We begin another week with another look into the fascinating world of the global warming alarmists who, at this point, are merely incapable of using reason or logic to think things through. I have to admit that I admire the tenacity that these folks have. Despite massive amounts of counter-arguments, they still manage to move forward with the warning calls, completely ignoring all the things that simply render their argument moot. I think the thing that fascinates me the most about these carnival barkers is that they continually lambast opponents for using faulty logic or ill-conceived arguments, and then they go right ahead and do exactly what it is they just railed about. It boggles the mind. Global warming is something that I simply cannot ignore. The consequences of allowing the progressive movement to move forward with their plans are simply too devastating. At this point, I see the really loud voices in the debate as nearly as crack-pottish as Cesca is about racism. Therefore, I will continue to hammer them until the world shouts them down as the fruitballs that they are.
As a quick side note, it is amazing to me to watch the two sides of the political spectrum (GOP and DEM) continue to trounce each other, each accusing the other of using a campaign of fear to trick the American public. It isn’t surprising that they both use the same tactic. It is, after all, the best tactic they have found. And they are two different color shirts both on the same team. No, what is amazing to me is that each side is so quick to see through the fear the other side falsely uses, while simultaneously completely ignoring the fact that their side is doing to exact same thing. Progressives scream and holler about the right’s campaign of fear being used to take us to war or to pass something as dumbfoundingly unconstitutional as the Patriot Act or to oppose health care. Yet they somehow never seem to recognize, or at least refuse to acknowledge, the same bullshit coming out of their camp. They can’t seem to recognize the fear mongering around global warming and corporate bailouts and gun control or the urgency to pass health care. Just an observation. Mind-boggling at best how blind folks are to the tactics of the side they agree with.
Back to the topic of global warming. As an example of their tenacity, we have yet another article published this week over at the most popular far left think-tank, the Huffington Post. I have discussed Johann Hari and his madness around the global warming stuff before. But despite the insanity of what he says, he still gets published over there writing this stuff. I could say that he is hateful, but I don’t think he is. I leave that title to Bob Cesca, who is perhaps the most dishonest and hateful writer on HuffPo. No, Hari instead falls into the category of dishonest environmental alarmist. And you cannot ignore that he has written this piece. Hari was named one of the most influential people on the left in Britain by the Daily Telegraph. That he has influence with the nonsense that is below is downright scary. THAT is something to be alarmed about.
I have long disliked the environmental activists, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I find that they almost always have a passion for what they are doing that is so overriding that they simply don’t make any sense. Hari, for example, wants so badly to believe what he is spouting that he simply ignores logic and reason. I understand their hatred of corporations and of war (war activists and environmental activists tend to come from the same womb). But their belief that humans are somehow less important than some tree or bird is ridiculous. And their hubris as to the power of humans to do real damage to this planet is almost laughable, at least it would be if they weren’t so good at making small minded people agree with them.
I know that some folks think that global warming is not a topic worth discussing, but I disagree. I mentioned above that the potential for usurping our freedom and liberty under the guise of environmental activism is gigantic. Just the fact that Cap and Trade, which has failed miserably in every country or region foolish enough to attempt it, is still on the table is proof enough of how dangerous these global warming hangers on still are. And if you think Cap and Trade is bad based on its effectiveness, that is nothing compared to its impact on our freedom and our wallets. And as I mentioned, this article was posted in the last week over there at HuffPo. The environmental liars are still working hard to raise a false alarm, so we have to work just as hard to point out their lies and talk people off the proverbial ledge. So I will tonight point out the madness in his ridiculously misleading article (which for the record had a remarkable number of “right on” comments to it).
This Is the Hottest Year Ever, and the Climate Catastrophe Has Begun
by Johann Hari at the Huffington Post
Thank god man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt NASA would be telling us that this year is now, so far, the hottest since humans began keeping records.
Interestingly, a partial year’s worth of temperatures is given as proof of something, right before he gets to the part of the article where he points out how stupid people are for thinking a snowy winter last year meant something. Very small length trends are only proof when it gets hotter, not colder. The other misleading statement here is “hottest since humans began keeping records.” Care to guess how long that time period is? Not thousands of years…. no, just 160 years with instruments and only about 60 years with any accuracy or global coverage. The truth is, the earth has been significantly warmer than this within the last 10,000 years. But it doesn’t sound as scary when you tell the truth, so Hari makes it sound as bad as possible.
The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia’s vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate.
