Johann Hari and the Dying Wails of a Small Minded Mission

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.

Johann Hari

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/this-is-the-hottest-year_b_696704.html

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USW…..how many people do you really think are listening to this dribble. I have been pretty widely travelled and I cannot find very many that even give a damn about it much less delve in to the politics of it. No one has yet to disprove cyclical changes as normal….to my knowledge. i would not believe Al Gore on anything even if he said that night is dark and day is light.

    I really think that science, in the last couple of decades, has taken a shot in the eye because it is not as exact as people once believed. How do you REALLY measure ozone levels from today and compare them to 1,000 years ago or even 50 years ago? Flora? Geologic? Water?

    The most uneducated layman knows that if you cut down the trees the rain forest has less rain. Answer….stop cutting the f****** trees. The Earth finds a way….life finds a way.

    I like to think myself as fairly intelligent. Can someone point me to a real scientific fact that says the warming or cooling of the earth is not cyclical?

    *heavy sigh*

    Take a look at the old standby Farmers Almanac…..they have been and are more precise than the frigging scientists…..

    • Unfortunately D13, the people listening are the impassioned youth at our institutions of learning, as well as those who teach them. Also, there are the fools who learned their analytical thinking skills from, well, no where because they have none. Also, the people who are scared of every damned thing, those same ones that want insurance for everything and thing national health care is a good idea.

      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

      This is why we have to talk about this stuff. Get more thoughtful peices on the net for the kids to find. They only buy into this stuff because it is what is being forced down their throats. Give them something that makes sense and they will see the truth in it and embrace it over the foolish lies and institutionalized manipulation that they are currently stuck with.

  2. Shh, USW, your facts and logic are ruining his article. How is he supposed to present facts that suit his preconceived conclusions if you keep proving them wrong?

  3. Ray Hawkins says:

    Happy Monday all…….I’m not a pure leftist on this so maybe others have a different view…..

    Where I stand:

    (1) I am very skeptical of global warming/climate change from both sides – mostly I don’t feel well read up on it and at this stage don’t know who is trustworthy or reliable to form an educated opinion – from that perspective I would lean somewhat to “let’s not swing for the fences quite yet”.

    (2) I am in favor of using more neutral sources of fuel that can demonstrate on overall neutral or positive impact on the environment – that simply comes from what I was taught as a youngster that I should leave things better than I found them. While I totally get it that the great Mother Earth may very well be able to digest all the crap we put into the environment – that does not mean we should not try and do better. The trouble happens when this is done by force. Technology will, I think, eventually balance this equation in a much more profound way.

    (3) I applaud USW’s efforts to rebut line for line seemingly those things he so vehemently disagrees with. I do caution how some of the “facts” are used (the 1642 Kaifeng flood was unleashed very directly and intentionally – not sure how you can use that to refute statement about the Pakistani flooding).

    • Ray,

      A very thoughtful response. I hope none of your liberal friends find out you aren’t drinking your kool-aid.

      (1) You have to either accept the computer models, which are based largely on ice core data, or reject it. The computer/ice core indicates the earth was much warmer in Roman times as well as the medieval warm period. What the alarmists are attempting is to only count the information that supports their
      conclusion/agenda.

      (2) I wonder if the tar sands would even be economically viable if our government was not so restrictive on domestic drilling? If we were drilling in ANWR & Gull Island, would the price of oil drop enough that Canada could not make a profit converting tar into oil?

      I also wonder if our government were to allow more drilling for natural (Destin, FL field) gas, and N.G. power plants(cleaner than coal), if we would
      not see a shift to both cleaner and more affordable energy?

      (3) Do you feel OK? Starting out on a Monday complimenting USW? And a good catch if he’s wrong on the Kaifeng flood. How about a link?

    • Good point on the flood of 1642. I found it on “Time”‘s list of natural disasters somewhere last night. I didn’t bother to look deeper. If it was as you say I retract the flood of 1642 as an example.

      I instead submit the following floods in place of the one you disputed:

      Huang He (Yellow) River, China 1931 Death Toll: 1,000,000 to 3,700,000
      Ru River, Banqiao Dam, China 1975 Death Toll: 230,000

      The point is that there have been far worse floods in history. Hari completely ignores this fact in attempting to scare people into compliance with environmental activism.

