy in the long term, and the sooner we move away from these volatile and harmful sources of energy, the sooner our economy can move from the 20th century into the 21st.
Again, there is no reason to persist in our dependence on fossil fuels – the reliance on these fuels is a long term liability for the US economy and our security. Your argument would have applied equally well as an argument against electrification last century – after all, before rural electrification, wood stoves were the only feasible way to keep from freezing to death in winter, and cooking food to eat. This kind of argument is not compelling to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together.
Peace.
DS
America, the west and all of the non oil producing countries must do everything they can stop our dependence on foreign oil. They must also produce as much as possible from fuel sources that do not contribute to global warming. This must be a total committment regardless, if its nuclear or if it disrupts peoples incomes or comfort. This effort must be total. Oil is the caused enough damage to humanity already. The quicker we stop importing foreign oil, the better.
81. David S: “There is no net benefit to continued reliance on fossil fuels.”
Try affordable energy. Solar and wind can’t even begin to put out the wattage necessary to power our lives. Nukes could, but greenies have effectively neutralized that avenue. So, we’re left with good ol’ coal and oil.
I don’t dispute that we’re entirely too reliant on fossil fuel; I, for one, would welcome alternatives, not least because they’re potentially kinder to the environment.
But until they’re up to the job power-wise, it’s specious at best, and dangerous at worst, to jettison fossil fuels altogether.
I fully support the nationalization of health care. It seems the only way to get rid of the generation (mine)that seems to be causing all of the problems. DEATH PANELS FOR ALL BOOMERS. This is at least partially snark.
@98. David S:… that’s an observation.
An observation of fact – a concept you demonstrate a consistent inability to comprehend.
- Backwards thinking.
That’s your lonely, uninformed, beer-fueled opinion, Zippy. You consistently confuse your own opinion – and your endless, baseless assertions and generalizations – with observable fact. See above.
It is very interesting to live in these times of fanaticism and barbarianism.
No matter what the data show, the subversives keep kneeling at the shrines of their idols (global warming, socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism, nihilism, materialism) and they gather in big groups (called “majorities”) to lynch any living soul who dares oppose their folly.
Culture, media, science, university are being transformed in a stinking broth of ideologies.
It is very sad to observe, but it is anthropologically interesting anyway.
Once capitalism has given to these masses (for the first time in history) a way out of absolute poverty and starvation…what do they do with this newly conquered welfare ? They use it to INVENT reasons to self-destroy and create hell on earth (see USSR, China, Cuba, nazi germany etc etc etc etc etc).
Very strange beings, very strange.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
81. David S.
“…but the overall trend is not in question, and the basis for the science is still sound.”
If one declares that a trend is not in question, does this end the debate?
What if the science becomes not still sound?
“It is easy to cherry pick data and pretend that AGW is not happening – it is much more difficult to face the reality that fossil fuels and deforestation are having a global impact that may be irreversible. The loss of biodiversity, and the potential for ecological disaster, are more than sufficient to justify invoking the precautionary principle.”
Is it difficult to face the possibility that the reality may turn out to be better for humanity, and that the potential for ecological disaster may be unfounded?
“There is no compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels – unless you are making a profit on them.”
Yes I do profit. I fuel up my car and go make a better life for myself, my family, and my co-workers, as well as for the community at large. Quite compelling from my point of view.
You can’t cherry pick life sustaining actions. You either live or you die. Are you willing to sacrifice your life for the good of the planet? Really, it would only mean one less eco-destructive entity despoiling a Universe that could care less. Go ahead. Be brave. Jump out of your self made lifeboat. Your carcass will make many life forms “happy”. Win win.
#97 Bear
If you can control the economic you can control the political. The aristocrats of Europe lost their power because they paid no attention to the economic dynamics. Who is more important–he who can fine you for spitting on the street or the person who pays you the money to pay that fine?
That’s the essential lesson of socialism. They do not object to aristocracy (they consider themselves to be aristocrats, whether they currently are or not) but they understand how it can be destroyed. Capitalism (economic freedom) destroyed aristocracy. For them, the trends of the times of capitalism have been like a form of slow Holocaust.
The aristocrats who are, aspire to be, and imagine themselves to be, are like the Jews who say about the Holocaust, “never again.” Economic success is the enemy of socialism. That’s why they hate it so much, and tend to stomp it out whenever they find it. Unless you are a really, really small country
the peasants can always be taxed so that the aristocrats can live a life of luxury.The impoverishment of the common man is not a problem. For aristocrats, it never has been.
@ 92. goy: “The net benefit to continued use of fossil fuels is inescapable: right now, the overwhelming majority of energy production uses it.”
