President-elect Barack Obama said Tuesday his administration would brook no further delay in tackling climate change after discussing global warming with former vice president Al Gore.
Sitting between Gore and his vice president-elect Joseph Biden following the hour-long meeting, Obama told reporters: “All three of us are in agreement that the time for delay is over. The time for denial is over.
“We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now, that this is a matter of urgency and national security, and it has to be dealt with in a serious way. That is what I intend my administration to do,†he said.
It’s a quagmire. I think he should just declare victory and defenestrate to Okinawa.
The good news? He is gonna cause so much damage to the economy, that we’ll see a massive turn around in 2010 in the make up of congress, we’ll then have another two years of tying him up, then he’ll be hounded out of office as the “worst president in history”, and this time it’ll be true. That is of course, if he isn’t impeached when all of this Rezko/Blago shit comes gurgling up. My favorite line so far? “Fuck that Cubs Shit”. Ya gotta give Blago’s wife a little credit.
The bad news is I’ll probably go out of business.
He’s gonna have to throw me into a re-education camp. It’s been freezing up here in MI since the beginning of November (didn’t even get my bulbs in, it got cold so quickly) and I spent monday and tuesday clearing the “climate change” that blocked my driveway.
They can kiss my ass.
Donald, you won’t be the only one.
But, good news – you can get one of those kick-ass road worker jobs!! Everyone wants to do road work, right?
They can pave over some of the folks who got stuck in the wheel wells.
Must be taking a page from the Marian “you should STFU for awhile” debating style. I can hardly wait for the parsnipian logic comment.
Unfortunately I have back problems, so I’ll just get a doctors excuse, sit at home and they’ll send me a check. Right?
Was New Orleans already at 4″ of snow during this conference or were they still around 2?
I gotta believe that in the Chocolate City, when shit starts getting covered up with the the confectioners sugar known as snow, some people gonna get shot.
Have y’all seen this spot? “While burning coal is one of the leading causes of global warming….” And they call themselves “Reality”
That must be community based reality. What with the globe cooling and all. And the no evidence that CO2 has a causative effect on climate.
People got shot over beignets when I went to college there!
I saw some spot on TV the other day where they got some old guy talking all folsky like Sarah Palin with a line about God’s green earth and how we should all stop burning carbon. Meanwhile there was a pickup truck in the background. I would laugh if they weren’t trying to make me pay out my ass for power and gas.
This is the perfect thing for government intervention. Seriously when they have to build a bridge or administer public schools we can see the results of what they are doing with our money. With this crap we will never see any results just calls for more money to fight the “problem”. They will never be able to claim your money caused the Earth to be 1 degree cooler last year. No no. We are fucked.
Yes, meya. Yes they do.
(Those orange thingies in the post are your friends.)
It’s always a delight when meya shows up to prove … nothing.
Michigan is cold, sure, but it’s our current temperatures are AT and BELOW normal. My climate has changed how, exactly?
Can you expand on the grammar in the hyperlink?
Were you re-arranging the traditional STFU, or
did you mean “Shut that f— up”?
Let precise vulgarity be the rule of the day.
Meya is here?
Fuck you, satisfied!
Well, shit, with argument like that, how can I disagree? SHE’S GOT ME. It is winter up here. I’m so embarrassed.
Alas, the averages are cooked to make the rise appear, magically. The “scientists” supporting it have been caught in so deliberate mistakes that GW is a joke. Only the left is interested in perpetrating the lie, all to gain control of whatever it is it does not yet control.
Yes, 2010 will be bad for them, if they actually succeed in making everything unattainably expensive, and cars little pieces of low-powered crap.
October 2008 US temps:
The average October temperature of 54.5 degrees F was 0.3 degree F below the 20th Century average, based on preliminary data.
You were saying Meya?
meyan logic is comparable to parsnipian logic – a true consensus has been reached, so the debate is ovah!
Oh, those are Republican facts. You can tell because you don’t hear them from Democrats. Therefore, they can be ignored by meya and friends. This too. Chuck that sucker right down the memory hole.
I like when meya’s AGW scientists go up to the Arctic circle to prove that it’s shrinking and they freeze to death. That’s just funny.
Will decomposing bodies cause the ice cap to melt? If so, that’s not funny. That’s a matter of national security.
My thoughts on GW turn on the undeniable fact that the government could spend 20 trillion dollars and never be able to point and say “It was 1.456454 degrees colder last year because we spent all that money”. There can never be any verified results on the money we flush down the GW toilet. Other than electricity, gas, and food becoming more expensive.
Meya there has been billions already flushed down the toilet to help stop GW. Is there any scientist you have seen out there saying “Well cause we spent all that money it is not 100 degrees right now”? No they all say we need more more more more more more more. I wonder how much of that money they will recieve? Oh just about all of their yearly salary.