      Excellent reply though.

  4. A companion piece published at HuffPo that is a lead in for Cap n Trade.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/fighting-global-warming-b_b_696015.html

    And yes, Montana is listed as part of the agreement. Thanks to our current Democrat Governor and previous Democrat legislature.

    • There’s those two words again..Sustainable Development 😦

      • Anita

        You are on your game this morning.

        • I’m trying JAC. Aren’t these guys tired of hearing themselves talk YET?

          • Anita

            They will NEVER tire of talking and trying to act upon their beliefs. It has become an ideology to a large extent, in my opinion. They are out to “convert” the world and if need be, to run the world according to their vision.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        All past attempts to show that ANY development was UNSUSTAINABLE have been proven to be manifestly FALSE.

        Think about it this way:

        1. People routinely die of starvation

        A. Developped countries
        B. Undevelopped countries

        2. People have a higher percentage chance of dying in a natural disaster

        A. Developped countries
        B. Undevelopped countries

        3. People have shortages of energy

        A. Developped countries
        B. Undevelopped countries

        4. Far less food is grown per acre

        A. Developped countries
        B. Undevelopped countries

        5. Communication with remote areas is difficult or impossible

        A. Developped countries
        B. Undevelopped countries

        6. Access to quality medical care is limited or non-existent

        A. Developped countries
        B. Undevelopped countries

        This quiz could go on forever, but just from those 6 questions, it should be easy to see that the places where people have the highest chance of surviving and thriving through anything are THE MOST DEVELOPPED COUNTRIES.

        Arguing that “sustainable development” (which is code for “dismantling industrial Western Civilization”) would somehow IMPROVE people’s lives is simply horse-shit.

        I do agree with Ray – soiling one’s own nest is a bad idea, and unfortunately is currently a byproduct of the way we do many things. However, over time, DEVELOPPED COUNTRIES have made INCREDIBLE strides in cleaning up their air, water and soil, AND KEEPING THEM CLEAN.

        IT IS THE UNDEVELOPPED COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THE BIGGEST POLLUTION PROBLEMS! Look at China, Romania, etc.

        The SOLUTION to the POLLUTION caused by development is not LESS development, it is MORE development.

        As the US has developped more, we have created and used both food and energy ever more efficiently AND CLEANLY.

        We do NOT need to go back to the living standards of poorer nations. We need to find ways to GET THEM UP TO OUR LEVEL. THAT is the way to make the world a cleaner place!!!

  5. USW, and others.

    I have a problem with one of the arguments against that has been posted here many times.

    This idea that it is Hubris or somehow Egotistical to “even think” that humans could impact the climate is NOT an argument. One only has to look closely around us and you will see we have major impacts on the ecosystems.

    These systems, atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial, are all connected. Major changes in one will create changes in the others. The real focus should be on magnitude, extent and time frame of those changes.

    The anti warming scientists have argued that there is no true “Global” climate. This is true. Climate and weather manifests itself primarily at the regional scale. Thus droughts in Russia and cooling in the Rocky Mtn Region of the USA. Human impacts can affect local and regional climate/weather, if those changes are major in scope.

    I am not arguing what these changes have occurred or what they are. Only that they are possible given our technology and the extent to which we alter our environment to extend our survival. So to argue that it CAN’T happen because we are insignificant is in my view an equally fallacious argument as those who assume all changes are devastating the earth.

    • Hi JAC……I just don’t see it. I do not see significant changes anywhere that have not happened before and at the same intensity and same rates. Where you and I are in agreement is in local areas where mismanagement of waste and things cause immediate and recognizable dangers…..but melting the ice shelf because I use hairspray is a reaaaaallllyyyy long stretch for me. I am not a global warming person…do not believe it…yet. I say this tongue in cheek because I have sat down with enviromentalist who wanted to come on our ranch land and stick probes up a cow’s butt to measure “methane”…and stick probes into fresh cattle droppings to measure heat related methane..then come up with an exponential number tied to the cattle per acre and then tie that exponentially to the particulate air mass per acre (in open territory). This to determine the amount of methane gas that cattle put in the air to determine the impact of cattle ranches and pig farms and sheep ranches on the environment. They were unconcerned of wind velocity, summer drying of the droppings, dung beetles, and blow flies that “naturally” take care of these things.