And don’t forget plastics! Without fossils fuels, there’s no plastics. There’s no way of making plastics from wind energy or solar energy. Plastics only come from fossil fuels. In fact, without fossil fuels, there’d be no wind or solar energy possible.
AGW is neither proven nor disproven. The greenhouse concept is compelling – add more CO2 to the system and the planet will warm. We really have no idea of the proper granularity, temporal and spatial, to study the problem. There is real reason for concern that marginal, persistent temperature increases in the arctic could disrupt the current “normal,” without necessarily causing 115 degree temperatures in Minnesota. Unfortunately, the currency of today’s climate modeling, global average temperature, collapses all of the data to one point with questionable relevance to the behavior of the global system.
If one squints really hard, it is almost possible to justify the precautionary principle on the grounds that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere risks a disequilibrium in the complex and poorly understood global climate system.
But, when the debate shifts from the descriptive to the prescriptive it gains a complexity beyond human abilities to process. Essentially, we are confronted with the collision of two dynamic, chaotic systems – global climate and global economy.
We can empirically show that the global climate can have a direct effect on the global economy, but a feedback of the economy on the climate is more difficult to demonstrate, let alone suggest effective policy. Ultimately, the prescriptions for AGW are aesthetic and superstitious, eg. tossing the virgin into the volcano.
Although I’ve never heard AGW skeptics put it this way, it seems to me that we have dueling “precautionary principles.” The skeptical response is basically cautionary – we can’t take the chance of destroying the economy without more evidence. (If adding CO2 to the atmosphere threatens chaos, so does removing ~20% efficiency from the economy.)
Albert Gore Jr deserves universal condemnation for bowdlerizing the dilemma. (Consider the anthropological controversy of “Out of Africa” vs “Evolution in place,” philosophical ramifications aplenty. There has been no prominent politician taking a public stand, scientists have been free to battle it out with glee … )
Barbara Boxer said today that she will get the cap and trade thru the senate very soon.
I’m wondering, who do these people think they are? I’m done with ‘em. they’re stupid and ruinous. I call for a general strike.
@106. Mr Lucky:
If one declares that a trend is not in question, does this end the debate?
If there is no question, what’s the debate about?
What if the science becomes not still sound?
Then theories are re-evaluated. It’s called science.
Is it difficult to face the possibility that the reality may turn out to be better for humanity, and that the potential for ecological disaster may be unfounded?
Wishful thinking is not a solution – it is a cop out.
Yes I do profit. I fuel up my car and go make a better life for myself, my family, and my co-workers, as well as for the community at large. Quite compelling from my point of view.
Short term thinking. Life without dependence on foreign oil is a better life for all. Quite compelling from any point of view.
You can’t cherry pick life sustaining actions. You either live or you die.
How can you possibly make the leap from advocating alternative energy to suicide? The long term consequences of fossil fuel use are not good for anybody but the oil companies. The life sustaining action in this case is pursuit of alternative energy.
Peace.
DS
“And don’t forget plastics! Without fossils fuels, there’s no plastics” Larsen E.Whipsnade@106.
Not so fast, Mr Whipsnade. See for example:
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/natural-fiber-composites-slowly-take-root.aspx
The idea is not new, but has yet to be fully explored. Henry Ford experimented with plant-fibre composites during WW2. Many benefits, including generally lower toxicity. It is a big field, so Google it for more info.
The “precautionary principle” is illogical rubbish masquerading as wisdom. The people who preach it are very selective as to how its to be applied.
Let’s apply it to politicians. If we take this into account–my Lord, (s)he might be another Hitler! So shoot them. Or to be more humane, don’t let anyone who wants to run for office run for office. Of course, this would totally do away with the political class … maybe there is some merit to the precautionary principle after all.
111. David S.: [If one declares that a trend is not in question, does this end the debate?]
“If there is no question, what’s the debate about?”
How about, How does the ONE declaring a trend not in question become the final arbiter of any issue … without debate?
[What if the science becomes not still sound?]
“Then theories are re-evaluated. It’s called science.”
I don’t see any “re-evaluating” going on at all among AGW scientists. I see blackballing of colleagues, intolerance, painting of dissent as fringe lunacy, denialists, etc. Hundreds of scientists — including many cited on the IPCC “report” — disavow AGW, and more and more cracks in the supposedly consensus-backed facade are appearing as more flaws in the methodology are exposed.
But still no “re-evaluation” is taking place.
By the time that happens — IF it does — we’ll all be back to hunting and gathering, thanks to the expensive contribution AGW idiocy adds to an already collapsing economy. (Which, I suspect, is what leftists/statists truly want all along. Rids us of Scrooge’s surplus population, don’tcha know.)
Via the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Oct. 12:
“Soros Pledges $100-Million for Climate Advisory Project
“George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and hedge-fund manager, announced plans to donate $100-million to create a climate-change advisory group for politicians and policymakers, Bloomberg reports.