PS Why am I even talking to you? Every left-winger on here just comes in here to post feces on the wall and cuss everyone out what is the point.
alppuccino: Wouldn’t it depend on whether the bodies remained frozen (thus forming a carbon sink, and reducing Teh Warmening) or whether they were eaten by polar bears? I don’t know how polar bear farts stack up to cow farts as a component of Teh Warmening, but I’d love to see the hippie heads explode if it turned out they were even worse.
Mr. Pink: you forgot “an excuse for building a gigantic, intrusive, totalitarian bureaucracy”, which I suspect is the real motivation.
Guy … you need to have “faith” in the theory of Climate Change. Sure, they can’t prove it, but they all believe in it. Why isn’t that good enough for you Redumblicans?
If global bureaucracies aren’t carbon-neutral, the Goracle needs feedin’!
I think Meya needs to turn off her computer RIGHT NOW, if she really believes this codswallop.
Also, she needs to become a subsistence farmer, and stop using anything that was manufactured outside of walking distance.
IT’S FOR THE PLANET!
Falling for how long?
Try a decade or so.
After dining on environmentalist-hippie, I would think the polar bear’s farts would come out like colorful line-art flowers and paisley doo-dads.
Probably needs much testing.
And you know what, you can bet they never had below normal temperatur weather in anyone’s neighborhood during the medieval warm period.
That’s it, Meya. Argue with those cartoon characters in your head. It’s SO much easier than a real debate.
What caused the Medieval Warm Period, Meya?
Climatebotherers.
Oh so when a report comes out saying GW is not provable it is republican politicians making the report, but yet when one comes out saying GW is real and we need to stop it now with OUR money, well that is just unpartisan scientists saying that. Got it.
Who would have expected the Arctic to be…cold.
Well, not these scientists, apparently.
More data, meya. Money quote: “The resulting CO2 signal (over a period of 500 million years — SBP) shows no systematic correspondence with the geologic records of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.”
But there were lots and lots of Warm Earth/Ice Age cycles in there.
Looks like you got some ‘splainin’ to do. Or maybe MIT is an outpost of “Republican” science.
Farenheit and Celsius were Republicans? Who knew?
Shorter Meya: Any data or facts that contridict GW is an evil republican plot. (remember to keep the words republican and bush in lower case to show your disdain for them hisssssssssssssss)
Kelvin may have been a Libertarian with conservative leanings!
Here’s some more data for you, meya.
Note the wonderful correlation between the atmospheric CO2 level and the temperature.
What’s that? You don’t?
Denialist.
Also compare the CO2 level during the Cambrian, a time when life on Earth exploded with a diversity that we can only dream of today to the CO2 level now. It’s clear that we’ve got a lot of leeway before TEH CO2 KILLS US ALL! DEAD! IN OUR SLEEP!
Why everybody knows that anyone who denies the stainless steel hardy reality of man made climate change is a corporate whore pig slave and right wing Redumblican partisan fundamentalist anti science cudlip.
THE GORACLE WILL THINK FOR YOU, DENIALISTS!
Oh and a caplitalist oppressor and Gaea flamer who will drown in either their blood from the green revolution or in the oceans sometime soon.
WHITE HOUSE TO KEY WEST!
“Capitalists” can’t spell and ruin teh planets.
KYOTO RULZ! COAL DROOLS!
Will you take my picture in front of the Christmas Turkey killing machine! Cheeez!
Sorry, thor. We’re having capitalst running dog for Solstice dinner this year.
Kelvin was a Lord, so probably a Tory for sure.
I wouldn’t be suprised if in a period that shows an overall rise or fall we have sub-periods where falls or rises occur, respectively.
Neither would we. That is our point, if you think about it. Fluctuations in the weather are rather normal.
A turkey near a turkey killing machine! Sure you want to risk it?
Meya
AGW is a fraud. And Gore with his AGW jihadists run the range from true believers to cynical users who find AGW the perfect vehicle for authoritarian totalitarianism. The One will control your thermostat and how you inflate your tires and you better not complain or you’re just a DENIER!!1!!1
Obama uses “scientists” the way a shaman uses chicken guts.
Fluctuations in meyan logic are rather normal, and reliably predictable, as well.
Tsk, tsk, SBP. Bring us a present from the heavens and then get caught by a troll? Must have been a slow day and you were bored.
BTW, one minor improvement on Trollhammer. The expiration equation should have 365*30* at the beginning, a year is still too soon to even know these losers exist.
Meya,
doesn’t the maunder minimum deal with sun spots? How does C02 on Earth affect sun spots?
Thor,
why do you come here?
damn,
I forgot . . . “don’t feed the trolls” . . . . I denounce myself
I didn’t know meya was so religious. We should all be sorry for making fun of her green earth fairy.