Notice that he didn’t make use of other periods of drought, such as say the worst drought in history in China from 1876-79 (killed 9 million), or its second worst in 1942-43 (killed a million). In fact he ignores reality in even Russia. It isn’t the worst drought they have ever seen. Droughts are an inherent feature of the climatic conditions in the main agricultural zone of Russia. From 1891 to 1983 (92 years) Russia has spent a total of 27 years in moderate drought or above. Almost every article I could find on the Russian drought said that this drought is the worst in 50 years. A few speckled in with a hundred years. But no one but the environmental con-artists are claiming it as the worst in Russian history. And how about this for a whopper: “killing 15,000 people!” I could not find a single source anywhere that put the death toll from the Russian fires higher than 50. Hari’s ridiculous claim is 300 times higher than reality.
Because warm air holds more water vapor, the world’s storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence — drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.
Again Hari attempts to distract by using false numbers presented in a way to scare the crap out of readers. The world’s storms are not reaching some unprecedented level of intensity or violence. A 1970 Cyclone in Bangledesh killed 500,000. One in 1737 in India killed 300,000. or even the worst storm in history, which was in 1287, part of a horrible storm year in Europe. The fact is that history is full of massive storms that did major damage and took hundreds of thousands of lives. And we find another misleading figure from Hari: “drowning one fifth of Pakistan.” The death toll in Pakistan is somewhere between 1,600-1,800. Pakistan is the world’s sixth highest population at over 170 million. One fifth of the population drowning would be 34 million people. Hari here implies that the death toll was 19,000 times higher than reality.
As for floods, there are far worse ones in recorded history. China had floods that killed a million people in 1887 and 300,000 in 1642. All this talk about the flooding that is happening is misdirection. It ignores the massive amount of data on past flooding that was worse, and attempts to baffle with bullshit, pointing to anything recent as unprecedented.
The world’s ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shriveled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 percent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain. The denialists would be conceding at last that everything the climate scientists said would happen — with their pesky graphs and studies and computers — came to pass.
Has Hari ever looked at a map? First of all, I have read all the hype that a ice shelf three times the size of Manhattan sloughed off (see, they can’t even do a single thing without at least a little number manipulation), or is about to, I can’t remember which. I look at a big old world map, though, and can plainly see that Manhattan, despite it’s gigantic ego, isn’t really that big of an area. Even putting something three times that in the world’s interconnected water surface is like dropping an ice cube into a swimming pool. The claims of massive flooding or rising sea levels due to this are borderline insanity. But what Hari really misses in this whole thing is that THIS IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON. That ice has melted, sloughed off, and reformed time after time in history. But it sure sounds like a dire emergency when he says it, doesn’t it. I am only surprised that he didn’t tell us about how millions of polar bears made their homes in that shelf.
Hari also conveniently relies on the price of wheat, where he allows the reader to draw their own speculation based on his claim. The conclusion he would like you to draw is that wheat is going higher due to shortages caused by climate change. Interestingly, he mentions nothing of the price controls, subsidies, or any other factor such as the massive impact of speculation on wheat futures, which would normally be the staple of the progressive argument against Wall Street.
This is all happening today, except for that final stubborn step. It’s hard to pin any one event on man-made global warming: There were occasional freak weather events before we started altering the atmosphere, and on their own, any of these events could be just another example. But they are, cumulatively, part of a plain pattern where extreme weather is occurring “with greater frequency and in many cases with greater intensity” as the temperature soars, as the US National Climatic Data Center puts it. This is exactly what climate scientists have been warning us man-made global warming will look like, to the letter. Ashen-faced, they add that all this is coming after less than one degree celsius of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. We are revving up for as much as five degrees more this century.
I have to throw the bullshit flag whenever some environmental activist throws out a generic term or “statistic.” Hari here tries to say there is a plain pattern where extreme weather is occurring withe greater frequency and intensity. Again he leaves the speculation to the reader, implying that what we are seeing is unprecedented in history, that the storms these days are stronger and more frequent. Pure nonsense. Again, we only have recorded history, which is relatively short compared to earth’s history. Even with only that small slice of data, we are not living in the most active storm period in recorded history or the most “intense” storms period of recorded history. Follow that with his generic “five degrees more this century”…. more hogwash.
My favorite pastime with manmade climate changes addicts is to figure out where the “cut-off” is. Like the famous hockey stick graph, climate change folks love to manipulate graphs and charts to make things look as bad as possible. If it was ten degrees hotter on earth 5000 years ago, you can bet your money that the graph they show you will only go back 4000 years, so that you don’t realize that we have been hotter before than we are now. The claims that we are living in the hottest years in history are only true if you get extremely short-sighted and go back very few years. For example, the graph you see to the side here shows temps for the last 10,000 years. Notice that there was a point where we were significantly hotter than we are now. Which is technically impossible since we didn’t have cars, factories, or nearly the population….. maybe our ancestors had a lot of gas, because we know without a doubt that if it was warming, it was caused by man, right?