“The Climate Policy Initiative “will be part advisory service, part policy developer, and part watchdog,” said Thomas Heller, the Stanford University law professor and expert on energy and environmental law who will head the organization.
“Along with giving $10-million annually for 10 years to the policy group, Mr. Soros plans to invest $1-billion in developing clean-energy technologies. The recipients “should be profitable but should also actually make a contribution to solving the problem,” he said.”
@114. Eowyn:
How about, How does the ONE declaring a trend not in question become the final arbiter of any issue … without debate?
I welcome debate – so long as it is serious.
I don’t see any “re-evaluating” going on at all among AGW scientists. I see blackballing of colleagues, intolerance, painting of dissent as fringe lunacy, denialists, etc. Hundreds of scientists — including many cited on the IPCC “report” — disavow AGW, and more and more cracks in the supposedly consensus-backed facade are appearing as more flaws in the methodology are exposed.
On one hand you claim there is no re-evaluating going on, but on the other hand you claim that hundreds of scientists have re-evaluated their support for AGW. Which is it?
The truth is that any problems found with the data or methodology of AGW only serve to make the underlying theories stronger. That’s the beauty of science – when problems are identified, they can be rectified. In the case of AGW, the evidence continues to grow stronger as occasional flaws are identified and eliminated.
But still no “re-evaluation” is taking place.
That’s simply not true. Re-evaluation is an ongoing process that continues every day.
By the time that happens — IF it does — we’ll all be back to hunting and gathering, thanks to the expensive contribution AGW idiocy adds to an already collapsing economy.
Your apocalyptic vision is a paranoid fantasy. Eliminating fossil fuels does not require a regression to pre-civilized society. It just means we’ll get our power from other sources.
Peace.
DS
Global Warming, “Climate Change,” Global Cooling, etc al are all from the same kooks with the same message: Government is the answer; give up your freedoms, sanity, & your money to us. You will be a slave to the State. Therefore, based in politics rather than true science, the Global Warming folks become more & more unhinged as their own doomsday cult never materializes. If these people actually believed their own propaganda, they would commit suicide instead of being mindless lemmings. However, all they can do is change their doomsday forecast for another day. 2012 will more than likely be taken up by the Global Warmers too.
Poor Citizen: OHMYGOD, I agree with you. Scary. On the other hand, I was sort of looking foward to global warming and the inundation of the left coast, and submergence of San Franciso. Well, you can’t have everything I suppoe. I was surprised that Obama did not win the Nobel Prize in economics. I understand that he is a front runner for the Miss World title. Go Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!11
1998?
That proves it beyond all doubt… Global Warming was Clinton/Gore’s fault!
Your apocalyptic vision is a paranoid fantasy. Eliminating fossil fuels does not require a regression to pre-civilized society. It just means we’ll get our power from other sources.
You might be right, if that includes nuclear power. Otherwise, yours is just a utopian fantasy if it all hinges on solar cells and windmills. Anyone who thinks that the current levels of civilization can be maintained by wind and sun is scientifically illiterate.
David S, the thing is we don’t buy the AGW. The current climate trends are completely consistent with the history of climate over the last several millenia.
At around 1000 AD and for several hundred years Greenland was…GREEN! The world was warmer and life was better (it still sucked but it was better!). In the 1300s we had the mini ice age and people starved and Europe was deforested for fire wood. In 1939 so much Arctic ice melted that two ships, one from the Atlantic one from the Pacific met in the North West Passage. In the 1970s Global Ice Age was predicted by climatologists.
Climate changes. People have minimal impact. We need to clean up our act for our self interest and that includes not beggering ourselves in the process.
“The government isn’t the answer to our problems, government is the problem.”
116. David S.: “I welcome debate – so long as it is serious.”
By whose definition is “serious” achieved?
“On one hand you claim there is no re-evaluating going on, but on the other hand you claim that hundreds of scientists have re-evaluated their support for AGW. Which is it?”
Hundreds of scientists never DID subscribe to AGW. The ones that are now “re-evaluating” their stance are being ridiculed or marginalized. The mainstream “consensus” view has not been re-evaluated in the slightest.
“The truth is that any problems found with the data or methodology of AGW only serve to make the underlying theories stronger. That’s the beauty of science – when problems are identified, they can be rectified. In the case of AGW, the evidence continues to grow stronger as occasional flaws are identified and eliminated.”
This is laughable. The entire basis of the so-called science is itself flawed. Consider this (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4089):
“Evaluating the IPCC Model”
“As political hysteria over “man-made” or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) increased, other scientists began checking the mathematical analysis and measurements behind the hockey stick chart because it did not correlate with other known historical temperature data.