Well it simply has to be some kind of got dam miracle when AGW dogma is true even when definitvely shown to be not true by its own “science”! – what with the missing “cabon fingerprint” in the Tropical Troposphere and all.
It’s either the Great Leap or the Long Swim* for those of meya’s Cult.
*to China
Still, I don’t understand why Gaia would be pissed off if we human infestations made less CO2 instead of more. I thought the green earth fairy was all about the plant food.
As the AGW hoax began to gain momentum in the late ’90s, the mantra we heard was, “X number of scientists agree!, a far greater number than their heretical, skeptic, slacker, non-collegues…” Indeed, I recall, in the mid 1990’s, when the UN scientific comittee admitted that they exaggerated the data a bit; because they felt that they needed to raise peoples “awareness” of this problem. It is deliciously ironic that temperatures have been declining since 1998, is it not..?
Now though, after more investigation and testing of the AGW hypothesis, the tables have turned; it seems as though the consesus refuting AGW is greater than those adhering. Indeed, in the face of the inconvenient truths of the datasets, the terminology has evolved from AGW to a more vague, “climate change”. Facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that this is junk science. And the regimens proposed by lawmakers and governments to deal with it are simply economic suicide.
While the hand wringing over domesticated animal flatulence is hilarious, it also undescores just how ridiculous the whole idea actually is. Although it is our duty to operate as economically friendly and synergistically with our planet as possible, to do so at the expense of humankind is simply unconscionable. One of the transparent predicates of this argument is the notion that procreation is irresposnsible, as overpopulation is “ruining our planet, man”. And, it is simply a logical step to justifying infanticide and euthenasia in the name of the environment; an attempt to concoct an absolute moral authority with which to advance a political agenda…
Outside of a nuclear holocaust, it is utterly vainglorious to think that much of what we do could ruin the Earth’s eco-system in a short period of time. As I said, the fact that domesticated animal flatulence produces more green-house gas than the worlds auto fleet and factory population points to just how insignifigant those factors really are. Over time, folks will come to realize that the single biggest factor in climate science is the solar activity that has begun to be more closely scrutinized of late…
I’m old enough to remember in the ’70s when the hand wringing was about “the coming ice age!”; indeed, that same turn of the phrase adorned the cover of an issue of Time magazine during that time period; but the extreme environmentalists were not able to successfully exploit that pseudo-crisis. But after years of public service announcement, liberal environmentalists perpetratin’ a science teachers in our public schools, and cartoons like “Captain planet” the groundwork was laid for a chicken-little-like reaction to a warming cycle. But, Clinton and Gore couldn’t seal the deal when they had the chance, and now folks are taking a close look at this junk science and it’s proponents…
And, isn’t it amusing that the climate change crew is trying to explain the cooling of the globe as some consequence of AGW effects..! Spinnin’ like dreidels at Chanukah…
Best Wishes to all
Really though, its not so hard to find gargantuan holes in AGW, which technically isn’t even science. Can anyone here name a single prominent climate scientist whose ideas and opinions are trotted out by media or government? Now don’t go running off to amazon and find the author of some book, but think in terms of public exposure. There really are none, which is more than a bit odd, no? The major public figures are all Democrat politicians with their Pan-European socialist underlings. Al Gore very much likes to compare the “greening†process to the Manhattan Project, but in the latter case there were letters and endorsements from the most accomplished scientists of the day affirming the underlying feasibility of the undertaking. But that’s all aesthetics though, the real problem with AGW is the temperature fluctuations from the period of 1900-1970, wherein temperatures increased from 1900-1940, but decreased from a period roughly starting in 1940-1970, wherein the latter period witnessed one of the largest industrial expansions in human history with its corresponding increase in CO2 output.
There is no causation, even correlation, between CO2 and temperature, simply. The ice cores show it, data from the 20th century show it and the simple fact that CO2 only accounts for 3% of all greenhouse gases amongst a remaining 97% of mainly water. Yet no one proposes we regulate the big puffy white things in the sky, which are much more effective at retaining heat than CO2 disparately spread through the atmosphere.
O yea, then there’s this:
“Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.â€Â
And this:
“Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.â€Â
And more:
“In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.â€Â
Here
As a qualifier to the preceding, I was educated in the natural sciences.
Dash Rendar: Of course you are a tool slug bitch for the capitalist corporate planet whores and republican shills and there is a solar paneled powered barracks for you when AGW becomes a real national security imperative.
It’s been nice knowing you. Enjoy your reeducation.
Though, like Carin, my SW Michigan is colder than normal now for December, and seemed to go from Summer to Winter in a flash with little of the Fall weather, on the map of temperatures for the past year Southern Michigan was “near normal”. GR however…
Also in my household that white stuff from the sky is known as “global warming”. We are so last decade here.