Yet as the evidence of global warming becomes ever clearer, the momentum to stop it has died. The Copenhagen climate summit evaporated, Barack Obama has given up on passing any climate change legislation, Hu Jintao is heaving even more coal, David Cameron has shot his huskies, and even sweet liberal Canada now has a government determined to pioneer a fuel — tar sands — that causes three times more warming than oil. True, the victims are starting to see the connections. The Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has been opposed to meaningful action on global warming, until he found the smoke-choked air in the Kremlin hard to breathe. But if we wait until every leader can taste the effects of warming in their mouths, the damage will be irreparable.
The momentum to stop it has died because many people in the world have finally seen through the curtain and realized that the claims being made by Hari and his ilk are, at best, guesses and loose attempts at implying that correlation equals causation. Barack Obama hasn’t given up, though, I promise you that. His intent is control and social justice. Cap and Trade can help that happen. So he won’t abandon ship yet Johann, fear not. But he does realize that many Americans have seen through your BS and no longer buy that we are the cause of climate change, or that it is a catastrophic event in the way you are presenting it to be. And what is with the false claim about tar sands. Why false you say? Because you claim that it causes three times as much warming as oil. Problem… you can’t show that oil causes a single bit of warming. See that slippery little attempt to trick you into attacking tar sands simply because the enviro-alarmists don’t like it.
Given the stakes, the reasons why so many people still refuse to accept the evidence can seem oddly trivial. A common one is: “It snowed a lot in the US and Britain last year. Where was your warming then, eh?” But scientific theories are based on patterns, not individual events. You might know a 90-year-old woman who has smoked a pack of cigarettes every day of her life and is totally healthy. (I do.) It doesn’t disprove the theory that smoking causes lung cancer. In the same way, one heavy snowfall doesn’t prove anything if it is part of a wider overall pattern of dramatic warming. And that snow provably was. While it snowed a lot in a few places, there were at the very same time harsher, more bitter droughts in many more places — making it globally the fifth hottest winter ever recorded, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (All the others were in the past decade). And that winter is your punchline proof that warming isn’t happening?
Remember above when Hari argued that a few months worth of hot temperatures this year are proof that the global catastrophe is upon us? I am sure interested by the fact that he used a short period’s worth of data to make his claim valid right before he wrote about how a short piece of data being used to make a claim valid is “oddly trivial”. Oh, he’s right, the people claiming snow as proof are wrong. I just wish he and his compadres didn’t do the same thing with a straight face and think it is somehow different and more relevant. And notice that he presents fifth hottest winter ever on record as though it means something. Remember that “on record” only means the last century, and some areas had the hottest winter on record, while others had…. wait for it, some of the coldest on record. Amazing. And he also claims that some areas had “harsher, more bitter droughts.” Which areas in the US had harsher, more bitter droughts this last winter than say, the droughts in the dust bowl era of 1933-38? Just wondering.
But the broader public mood, smeared like sunscreen over us all, isn’t active denial. No — it’s the desire to endlessly postpone this issue for another day. In 1848, a 25-year-old man called Phineas Gage was working on constructing the American railroads. It was his job to lay explosives to clear rocks out of the way — but one day his explosive went off too soon, and a huge metal rod went through into his skull and out the other side. Amazingly, he survived — but his personality changed. Suddenly, he was incapable of thinking about the future. The idea of restraining himself was impossible to grasp. If he had an urge, he would act on it at once. He could only ever live in an eternal present. As a civilization, we are beginning to look like Phineas Gage on a planetary scale.
Did he really just waste a whole paragraph telling that inane story which would have been more easily conveyed by simply saying he thinks people are interested in only now instead of worrying about the future. I wonder if he thinks that the Democrats in Washington are related to Gage? After all, they seem only interested in spending massive amounts of money on programs now without ever thinking about the impact on the economy or the people in the future. As a government, the US is beginning to look like Phineas Gage on a National Scale. See how easy that was. But I will take it a step further. Environmentalists are the exact oppostie of Phineas Gage. They have no ability to accurately see the past to understand what has come before, and thus they are unable to accurately envision the future. Poor environmentalists. I hope they were able to get some good Hollywood surgery to fix the scar from that metal rod.
Yet scattered among us there is a fascinating group of people who are offering a path to safety. Every summer since 2006, ordinary British citizens have built impromptu camps next to some of the most environmentally-destructive sites in Britain and taken direct action to shut their pollution down. So far, it has worked: They played a crucial role in the cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow and a big new coal power station at Kingsnorth.