“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from “collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects” — substantially affecting the temperature index [6].
“Worse yet, McIntyre and McKitrick prepared a database using a system of quality control which avoided the arbitrary filling in or truncating of data they had observed in the IPCC analysis and computed principal components using standard algorithms.
“Without endorsing the MBH98 methodology or choice of source data, they simply applied that same methodology to their improved database and recomputed a temperature index history using the same source data. Their new work yielded a Northern Hemisphere temperature index in which the late 20th century showed nothing exceptional compared to preceding centuries, displaying neither unusually high mean values nor variability.”
(emphasis mine)
Even laymen like myself understand wonky science — and manipulation — when they see it. There is simply no way you can patch “minor flaws” in fabric that was rotten to begin with.
“Eliminating fossil fuels does not require a regression to pre-civilized society. It just means we’ll get our power from other sources.”
Where, exactly? Wind/solar/geothermal? Every single existing source of these, taken together, couldn’t power New York City or Los Angeles for a single day, much less the rest of the country. I support exploring alternative sources vigorously — but not converting to them willy-nilly without making sure they can handle the load.
Sorry, link is bad — here it is — http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4089
@122. Eowyn:
By whose definition is “serious” achieved?
Peer review.
Hundreds of scientists never DID subscribe to AGW.
You specifically mentioned scientists who were cited in the IPCC report and now disavow this report. Now you are backtracking – unless you want to name names, and provide some citations.
This is laughable. The entire basis of the so-called science is itself flawed. Consider this (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4089)
I’m familiar with the folks at “climaterealists.com”. I hope you are aware that these are people with no interest in objective science. Try realclimate.org for analysis that doesn’t cherry pick the data, or play to the crowd.
Here is a pretty complete assessment of the latest IPCC data. You should find it informative if you can keep up with the science.
Even laymen like myself understand wonky science — and manipulation — when they see it. There is simply no way you can patch “minor flaws” in fabric that was rotten to begin with.
Wonky science and manipulation are one thing – claiming that decades of research and empirical observations can be tossed out over a single flawed data-set is just silly. To dismiss the entirety of global climate data so flippantly is irresponsible. Even your favorites at climaterealists.com admit that the evidence for global warming is not in doubt. They simply hold the extremely fatuous position that the most recent ten year period invalidates climate models – it doesn’t. It is well within the variability expected.
Wind/solar/geothermal? Every single existing source of these, taken together, couldn’t power New York City or Los Angeles for a single day, much less the rest of the country.
You are wrong. The total installed capacity of wind, solar and geothermal is expanding rapidly, and with aggressive energy policy, they can replace fossil fuels in a few decades. The current installed solar capacity in the US is more than enough to power LA for a day. Solar power capacity in the US is already 8,775 megawatts, and new solar generation capacity is expected to reach cost parity with fossil fuel sources in less than ten years. You are living in the past if you think sustainable energy can’t meet the needs of US cities.
I support exploring alternative sources vigorously — but not converting to them willy-nilly without making sure they can handle the load.
Nobody here is advocating the “willy-nilly” approach. Just seeking recognition that alternative energy sources are critical to American energy policy, and should be given priority, and that AGW is a reasonable theory that is well supported by the available evidence, and should be acted on accordingly. With proper implementation, solar, wind and geothermal power can provide a very large share of US power generation.
Thanks for being a good sport and supporting your POV with citations. However, I’d recommend a little higher caliber ammunition if you intend to take down the AGW juggernaut. The “CO2 skeptics” aren’t really well regarded, and could never hope to pass peer review.
Peace.
DS
124. David S:
“You are wrong. The total installed capacity of wind, solar and geothermal is expanding rapidly, and with aggressive energy policy, they CAN replace fossil fuels in a few decades.”
You base this assertion on the idea that this “can” be done. I’m not saying that it can’t be done but wow, that is fairly over the top in terms of non realism. As a thought exercise, ask yourself; why the chinese and the russians put as little stock in those ideas compared to people in this country who dont work in those sectors? Do you know why? Because it’s not even a little realistic. If it was, the chinese would be doing it. And yes, there are lot of miniscule exceptions to these rules, but in good faith remember that the exception to the rule almost always proves the rule.
You are living in the past if you think sustainable energy can’t meet the needs of US cities.
And you are living in fantasy land if you think that “sustainable energy” in the way of wind and light can provide the energy needed to produce the products needed to keep the city dweller’s alive.
And there are a lot of people in “fly over” country, you know, the ones who are supposed to provide all the goodies for the city dwellers, who if push came to shove wouldn’t mind letting them all starve and freeze in the dark.
David S,
I admire your spunk in taking on this unruly crowd. However, I should warn you to do your homework.