I guess we’re starting to get that whole “Next Ice Age” that Time magazine promised us back in the 1970s.
Bob Reed, while in general I wouldn’t quarrel with your summation at 63, I do think that statements of the form
can’t help but get the rest of your argument into otherwise unwanted trouble. It seems to me that rather than assert “…it is our duty…” we would be better off admitting that in the greater scheme of things (which we know we do not know), humility is the better part of preservation.
“Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate.”
That begging the question thing, simply postulating that atmospheric CO2 must be the driver of temperatures, just didn’t work out too well, no?
Dogma aside, it never does – which probably still doesn’t explain why Progressives get things so exactly wrong so freakin’ often. ‘Must just be the death wish or something/hate and fear of life more than death.
There are several components to the Global Warming “debate”.
Numbah 1: Is it happening at all?
Numbah 2: What is the mechanism?
Numbah 3: Do human activities make a notable contribution?
Numbah 4: What will the result be?
Numbah 5: What can, and should, be done about it?
Warmenists answer very simply: (1) Yes definitely, (2) Carbon dioxide, (3) Yes, CO2 emissions from industry, (4) Disaster for everybody. Even a little looking into it reveals that the reality is a good bit less simple. More nuanced, if you like.
ONE: Evidence for warming comes entirely from surface measurements, which do show a warming trend. I urge anyone to visit Watts Up With That and its companion site surfacestations.org (link at the site). You don’t have to trust Mr. Watt; he will point you to the Government site where you can download the locations of the measurement stations, look them up in Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth, and go see for yourself. Are we getting a warming signal because warming is happening, or because the guy who runs the measurement station bought an air conditioner and moved the thermometer closer to his house so he didn’t have to spend so much time in the cold reading it (or spend the money for a long wire to bring the signal inside the building, for convenience)? Note also that satellite readings indicate a cooling trend, and have since there have been satellites. (Satellites don’t have barbecue grills or air conditioners.)
Stations in other countries are often even worse. Just recently the data appeared to show that October 2008 was incredibly warm. As it turns out, all the warming came from a few stations in Siberia — and it turned out that the data was absolutely false. They didn’t have data for October, so they’d just “gundecked” it by repeating the figures for September! Eliminating the suspect data gives a cooler than average 10/08.
It also pays to pay attention to the scales on graphs. The UN (IPCC) data started out being shown with the scales marked in whole degrees and tens of centimeters of sea-level rise. The ones they’re showing now are marked in tenths of a degree and millimeters of water level — they look the same or worse, but plot them at the same scale and they don’t any more. Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.
TWO: The case for CO2 rests entirely on coincidence. Carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has unambiguously risen, and risen significantly, and this coincides with the rise of average global temeperature and with industrialization (which gets into point three; never mind). But the data from ice cores and other long-term measures of CO2 concentration is clear: CO2 rises after warming, not before. Furthermore, we have the puzzling example of the planet Mars. Mars gets almost forty percent as much sunlight as Earth does, but it has sixteen times as much carbon dioxide (and almost nothing else). If CO2 is such a potent greenhouse gas, why isn’t Mars much warmer?
The fact is, carbon dioxide from all sources produces less than five percent of the total “radiative forcing” (the jargon for turning sunlight into heat). The majority of the so-called (and misnamed) “greenhouse effect” comes from water vapor. If you look into the details — the nuance — you will discover that the predictions of CO2-forced warming come from computer models. Water is hard to account for in a computer model, because its behavior is complex. To save computer time, until recently the modelers simply ignored water vapor, assuming that water vapor concentration follows CO2 concentration in lockstep. Later modeling produces much more subtle results.
There is also the “carbon footprint” Trashman mentions. In a greenhouse, the glass gets warm too, because it absorbs some of the sunlight, as well as some of the longwave radiation emitted by the (warm) things inside the greenhouse. In an atmosphere where a “greenhouse effect” is occurring, the gases in the upper atmosphere serve the same purpose as the glass in the greenhouse, and the same effect occurs — they get warmer because they are absorbing sunlight and re-emitted longwave radiation. This is clearly not occurring — the data are unambiguous on this point.
THREE: The rise in CO2 concentration coincides with the rise of industrialization and use of fossil fuels. Warmenists have seized upon this as evidence — but correlation is not causation! Once again, we have the troubling example of other planets. Evidence of warming is detectable on at least two other planets (Mars and Jupiter) and some puzzling effects on three others (Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto) can best be explained by warming trends. There are neither SUVs nor coal-burning power plants in any of those places.
Total human output of carbon dioxide is dwarfed by that from natural causes, predominately volcanoes. Of the less than five percent of warming attributable to carbon dioxide, well under one-fifth — about eight-tenths of a percent of the total — can even plausibly be attributed to human sources, and the raw data would indicate about half that.