      Howeever, in the spirit of this, we allowed the US Ag Dept. to send in some students, with fancy equipment to probe cow butts and play with fresh cow shit..oh, sorry, manure. You have to picture this…your tax dollars hard at work. They insisted that methane and ammonia, both on the list of greenhouse gases, that cattle and pig and sheep operations are 20% contributer to over all greenhouse gases. So, here you have millions of dollars worth of equipment, driving out to the pastures…(each pasture a minimum of 1500 acres up to 2500 acres). We keep them at that size for grass management (no over grazing). So we have a bunch of government people, who do not know ranches, trying to probe a cows butt…not realizing that these are free roaming cattle and do NOT like to be probed or even touched. So, get this picture…frustrated youngsters wondering how to “catch” a cow to probe its butt. In the meantime, there is another bunch of “govies” probing droppings on the ground. Finally, after some very comediac fun, we told them that in order to probe a cow….you neede to corral it, herd it to a squeeze chute, capture it, thne shove your whole friggin arm about 4 feet in.(We call this “rich” territory…hence the old saying, as rich as four foot up a bull’s ass.)

      Now, and they did not know this, cows belong to a class of animal called ruminants. Ruminants have four stomachs and digest their food in their stomachs instead of in their intestines, as humans do. Ruminants eat food, regurgitate it as cud and eat it again. The stomachs are filled with bacteria that aid in digestion, but also produce methane. This is ranching 101…romper room rejects know this. The instruments would not measure anything because the digestive tracts cannot be measured however, if they just waitied a little while, the bovine would send forth a tremendous earth shattering belch or fart….and that can be measured. Now, to further extrapolate, we divide our cattle to age and pregnancy rate and type of grass (regular native grass vs. coastal bermuda vs. alfalfa). The nutrients are different in the types of grasses…as well as “hard feed” or grain. EACH and every single grass and nutirent produces a different methane metabolic rate. (Ranching 201…first grade stuff).But these Ag Dept whiz kids and their PHD supervisors discounted this value. Our ranch foreman, a Texas A&M agricultural graduate, trained in ranch nad grass management, tried to explain this but to no avail. To make a funny story short, they were amazed that they got different readings from different cattle in different pastures eating different grasses. Our ranch hands loved this because they got out of a two days work to watch and help with the cattle and they got a great laugh.

      However, they spent some more of our tax money to set up air quality monitoring stations in each f three test pastures. Two stations per pasture. Six monitoring stations covering…..get ready for this…..5125 acres in open air where there is wind alomost 24/7. The air quality registered zero on emmissions. They did not understand because they had facts and figures from India and England and Dairy farms and they could not understand why it did not match a working cattle ranch operation. It was easy, our Aggie foreman explained….Dairy farms herd their cattle into main areas…feed them grain, and line them up for milking. The manure piles high and deep. In England and India, the per capita cow per acre is ten times what it is here. We raise cattle for food so the comparison of methane exposure to thtat of a dairy farm is fauly data. I am sorry, but a cow fart in a 15 MPH wind dissipates in 10 feet. ALSO,when a cow poops in the field…the sun dries it, the dungs eat it, the blow flies carry away what is left and there is NO ammonia present within 12 hours. We even explained to them that when we round up and get cattle ready to ship and they are contained into pens, we have a back loader and trailer that cleans out the pens and deposits the manure into cement bacterial cylinders….treated with bacterial eating microbes (reverse osmosis) and used for fertilizer on our alfalfa fields for growing winter food stores.

      When we received a complimentary report, they took average readings from European models and Dairy farms and applied to our cattle ranching operation and said since their data was inconclusive to our particular operation, justified applying the same numbers and that is what ended up in the Ag Department report.

      I am sorry, but if this is an example of how data is produced and how conclusions are made…concerning greenhouse gases…then count me out. I do not believe anything. I might add, they have not been back since.