The “appeal to authority” fallacy doesn’t work very well here. AGW apologists often demand that skeptics “name one scientist!” Of course, a “peer reviewed, recognized climate scientist!” This is no substitute for a reasoned argument, and feels a bit like a hustle because there is no separate discipline of “climate science,” in the sense that Chemistry, Physics and Biology are distinct sciences. Instead, we have an interdisciplinary nexus of Meteorology, Physical Geography, Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Statistics striving to explain nested, semi-cyclic dynamic phenomena that our human sense of order demands must constitute a global system.
The Mann hockey stick diagram is not merely a disputed data (sic). It is the necessary *proof* that anthropogenic CO2 corresponds to measurable global temperature change. The problem is that the proxy data comprising the left hand tail of the hockey stick is not the product of careful measurement – it is a statistical exercise to tease the signal out from the noise. (Consider: a tree ring records the tree’s growth each year. A larger ring can indicate warmer temperature, but it can also indicate more available water, or both. Dendrologists are working hard to calibrate their science, but reading the tree rings remains a speculative art.)
Mann et al. have refused to disclose their data or their statistical methodologies. Hansen et al. have been reticent to share their statistical smoothing methodologies used to combine heterogenous data sets into global average temperatures. The charge of “cherry picking” data is an arrow at the heart of the global warming *consensus.*
As to the ease of replacing fossil fuels with “alternative energy,” well, if it were easy the market would already have turned in that direction. It remains problematic, requiring massive government intervention to enact.
Remember, there is that other complex system, the economy, that we depend upon.
Hey … I posted TWICE … what gives?
(Saved text on a Word document, so will post again, if necessary, but would rather not) …
?
Godlessness!
The growing problem on the left. And that is coming from an agnostic.
On the contrary jim, I think the left has its’ religion. Global warming is simply one tenet of the Leftist Creed – statism and government planning by elites. Al Gore and Obama are this faith’s high priests. Heresy is not tolerated.
Meanwhile,the polar bear population is expanding up here in the Great white North.That info is directly from biologists and the Inuit that live near Baffin Island.Polar bears have spotted wandering into Inuit communities and are a threat to children left unattended.
111. David S:
“If there is no question, what’s the debate about?”
What does 2+2 equal today?
While I disagree with you on what energy policy should/would be for the present and the future, what I find most disagreeable are your totalitarian instincts.
The root of the problem are the useless idiots espousing “The Precautionary Principle”. Here’s my put: Global Warming pales in comparison to the problem of Anthropogenically Induced Continental Drift. Whatever it is we humans are doing, it is causing the continents to drift apart faster than they would have had we not existed at all. To solve the problem, the entire human race should jump in a volcano.
#82 David S (aka Peace DS),
If you cannot point to an energy source that is cheaper, then the first good reason for the use of fossil fuels is that it COSTS less than the alternatives that you fail to mention. What alternative to fossil fuels are you alluding to?
Also, exactly what science are you yapping about again?
Please, Stop Feeding the Troll.
David S was all over the Sarah Palin thread on PJM also. He is a known and persistent troll who only is around to get his jollies causing pain. He has no interest in serious debate or problem analysis. You all knew better and allowed yourselves to be used. Take it as a rule of thumb from now on that while a Jew may say Shalom and an Arab may say Salaam no one speaking English ends a debate point or conversational riposte by saying “peace.” To do so reveals a high level of hostility and aggression towards the recipients. My recommendation is that people go to PJM, open the “Palintracker” thread and scroll down to comment #63 by fireyourguns.
Regarding the Precautionary Principle, Joseph Heller got this right.
You may only go in to see Major Major Major Major when he is out.
Wow, this is a pretty healthy thread. I note a remark to the effect that there are no trolls here. So I volunteer (women view me as a troll; so we’re good?).
What has been required for the AGW crowd to swell is pretty much a dumbing down of the population. A good Bell Curve enhanced by mediocre teaching (so that the quotae could be met), along with a populist mentality, leaves a more learned subset of folks frustrated, small in number, but eminantly able to survive.
I’ve seen employment applications with a nearest relative listed as “my daddy” and his address as “at home”. Seldom do I see a news column without serious grammatical or syntactical errors. Certainly 1+1 is still taught, but I’m thinking that hunting, tracking, squirreling away fodder in the fall (conservatism in practice), manners, courtesy, and saluting the flag, all once common and essential elements in understanding the fragility of survival, the necessity of social grace, and the pratice of unity, are being ignored, if not replaced. At least in the urban areas.
If replaced, by what? Easy come, easy go? Screw your buddy? “So, like dude, whatever”?
Being a troll has some advantages. Not least of which is stealth; no one wants to believe we exist until you want to share our ability to feast in the lean times. Good luck with that.