The notion that minor increases cause major effects rests upon the notion of a “runaway greenhouse effect” which begins at a “tipping point”. It is now absolutely clear that the math which predicts such an effect at Earth-normal concentrations of CO2 is wrong — it assumes an infinitely deep, uniform atmosphere (which, again, is easy to calculate) where ours is relatively thin and contains gradients (which makes it hard to figure). Venus is scary in that context because a runaway greenhouse has clearly occurred there, but Venus’s atmosphere is so thick and concentrated that the “infinite depth” assumption is valid — and this is not the case on Earth.
FOUR: We are all familiar with the apocalyptic predictions: the seas are gonna rise and wipe out the poor Bengladeshi (not to mention Miami), the temperate zone will be all desert, and the Arctic ice will all melt and drown the poor dear polar bears. It may have escaped your notice that those making those predictions have notably pulled in their horns in recent periods — the sea level rises of tens of centimeters or even meters have become rises of millimeters; after a few years of retreat the Arctic ice is growing (and the Antarctic ice never stopped), and polar bear populations have increased significantly; and a few people have even pointed out that warmer temperatures -> greater evaporation -> more rain.
Indeed, there have been warm periods before, and every such period has resulted in flowering of civilization and better living conditions. The Medieval Warm Period coincides with the first major increase in the wealth and power of European civilization, and if you look at the “lost cities” (Angkor Wat, the Anasazi ruins of the American Southwest, others) in every case except one their rise coincides with the MWP and their fall with its end. The exception is Teotihuacan, in the Valley of Mexico — and Teotihuacan didn’t fall from climactic effects, it fell because of competition from other civilizations which were growing and expanding due to better agriculture and more favorable living conditions.
There would appear, from both fossil record and history, to be warming and cooling cycles for the whole Earth with a period of roughly a thousand years. The MWP was a thousand years ago; the Roman Empire grew during the Roman Warm, a millenium before that; the Patriarchs of the Bible and the early flowering of Mesopotamian civilization came a millenium before the Romans; and a millenium before that there was Mohenjo-Daro, in the valley of the Indus in today’s Kashmir and Pakistan — which is unique in that there was also Harappa a millenium before that in the same place, making the Indus civilization the only known one to prosper over two warm periods and the intervening cold spell.
The record is clear, where it hasn’t been deliberately obscured (by Thomas Mann, among others): during warm period civilization flowers; when the cold comes, the barbarians from the northern steppes swarm south and stamp it out. If you want peace on Earth, pray for warmth. If Russians can grow food they will have no motive to look elsewhere. And if you’re truly worried about the poor Bengladeshi, find out what sea level was in the Bay of Bengal circa the year 1000. Hint: more than one city is still there.
FIVE: In order to eliminate the human contribution to carbon dioxide concentrations, it will be necessary (but not sufficient) to totally eliminate all industrialization using fossil fuels. Where will the energy come from to keep us fed and warm? Ethanol? Six and a half billion people — soon to be ten billion — want to eat that grain, and the energy yield of ethanol production is a small fraction of the total energy it produces. Solar panels? Look up the energy cost of making a solar panel, and the likely output from it; solar energy costs, not pays, on net, besides producing some of the nastiest environmental contamination around. Windmills? Same as for solar panels. The only even remotely possible energy source is nuclear NONONONONO NO NUKESNUKESEXPLODE AND KILLPEOPLE AND POISONTHEENVIRONMENT NONONONONONOOOOOOOO…
Non-industrial civilizations have a larger “carbon footprint” than industrial ones, especially if the industrial civilizations are allowed to use nuclear NONONONONONUKES! power. Human beings breathe out carbon dioxide, and if they have to burn wood to stay warm and grow food the fires produce a lot of it. Six and a half billion peasant farmers will produce more carbon dioxide than the same number of SUV drivers. The only possible solution is significantly reducing the population, and all I have to say about that is, YOU FIRST, ASSHOLE.
And besides, the control measures necessary to reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly amount to iron control of every aspect of existence, from how long you can run your lights in the evening to how many beans you can eat (methane being a worse greenhouse gas than CO2). This is immensely attractive to scam artists, both the financial type (“carbon credit trading”, anyone?) and the sort of asshole who just wants to Be In Charge regardless of excuse. There are a lot of us who think that even if the worst predictions arising from Global Warming came to pass, it would still be better than setting up a world-wide fascist regime charged with monitoring all the minutiae of life, down to how often we fart.
None of this is mysterious, although much of it is more obscure than it ought to be because (we darkly suspect) the opportunists looking for excuses to Be In Charge deliberately conceal it. The data is out there. Check it before you bleat.
Regards,
Ric
Sdferr,
You’re probably right, friend. Would it change your opinion any if you knew that economically should have actually been environmentally?