      • “but melting the ice shelf because I use hairspray is a reaaaaallllyyyy long stretch for me”

        Am I the only one trying to figure out how D13 uses hairspray? I am imagining using it as a short range flamethrower.

        • Ok, smart ass…..just because I am military, does not mean that I have short hair…..although…..it is a little sparse on top….actually,…sparse is probably a liberal use of then term….picture sean connery…no hair on top…gray on the sides…no English accent of course.

          But….short range flame thrower works great too….

          🙂

          • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

            Connery would be appaled,

            Scottish!

            Might throw some haggis at you. Another great use for intestines of bovines.

      • Displaced Okie says:

        D13 said: “…..but melting the ice shelf because I use hairspray is a reaaaaallllyyyy long stretch for me.”

        Colonel , you use hairspray? I always figured you just looked at your hair hair and shouted “ATTENTION!!!”
        🙂

      • D13

        Good morning there Cable, er I mean Colonel.

        I was not limiting my remarks to just green house gases. The point is that we humans are numerous enough and technologically advanced enough to impact our environment. In fact we must impact it if we want to live as we do. Otherwise it is back to sagebrush huts and scouring for ants and lizards for dinner.

        So to argue that we can’t have such impacts because we are “insignificant” compared to the size of the planet simply is not a valid nor logical argument. The support AGAINST global warming can be made with scientific evidence. The “Hubris” argument is not necessary and I find it devoid of science and reason.

        As for your experience, it is not unique to measuring green house gases. Unfortunately.

        Question: Does the bacterial treatment actually enhance the nutrient content of the manure or is it primarily to facilitate spreading?

        I know that some of the big dairies are trying to use “digesters” to concentrate gas accumulation and then burn the gas for power generation.

        • Good morning, sir. I know that it was a funny story but a true one that make me think…..what the hell coule be next….I did not go into the water story of wanting to test the water that was flowing into the reserve water supply to make sure that wild animals are not polluting the water. we tried putting up signs for the deer, racoon, possum, armadillo, skunk, et al and cattle not to pee in the water. I don’t know if it worked or not. The fishing is great.

          But great question on the bacterial treatment. It is actually bacteria eating bacteria. Kind of like cholesterol…good vs bad. But, yes, it enhances the good stuff and eliminates the ammonia derivates. We then add a couple of enviro friendly chemicals to it for easy spreading. Great stuff and we estimate conservatively that it saves $154,000 per year net.

          • As the bus stopped and it was her turn to get on,

            She became aware that her skirt was too tight to allow her leg to come up to
            The height of the first step of the bus.

            Slightly embarrassed and with a quick smile to the bus driver, she reached
            Behind her to unzip her skirt a little, thinking that this would give her
            Enough slack to raise her leg She tried to take the step, only to discover
            That she couldn’t.

            So, a little more embarrassed, she once again reached behind her to unzip
            Her skirt a little more, and for the second time attempted the step.

            Once again, much to her chagrin, she could not raise her leg.
            With a little smile to the driver, she again reached behind to unzip a
            Little more and again was unable to take the step.

            About this time, a large Texan who was standing behind her picked her up
            Easily by the waist and placed her gently on the step of the bus.

            She went ballistic and turned to the would-be Samaritan and yelled

            ‘How dare you touch my body! I don’t even know who you are!’

            The D13 smiled and drawled,
            ‘Well, ma’am, normally I would agree with you, but after you unzipped my fly
            Three times, I kinda figured we was friends.’

            • lolololol….

              • Sorta reminds me of the Texas, the lad from Arkansas, and the young man from Oklahoma….

                The lad from Arkansas says..”We are so tough in Arkansas, I can run down and kill a Razorback with my teeth and eat it raw without getting a scratch”. The young man from Oklahoma, not wanting to be out done, ” that’s nothing…why in the winter time when the chill factor is 25 below zero on a good, day, I run naked for miles barefooted and eat cactus plants for amusement to keep my mind off the cold.”

                The Texan listened, said nothing…slowly stiring the coals of the camp fire with his pecker….(sorry ladies)

            • Husband Down

              A husband and wife are shopping in their local Wal-Mart.