Konyok @ 109,
Good points, but I think that application of the precautionary principle is even more problematic than you describe.
My son has an anaphylactic nut allergy which means that we can’t allow him to have foods that may even have traces of nuts. We run into a problem at birthday parties where some other parent has baked a cake and we can’t be certain whether or not it is safe. Although it is somewhat difficult for my son and stigmatizing he’s been taught not to accept birthday cake and we will send something with him instead. Some people would call us overprotective, and I’m sure that other parents can’t help but be insulted by the insinuation that we don’t trust them when they say their baking is safe.
In this clear application of the precautionary principle the adverse effect of a food accident will, from a parent’s perspective, outweigh other evidence such as eye-witness accounts from the baker, or a fair assessment of the probably of contamination.
It’s important to recognize that application of the precautionary principle is actually non-scientific. It is better described as a judgment call, which in this case is very much determined at the individual discretion of the child’s parents.
When applied to AWG, it seems that some could hypothetically justify corrective action with nothing more than hand-waving arguments about possible adverse effects of unspecified warming due to a larger greenhouse effect. Such arguments require no scientific basis either in observing actual climatic outcomes or rigorous analysis of the science and probabilities.
The problem with this is not only competing concerns (such as effects on the economy, or unforeseen adverse effects on the environment), or whether an actual government policy will achieve what is intended. The other problem with this is how anyone could have the proper authority to make this decision when application of a precautionary principle is really just a matter of personal discretion.
Maybe I’m delusional, but has anybody else noticed a pattern here? A first name, followed by an initial, touting the “progressive” line? Not just here, like with David S. It would be interesting to trace the IP addresses of such people down.
It is the calm before the storm.
@125. baal:
You base this assertion on the idea that this “can” be done. I’m not saying that it can’t be done but wow, that is fairly over the top in terms of non realism.
Of course it can be done. It’s not over the top in the least. Just a matter of when – I say the sooner the better.
As a thought exercise, ask yourself; why the chinese and the russians put as little stock in those ideas compared to people in this country who dont work in those sectors?
What planet do you live on? The Chinese will soon be leading the world in solar manufacturing capacity and installed generation. They are building out aggressively while the rest of the world is slowing investment. I seriously hope you are not suggesting that the USA should use Russian energy policy as a model…
Do you know why? Because it’s not even a little realistic. If it was, the chinese would be doing it.
The Chinese are doing it, and soon they will be doing it better, faster and more than us. It’s not only realistic, it’s part of the Chinese response to AGW – which involves peaking emissions in 2030.
If we want to compete in the global economy and have any kind of strategic security, energy independence is a necessity, and that means ditching fossil fuels now. The Chinese are already planning to surpass us while we twiddle our thumbs in the middle east and work mightily to drag the GOP kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
If you understand the stakes here, start considering the ramifications of an oil shortage for our economy and military. There is no time to waste.
Peace.
DS
David S. @140
Wow.
Naturally, I googled your assertion and found
1) http://www.worldwatch.org/node/41
A gushing account from Worldwatch with the incredible claim that China has enormous tracts of sun baked land waiting for millions of hectares of solar collectors. Would that be Xinjiang, by any chance?
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China
An apparently objective Wikipedia article stating that China is rampling up solar collector manufacturing, but that 99% is for export.
3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
A Washington Post article describing the devestating pollution of a Chinese village by the local solar collector factory.
You’re right, China probably will dominate in solar collector manufacturing, just as she now dominates computers, cell phones and Christmas ornaments. This dominance is not the product of a higher consciousness or greater insight. China has a comparative advantage in cheaper labor and looser environmental enforcement. This advantage could be viewed as government subsidies by other means, oh, uh, I forgot to investigate how many of these firms might be owned by the People’s Liberation Army.
David S. said
“Yes, temperatures vary over time, and there are cyclical forces at play – but the overall trend is not in question, and the basis for the science is still sound.”
Utter BS. The models don’t accurately handle water vapor which is by an order of magnitude or two the biggest ‘greenhouse’ gas, there is inadequate data collection over much of the earth’s surface (particularly the oceans) to feed the models, the current cooling is dismissed as one cycle masking the bigger trend THOUGH NO MODELS PREDICTED IT (meaning they either neglecteda major component or the rest of the model was grossly wrong that they otherwise expected to dominate.)
If the models are admittedly substantially incomplete AND there has been no continued actual warming, how in hell can anyone insist that the long term trend of warming is beyond dispute? That is faith, not science.
Mike Blackadder,
You place the precautionary principle in stark, “rattlesnake reality” context. I can feel your concern for your son right through the monitor. Keep up your guard!
Thank you.
109. Konyok:
The greenhouse concept is compelling – add more CO2 to the system and the planet will warm.