In engineering school we were taught the premise of doing all we could to be ecologically responsible in all of ou endeavours. The reasoning was, for instance, that if you created a neat-o aircraft powered by nuclear jet-effect engines, ones that unfortunately spewed radioactive exhaust, then regardless of how revolutionary and efficient-implementing the design was unacceptable znd irresponsible. In fact, the whole air pollution argument was flippantly framed by one of my jet propulsion professors; he said “If we pollute the atmosphere to a point where it is unusable, we’ll have polluted ourselves out of a job!
In engineering we were taught that there are always trade-offs to be made. What I was suggesting is that, where possible, we should trade in favor of environmental friendliness; but not go to ridiculous extremes that place human existence and physical prosperity in the back seat-so to speak…
You’re probably right when you point out my inartful wording. I was thinking less of duty than perhaps an ethical imperative; with respect to technology and engineering-very narrowly defined.
But I believe you’re right on to say that humility, part of which is admitting the limitations of our knowledge and abilities, is the better part of preservation…
Enjoy your Friday!
Well, let’s see. Maybe I can help Meya out a little bit, here. By wawy of background, aprt of my job is to research impacts on the environment of various types of projects, from city general plans to large private developments.
The problems with the current conventional wisdom among the ignorant elite (such as O! and Co.) are twofold. One the evidence that CO2 drives climate change isn’t there. In fact, it appears to be just the opposite: CO2 concentrations climb IN RESPONSE to increased temperature. A further fly in the ointment is one, the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere-350-380 PPM. That “parts per million,†Meya. That’s .035-.038%. Do you know that there is another element in the atmosphere that’s 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2? It’s called, “water vapor.†And, it constitutes 80+% of the atmosphere. Should we call that a pollutant, now, Meya?
One final note about CO2. A new report from Australia says that 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from…dirt. That’s right-soil. So, now we can reduce mankind’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 to .00035%. Three parts per million. Not enough to do any damage, I’m afraid.
The second problem is this: the planet has been warming for the last 12,000 years, or so. During that time, sea levels have risen about 300 feet. Without, I might add, any significant effect on the planet’s wildlife. So, when these crackers start in with the hysterical claim the another 30 foot rise in sea level will wipe out life on earth, well, one has to chuckle. They seem so earnest. But, they are completely, demonstrably wrong.
The goal of these assholes is pretty clear: they want to dictate how we live. Simple as that. The moniker “watermelon†is extremely apt, as the only prescription they have for stemming this impending disaster, is a socialist economy. Everyone working for the betterment of the State, which is imperiled by “global warming.†It’s a bunch of shit, but retards like Meya don’t want to see that. It conflicts with the narrative.
Ric,
Excellent observations, well articulated as always. I can tell this nonsense get’s your goat as bad as it does for me…
One of the major components of the remedy, for the fringe uber-ebvironmentalist AGW disciples, is a drastic reduction of the Earth’s population! They assume it must come to pass relatively quickly, but don’t mention the mechanism by which it is accomplished. Considering where the bulk of the worlds population lives, aren’t these hypocrites displaying a bit of, ahem, racism..? I agree with you though, by all means they are welcome to go first!
You also make an excellent point about how much worse off, by their own standards, things would be if the planet had to support 6.5 billion folks living in a 17th century lifestyle. Needless to say, it would be impossible, and that very limitation is among the reasons that there was not that number of people living during that era…
Best Wishes
Shorter meya – I blame Wal-Mart.
Thanks for the clarification as to your intended econ/enviro distinction Bob. I’ll have to think on it for a bit longer to get myself to any certainty about the difference it ultimately makes to the question, but on a quick assessment my guess is probably not a whole bunch, given the complex enormity of the two (as I see them) fields or wholes.
Neither macro-economics nor macro-environment are well characterized, well understood subjects lending themselves to categorical imperatives, I think and there (the imperative part) is the rub. That we should (or could) know such a thing and be rationally able to act on such knowledge, it seems to me, is precisely where the advocates of AGW stand. Or the economic central planner types, for that matter.
Against which – again, to me – our general, human ignorance, stands demanding humility. Duty, however, implies an ethical obligation to act, or am I wrong about that? But that in turn implies that we know what we are doing or what will, with high confidence, result from our actions.
Mostly I don’t think we do know at global scales. And so I’d feel safer sticking to the smaller scale bits we do know, stuff much closer to home, so to speak. Duty to family for instance, pushing out a bit, duty to city, stretching further, to state, to nation (but these are already getting to be pretty unwieldy in complexity) and there I’d quit pushing. At the extra-national scale, plans for war, for instance, reputed to not survive first contact with the enemy.
Global models for ethics? Yikes. But isn’t that the heart of the progressive dogma? And we will “dutifully” obey.
“Conservation” — the responsible use of resources — is a conservative good. Pissing resources out on the ground doesn’t fit.