Way to go, environmentalists. You have successfully lobbied to raise the costs of flights out of Heathrow and the costs of energy in that region of the UK. And all while camping out and doing nothing to be a productive member of society. Bravo. Sane people would have come out to counter-protest…. but they were at work.
That’s how earlier this week I found myself on a high wooden siege tower in a camp in the Scottish hills, staring down across a moat towards the glistening, empty offices of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). You own this bank: 84 percent of it belongs to the taxpayer after the bailouts. Yet it is using your money to endanger you by funding the most environmentally-destructive behavior on earth, like burning the tar sands. The protesters chose to come here democratically — everything at the climate camps is done by discussion and consensus — because they have a better idea. Why not turn it into a Green Investment Bank, transforming Britain into a global hub for wind, solar and wave power? Why not go from promoting misery across the world to being a beacon of sanity?
So the protesters risked arrest in marching on RBS’ offices because they know the stakes. As Professor Tim Flannery, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, explains:
My great fear is that within the next few decades — it could be next year, or it could be in fifty years, we don’t know exactly when — we will trap enough heat close to the surface to our planet to precipitate a collapse, or partial collapse, of a major ice shelf… I have friends who work on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and they say [when a collapse happens] you’ll hear it in Sydney… Sea levels would rise pretty much instantaneously, certainly over a few months. We don’t know how much it would rise. It could be ten centimeters, or a meter. We will have begun a retreat from our coasts… Once you have started that process, we wouldn’t know when the next part of the ice sheet would collapse, we don’t know whether sea level will stabilize. There’s no point of retreat where you can safely go back to… I doubt whether our global civilization could survive such a blow, particularly the uncertainty it would bring.
Was there a little hint in there that the environmentalists believe that because of the bailouts the government should have the right to force the bank to do what the environmentalists want? 84% of the bank may be owned by the taxpayers in Britain, but I will promise you that nowhere near 84% of the people want anything to do with your madness. As for professor Flannery, “one of the world’s leading climate scientists”, (who also happens to be one of the leading climate activists and a leading proponent of the false science of anthropogenic global warming), he is a lost cause. the doomsday claims he makes in the above quotes are ridiculously vague. Sea levels would rise instantaneously, or over a few months. They could rise 10cm or a meter. There is nowhere you could retreat to? Every heard of mountains there, Timmy Boy?
Should I mention that Timmy also believes that the reason for action now, according to his book, is that “failure to act on climate change may eventually force the creation of a global carbon dictatorship, which he calls the “Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control”, to regulate carbon use across all industries and nations – a level of governmental intrusion that Flannery describes as “very undesirable”” That really sounds like Cap and Trade to me. Isn’t that what the environmentalists are telling us is the answer?
Nature doesn’t follow political fashion. Global warming may not be hot today, but the planet is — hotter than ever. When you stare out over the wave of Weather of Mass Destruction we are unleashing, who looks crazy — the protesters, or the people who have yet to join them?
OK, you asked. It’s you who looks crazy Johann. The earth isn’t “hotter than ever.” That is an outright lie and you know it. Either you are intentionally attempting to deceive people or you are one of the most gullible, and un-researching, political writers I have seen. I don’t write for the Huffington Post, or even write for a living. And I was able to throw sand all over your fire with a mere three hours of writing and research. Shame on you for either your lack of logical reasoning, or your intentional attempt to muddle the truth. And shame on The Huffington Post for allowing your madness to spread to the masses. I sometimes wish I had the gall to write pure fiction the way that people like Hari and Cesca do. I would be well read in progressive circles, have a home at HuffPo, and the adoration of legions of fans unable to think for themselves.
As I mentioned above, I know that some of you will be angry or disappointed that I have once again delved into the world of man-made global warming. But the fact is that so long as the fruitballs continue to try to lie to the people, I have to continue to point out their lies. I don’t ask that everyone simply accept my rebuttals to Hari. Instead, I ask that people read what is being presented with skepticism and think it through. Just stopping to think at the end of each sentence in his article above allowed me to see through the false claims, inflated numbers, and correlation/causation fallacies that were there for everyone to see. The problem is that people don’t stop and think. They want so badly to believe that they lose the ability to reason. If Hari was a conservative, and AGW was a GOP position, the same people who lap up Hari’s nonsense would be tearing it apart the same way that I did.
So there is an exercise for all of you who are willing. Go find an article that supports something that you believe in from the political group that you support, and see if you can tear it apart the way that I did to this article. Now THAT would be some good stuff for guest commentary pieces. Topics debunked by supporters who used logic, reason, and honesty to evaluate them.
You can read Johann Hari’s article at its original source at the Huffington Post via the link below. I highly encourage you to stop over and drop some comments on the article. I am sure they will treat you well over there.