~~~
Please explain the last 11 years. INcreased CO2, and DEcreaseed temperatures since 1998.
A question I’ve wanted an AGW supporter to answer is “why are the ice caps on mars melting?” After alll, Mars cannot have any AGW by definition.
Global warming is self-hatred personified i.e. humans are baaaaaaaaad.
I’ll never quite ‘get’ why the grass tokers who grow their pot under grow-light-bulbs that surely contribute to bad v00j00 believe that the world is melting?
Totally off-topic:
Richard Fernandez, your updated photo is beautiful. You have very kind, perceptive, soulful eyes.
Inductive versus deductive reasoning. French Cartesian logic versus Anglo-saxon experimental science.
I might, just might, give more credence to AGM except the flag bearers won’t disclose their data and computer model specifics. That isn’t science. Mulitple comfirmations by people with no attachment to each other with full info about their methodologies is required. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.
I would also laugh at it less if these models would predict historical weather if set up with data from prior dates. It can’t. It must keep changing the model each time it finds itself in error. It has had to change a lot.
Ked5, it’s the rovers that are heating up Mars, it has to be, we don’t have anything else going on up there.
@140. David S: – It’s not over the top in the least.
Your assertions above are completely over the top. Either that or you simply worded them stupidly. You pick.
The clear net benefit to continued reliance on fossil fuels right now is found in the observable and unavoidable fact that – right now – there is no viable alternative. And there won’t be one for the foreseeable future.
In the meantime there’s plenty of research being applied to the development of such alternatives. Notably, however, the federal government seems far more interested in pouring money into research shoring up the Climate Crisis canard in support of their cap-and-tax-and-spend policies and nebulous “green jobs” (hamster wheels?), rather than provide tax incentives and financial assistance for companies to develop and produce viable alternatives to fossil fuels energy.
- The Chinese will soon be leading the world in solar manufacturing capacity and installed generation.
Wow. You’re even more naive than the rest of your posts at this site would indicate. The prediction that the Chinese will be “leading the world” in something the rest of the world takes only half-heartedly (at best) is hardly a point in favor of AGW. This relative prediction – assuming it ever materializes – is meaningless.
But what provides greater insight into your vast reserves of naivete is the fact that, unlike you, the Chinese are not stupid. They know an easy mark when they see one. And right now all the dolts who want to destroy their own economies based on devotion to a bogus, debunked religion of self-hatred, present one of the greatest captive markets the Chinese have ever seen. They’ll be more than happy to produce whatever that market demands, no matter how insane it is. This says nothing about their support for AGW outside of the fact that irrational devotion to it will fuel their economy – while destroying ours – for decades.
- If we want to compete in the global economy and have any kind of strategic security, energy independence is a necessity, and that means ditching fossil fuels now.
Wrong. Again, you can’t ditch fossil fuels until you have a viable alternative. Right now there is no viable alternative. True energy independence – right now – means using our own natural resources AND providing the necessary incentives to stimulate a market for alternative energy. The demand will have to come from the bottom up. Forcing such a change on the market will work about as well as HMOs, CRA and Prohibition did.
- If you understand the stakes here, start considering the ramifications of an oil shortage for our economy and military.
That’s an easy one. The ramifications of an oil shortage will immediately and clearly demonstrate the Democrats’ outright treason and criminal culpability in the form of consistently stonewalling development of our own resources. If we were to fail anywhere militarily due to lack of oil, the very first case to be made would be determining and holding accountable those who prevented us from using our own resources.
Zippy, when you’ve done something useful with your life and have demonstrated a viable alternative to fossil fuels – one that is readily available and can provide the energy needed to run the entire nation plus its Army and Air Force – do let us know. In the meantime, the best alternative is largely used by the Navy: nuclear. Patterning our energy policy after France’s would be the best approach right now.
Rather than spew passive-aggressive nonsense on message boards, you might consider a corrective for the six years you wasted in college. Go back and get a practical degree in something useful and apply your energies to the research you seem to think is so vital. That you persist, rather, in trolling places like PJM demonstrates that you are anything but a serious person.
David S said, “There is no net benefit to continued reliance on fossil fuels.”
You can say that because you can AFFORD to. Most of the world’s population cannot, because they do not have expendable income to spend on more expensive alternate energy sources. While you may be busy trying to “save the world,” most are simply trying to improve the lives of their families. For them, right now, it’s either fossil fuels, or no fuels at all. That is a true “net benefit” for them.
Renewable sources of energy sound great, until you get the bill. Perhaps the average Californian can cover the expenses of wind/solar energy, but the average Chinese or Indian cannot. The Haitians, for example, burned down nearly every tree in their country, as they’re too poor even to afford gas, and needed the wood to light their stoves. How will they afford solar? And it may be easy for you to say “don’t cut down that tree,” when you have a steak and a beer in your hand. Offer them real alternatives, not pipe dreams.