              The husband picks up a case of Budweiser and puts it in their cart. ‘What do you think you’re doing?’ asks the wife.

              ‘They’re on sale, only $10 for 24 cans he replies.
              ‘Put them back, we can’t afford them demands the wife, and so they carry on shopping.

              A few aisles further on along the woman picks up a $20 jar of face cream and puts it in the basket.

              What do you think you’re doing?’ asks the husband. ‘It’s my face cream. It makes me look beautiful,’ replies the wife.

              Her husband retorts: ‘So does 24 cans of Budweiser and it’s half the price.’

              • “YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF…”
                1.. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

                2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can’t afford shoes.

                3. You have more wives than teeth.

                4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon “unclean.”

                5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

                6. You can’t think of anyone you haven’t declared Jihad against.

                7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

                8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

                9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

                10. You’ve always had a crush on your neighbor’s goat.

                11. Your cousin is president of the United States

              • Ok..one more….

                I stopped by the Toyota Dealership yesterday for a look at the new Tacoma.

                Just for fun, I took it out for a test drive. I wanted to sense that new “feel” before they become extinct…
                The salesman (wearing an Obama “change” lapel pin) sat in the passenger seat describing the truck and all its “wonderful” options.
                The seats were of particular interest. He explained that the seats directed warm air to your butt in the winter and directed cool air to
                your butt in the summer heat.

                Feeling like messing with his mind, I mentioned that this must be a Republican truck.

                Looking a bit angry, he asked why I thought it was a Republican truck.

                I explained that if it were a Democrat truck, the seats would blow smoke up your ass year-round.

                I had to walk back to the dealership……..SOB had no sense of humor.

              • 🙂 #11 🙂

      • Hairspray????? Oh boy….

        • Yes, Kathy…..real men use hairspray. Live with it. I do not shave my head, eat rusty nails or ground glass, shower with Lava soap, or walk barefoot on broken glass. I use hairspray to keep the ever thinning remnants in place…not ready for total bald yet, I shower with Irish spring soap…except on hunting trips…I use deoderant, and actually brush my teeth with real toothpaste. I cook my food. I quit eating raw snails and things when I finally figured out that to be Special Ops….I could still cook my food and be human….except when on the job. Now, that everybody knows my grooming habits (my fault for the hairspray insert)…just remember this…..I can still kill you ten ways with a toothpick. 🙂

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      While we have the power to create “micro-climates” due to land-use changes, heavy use of irrigation, urbanization, and things like that, THESE ARE LOCALIZED PHENOMENA!

      We do NOT have the power to exert significant influence on the global climate system as a whole. Our puny influence is dwarfed by this big ole star that is about 93 million miles away and is holding the remote control.

      So yes, while we can change the average humidity in Phoenix from 8% to 20% due to land-use changes and heavy irrigation, we CANNOT affect the overall average temperature of the entire climatological system.

  6. Termite’s produce as much methane as human industry.

    http://www.heptune.com/farts.html

    What kind of animal has the highest worldwide output of flatus?
    Believe it or not, the animal that wins this honor is the humble termite. Because of their diet and digestive processes (with more than the usual microbial assistance), they produce as much methane as human industry. Termite farts are believed to be a major contributor towards global warming.

    Is it true that cow farts contribute to global warming?
    Recent research has shown that most methane produced by cows and sheep emerges from the mouth rather than the anus. So one could more accurately say that cow and sheep belches are contributing to global warming. New Zealand researchers are investigating methods of breeding methane-free sheep.
    Is there any kind of animal that doesn’t fart?
    (Question submitted by Funsux)