Genesis:
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Nothing in there about wasting or destroying it.
Regards,
Ric
Hmm. My spell check seems to have gone missing…”way” “part” Shit.
One need merely compare the situation on the North Slope of Alaska — where people reportedly lose their jobs for spilling as little as one cup of oil on the ground, to the Boschian environightmare that obtains in Worker’s Paradises (or former Worker’s Paradises) such as Russia and China.
I’ve heard that the standard method of disposing of old nuclear reactors in the Soviet Navy was to just dump them in the Arctic Ocean.
I can tell this nonsense get’s your goat as bad as it does for me…
A double down on “Amens” from me, bitches!
I’ve heard that the standard method of disposing of old nuclear reactors in the Soviet Navy was to just dump them in the Arctic Ocean.
Yeah, but it was dumped by a hot hot HAWT! Russkie sailor with chiseled abs and a firm bubble-ass that got thor’s nipples twitching faster than a MiG.
Well done, Ric. #71 is a fantastic read.
Ric’s comment deserves promotion to the front page i think.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
-Michael Crichton
Go here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
for some clear headed reporting on climate change.
Oh, yes, the climate is changing.
It’s getting colder.
Stop weather! Stop it now, before the grass dies!
Sdferr,
Very thought provoking. Duty does imply an ethical, or moral, obligation. And you’re right about those being best honored on a smaller scale, and definately not globally; especially when it comes to environmental, social, or economic issues…
But perhaps your best point is made about avoiding hubris and knowing the limitations of our knowledge and current capabilities. It is pure poppycock to hear guys like O! and Al Gore talking about ending global warming. I realize that they are playing fast and loose with their sloganeering here, but the hubris in thinking that they can control cosmic forces as such, in order to essentially mandate the weather..? What do they think, the sun has a thermostat?
Like any other science I will go as far as to say that climatology needs further study; no so much from a control aspect, but in order to gain greater understanding. When I speak about knowing our limitations, I am not averse to pushing the boundary and striving for more. There is always room for more knowledge and greater innovation. To suggest otherwise is to display the same brashness that “the debate is over” crowd does…
Intriguing philisophical question though friend, one that deserves further rumination; perhaps accompanied by a pipeful of fine Virginia flake tobacco and a suitable adult beverage!
Best Wishes
#Comment by Ric Locke on 12/12 @ 11:09 am #
[golf clap]
Well, played, sir!
Ric,
I’m in agreement 100%…
Amen, Brother, Amen…
Very well said at #71 Ric. Far better than I could have done myself without far more effort than I care to spend at the moment, I might add. I have railed against this insanity for what seem like years now in too many places and forums, but fear the battle has just begun. On the other hand, with a PhD in one of the earth sciences and with time on my hands since I am now retired I intend to occupy a significant part of future effort doing what I can to counter the political stupidity and junk science surrounding this topic. If nothing else it will be fun even if a positive impact on the ignorance of gaia worshiping college environmentalists may be difficult to achieve. On the other hand, more and more scientists are coming around to the perspective you (and the late Michael Crichton) so eloquently offer so perhaps there is hope. Lamentably, the number of dullards who have bought into the propaganda of Al Gore and the IPCC are legion. But the history of mankind (and the history of science as well)is laced with the periodic embrace of delusion and self interest rather than the pursuit of truth. History, I am convinced, will ultimately show GW and “Climate Change” to be our own generation’s dalliance with “turning lead into gold” and insisting that the earth is the center of the universe with the sun orbiting us.
MikeD,
Unsurprisingly, many in the “new age” Shirley Maclaine crowd believe, and purport to practice, alchemy…
I’m 100% with you in this one Bob. Learning is human job one. (well, outside screwing, eating, drinking, etc…) It’s the politicization of learning that becomes the problem.
Ric: # 71 has been cut and pasted into the archives. Well done, sir!
Spies:
All we really need to do is examine where our imported oil comes from. Canada? Take a look at some pictures of what goes on at the Alberta Flats. Nigeria? A big, stinking pustule of pipeline breaks and spills. Mexico? Please! Venezuela? Pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. Saudi Arabia? Nobody cares because its desert.
The US happens to have one of the best records in safely and cleanly bringing oil up out of the ground (and Natural gas.) While France produces nearly 80% of their energy from EEEVVIIILL Plutonium Reactors we build precious few and buy most of our oil from largely countries that raise “despoiling the planet” to expertise level.
*SIGH*
How true Sdferr,
The politicization of learning has in large part wrought the dumbed down society that we have now, full of folks that can’t thing critically or logically, read and comprehend at greater than an 8th grade level, or cypher without a calculator…
They can talk plenty about multiculturalism, shocased diversity, entitlement, and social justice though…
I just finished Red Hot Lies by Chris Horner. Highly recommended reading but not generally helpful to your blood pressure.