Fossil fuels are readily available, and they’re cheap. THIS is the formula to beat. If you developed a cheaper form of delivering energy, it would quickly become readily available and perhaps even supersede fossil fuels -at a global level. COST is the real issue. Make alternate fuels cheaper, and people will WANT to use them, not just in some affluent industrialized countries, but everywhere.
Massive federal subsidies don’t count to make alternate fuels cheaper. They’re an artificial way of lowering cost by transferring it from the private to the public sector. It does nothing to improve efficiency, as it artificially increases demand.
If the Left really wants us to shift to alternate fuels, they must take a lesson from the markets: make alternate sources of energy comparable to fossil fuels in cost. You cannot simply mandate people to stop using oil. Even if you tried, only those in wealthy nations would, substantially lessening the impact on global emissions.
If instead of pushing, mandates, or spending billions in subsidizing alternate fuels, the government invested in research into cheaper energy sources (e.g. thin-film solar panels), eventually these sources could compete with fossil fuels. Instead of a few wealthy polluters, EVERYBODY would want to use them. Imagine the impact on global emissions. Simple market forces save the day, again..
Ironically, it was Marx who said the world moves by economics. Now the Left is abandoning that notion, and imposing it’s quasi-religious belief in global warming (note that those who are against it are labeled “deniers,” a term akin to those who deny the Holocaust). The goal shouldn’t be harassing people to use solar energy. It should be making solar energy so cost-effective people will WANT to buy it.
Using China, the world’s greatest CO2 polluter, as an example of “green technology” in action is laughable. In that case, the US should be considered a “green” masterpiece, as it pollutes less, uses far less dirty coal, and uses proportionately more renewable energy sources.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China
“On June 19, 2007, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency announced that a preliminary study indicated that China’s greenhouse gas emissions for 2006 had exceeded those of the United States for the first time. The agency calculated that China’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 9% in 2006, while those of the United States fell by 1.4%, compared to 2005. ”
” China currently generates around two thirds of its electricity from coal-fired power stations.[17] It is progressing with the construction of 562 new coal-fired plants over the next few years.[21] In June 2007 it was reported that an average of two new plants were being opened every week.”
And though perhaps true that “China is the world leading renewable energy producer” Only “7% of China’s energy was from renewable sources in 2006… The major renewable energy source in China is hydropower.”
You can criticize Wikipedia all you want, I’m not going to bother looking for the primary sources of something so obvious. The onus is on those who wish to prove China is going green, not on me.
And I have yet to see that data for India, or Indonesia, or other industrializing nations is any better.
Ooops! 4th paragraph above should read:
And though perhaps true that “China is the world leading renewable energy producer” in absolute numbers, as a proportion, only “7% of China’s energy was from renewable sources in 2006.” And of those sources, “The major renewable energy source in China is hydropower.”
I saw the video of AlGore’s minions silencing the man asking a real question. Gore is a joke.
#135,
You are correct. I let that useless idiot bait me again. I am in the energy industry and I know how much hard work is being done by millions of people to provide this country with its energy. Unfortunately, the troll has learned a new phrase, “fossil fuels” which he likes to use in his usual derisive manner. I guess I get personally offended when I read any rant such as that one. I attempted to engage David S last spring, on this same subject, and found him to be exactly as you describe. I will do better in the future. No soup for you, David S!
Life,
“Inductive versus deductive reasoning. French Cartesian logic versus Anglo-saxon experimental science”
Hmmm, Anglo-saxon empirism doesn’t imply an individualist conciousness ; that’s funny how Burke’s moral could find much of its ways through inductive reasoning though
@144 ked5
Inadvertently you put your finger on what is probably the greatest problem of saying anything meaningful about human effects on climate – granularity. In this case, temporal granularity. What is an appropriate time step to measure “climate?” A year? A decade? A century? These are all arbitrary quanta that appeal to our need for order, but have no demonstrable relevance to natural processes.
Jeez, we can’t even define “climate” precisely. Like “obscenity,” we think that know it when we see it. But, we cannot confidently say when accumulated weather becomes climate.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is non-controversial What we are groping in the dark about is the sensitivity of a notional “global climate” to changes in CO2 concentration, and the inherited sensitivities of regional climates. That a decade of temperature decrease accompanies CO2 increase does NOT disprove the greenhouse effect. It DOES underscore our ignorance.
It is a tragedy of the first order that climate has become political rather than scientific. (I blame Albert Gore Jr.) Ultimately, climate science will be the foundation for the kind of terraforming expertise that we will need when we leave this planet.