Great comment at #71, Ric. Thanks.
Agreed Sdferr and Bob; and this may be more the issue than belief in GW and what may prove to be a hoax fabricated from whole cloth.
“They can talk plenty about multiculturalism, shocased diversity, entitlement, and social justice though…”
And not only that, they have self esteem!
“The US happens to have one of the best records in safely and cleanly bringing oil up out of the ground (and Natural gas.) While France produces nearly 80% of their energy from EEEVVIIILL Plutonium Reactors we build precious few and buy most of our oil from largely countries that raise “despoiling the planet†to expertise level.”
SO true BJT,
Just as I long for the conceptual material, un-obtainium, one of near infinite strength and negligable mass penalty, I would also like to discover or concoct a similar fossil fuel substitute with exponentially more energy density than kerosene, that would burn cleanly, and would be incredibly cheap to produce…
But back in reality we need to build more nuclear power plants, so that our existing fossil fuel resources can be used for long distance transportation aplications; until a viable alrernative can be developed…
If France can summon the political and societal will to do so, then so can we!
MikeD,
And if the basis for that self-esteem is contrived? Is it not then more along the lines of bravado and braggadocio..?
The decline of our educational institutions are at the root of our societal ills…
But that’s a whole other ball of wax!
Awesome comments, as usual, Ric.
I’ve been re-reading F.A. Hayek’s ‘The Road to Serfdom’ recently and he says something along the lines of, “German and Italian fascism along with Soviet hyperfascism both came about because forces within those nations demanded rapid change. Not content to let the forces of capitalism and civil society take their due course, they demanded an immediate ascension to utopia…†The quote isn’t exact, but it is precisely the logical end point of the AGW. They want nice halal, err, organic, gardens on every corner instead of McMansions. If structures have to be built, they want elegant LEED platinum certified, sanctified green structures. They want you to think like them; they want the community to be in sync with them and tend to their organic peppers. They want the nasty bits of the economy ablated and replaced with socially conscious flim-flam. They demand you upload their mental software and live with them in the great progressive utopia, and if you chose not to, well sorry bub, your carbon footprint is just too dang big. O, and also, stop breeding.
Yeah, Ric, a couple years(?) ago, I was mightily amused by some liberal op-ed writer, bleating from his apartment (with two cats), about how when the Redumblican refusal to acknowledge global warming resulted in Jesusland being either flooded or rendered a desert, that the price for admission into the Blue Heavens should be our groveling acceptance of second class citizenship and subservience to our betters.
I reminded this dumbass that Volkerwanderungs caused by climate shifts don’t result in meek lines of beggars; they result in rampaging hordes who realize that all they have to do to survive is kill whoever is occupying the choice real estate. I won’t have the slightest problem in a case like that of rendering him and his cats into jerky.
These people know absolutely nothing about history, human nature, or pretty much anything else.
Why, yes, I am a misanthrope; what was the first clue? 8-)
SDN, none of that is necessary.
Our dear columnist (for the Baltimore Sun, IIRC) has failed to figure something out. As a charter member of the NIMBY/BANANA Brigade, he and his fellows have seen to it that none of that ugly smelly dirty productive crap is allowed to sully his neighborhood.
So when the waters rise, the refineries in Baytown and Port Lavaca and Orange and Lake Charles, and the petroleum offloading facilities along the Gulf that feed them, will either disappear under the waters or have to be maintained by Herculean efforts. (SF Fan? Check out Lois McMaster Bujold’s picture of London in about three centuries, surrounded by seawalls called by the locals “The King Canute Memorial.” The book is called Mirror Dance.) In that case, we’re gonna need all the energy we can get just to keep our own lives going, and there won’t be much if any surplus to shove up the pipeline so the Sun can run its presses. So solly, cholly.
Regards,
Ric
Also, thanks for pointing out that the fundamental raison d’etre of the evironmental movement is…anti-human, ric.
“The decline of our educational institutions are at the root of our societal ills…
But that’s a whole other ball of wax!”
Indeed. But it is getting late Bob. Please don’t bring up the subject for my second soap box. I become equally unhinged (if not more so) by the sorry state of education K-16+. Causes my blood to veritably boil and I begin to decry issues of multiculturalism, trophies and awards to all so that nobody feels left out or diminished, the intellectually barbaric NEA, and administrators who, sans common sense, have had their spines surgically removed! Another ball of wax, another day. I am resigned to becoming an angry “older” person. That’s just a cross I’ll have to bear, I guess, but I willingly accept the burden!
thank you, Ric
As always, Ric’s commentaries make wading through the predictable and infantile trollery worthwhile.
Bravo!
Yeah, well Ric’s smart and all, but to me, all ya gotta know is Albert’s picked up some pretty big coin on this gig. And so have a lot of others. Well, for me any ways.