    If we define a fart to be an anal escape of intestinal gas, then it follows that animals that lack intestines or an anus cannot fart. Most animals possess intestines and an anus, but there are some that don’t. These include:
    Sponges: These organisms lack true tissues and organs. They have just a few types of cells organized into a bag with holes in it. Water flows into some holes and out other holes. Sponges are so different from other animals that some biologists think we shouldn’t even call them animals.
    Cnidaria: This phylum includes the jellyfish, corals, sea anemones and hydra. Their tissues are organized into a bag with a mouth surrounded by stinging tentacles. Food enters the mouth and is digested inside the bag, after which the leftovers are expelled via the same opening. In effect, the same hole serves as both a mouth and an anus. Any gas expelled by a cnidarian would be more appropriately termed a belch rather than a fart, since the animal lacks intestines and separate anus.
    Pogonophoran worms: These remarkable animals, who dwell on the sea floor near active volcanic regions associated with mid-ocean ridges, possess no mouth, no stomach, no intestines, and no anus. Apparently they retain their svelte, worm-shaped figures by giving up on eating completely! They survive by means of a mutualistic relationship with chemosynthetic bacteria that live in their flesh. Anyway, these animals cannot possibly fart.

    A second category of animals that probably don’t fart are animals that live very deep underwater. At high pressures, gas remains in solution rather than forming bubbles. So there is a good chance that all those clams, echinoderms, fish and other animals living near the seafloor don’t fart because their farts stay in solution and never emerge as bubbles, even though the animals possess perfectly good intestines and anuses.

    • I can’t believe I just read a whole post on animal farting…..

      Good article USW. GW is a subject I sit back and read and learn.

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      You have left out the species, spitfire exhusband cretinitis.

      This species is often found around street corners where dope is prevalent. The species often takes reasonable remarks, digests them and deliver horrendously stinky farts from the many anal orifices located upon its body. The body’s tentacles grasp at anything that it feels can be made into an issue for fodder. Upon digesting a perceived issue, it belches unbelievable and assinine sounds of accusations from its gaping maw.

      Many believe that it’s slimy skin is a waste of cellular structure.

  7. USWep

    have to admit that I admire the tenacity

    Nothing to admire.

    It is the tenacity of men who are seeing their milk cow whither, not the tenacity of men in the Knowledge or in the Right.

    • BF

      If you think the Global Warming scare has died or that the political manipulations behind it are fading away, you are kidding yourself.

      I suggest you brace yourself for the next wave. It is going to be a doozy.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        JAC,

        The next wave will be more intense (and more ridiculous).

        The following wave will be even more intense (and even more ridiculous).

        With each wave, the intensity and the desperation will increase, but so will the public desire to shut them all up.

        The absolute BEST thing about the whole AGW phenomenon is that it will completely discredit “environmental activists” in the minds of the general public for generations.

        The worst thing about the whole AGW phenomenon is that they have damaged science itself badly, and it is going to take generations for science itself to recover.

        Scientists are NEVER unbiased – such a thing is impossible. However, as a scientist, you can NEVER let your bias influence your observations, data, or calculations. You cannot force nature to conform to your biases. In order to even BE a scientist, you must recognize when nature is not comforming to your biases, and be enough of a man (or woman) to throw out your hypothesis and start over.

        AGW “climate scientists” did not have the stones to realize that their observations and data did not support their hypotheses, so they ignored data which did not agree with their pre-determined conclusion, created models which confirm their hypothesized trend EVEN IF YOU INPUT NOISE INTO THE MODEL INSTEAD OF REAL DATA, and frankly, they just made shit up when they had to.

        Thank God that they were found out, although the depths of their scientific depravity have been whitewashed to the point where the general public does not really understand the true depth and breadth of their malfeasance. Luckily, the general public DOES seem to know enough to not trust the “climate scientists” worth a tinker’s damn anymore at least.

        They are rapidly becoming more and more shrill and more and more desperate, which, in this case, is indicative that they know they are getting closer and closer to abject failure.

        Of course, abject failure for them would be a great success for the rest of us. When reason fails to triumph over the doomsday fearmongers, then we will be in real trouble. In this case, the chances of reason triumphing are already pretty high, and the more shrill and desperate THEY get, the higher the chances of reason coming out on top.

      • JAC,

        It is dead.

        No doubt there will people who will lament its passing, another group vigorously trying to reanimate the dead, and others abandoning the area of the stinking corpse.

        But it is not a zombie. It’s dead.

        Germany rules here.

        They have a bona-fide Green Party that actually wins seats in government. They have real political power and wield it with fury.

        …and they have wholly abandoned any attempt at enforcing anything regarding “Global Climate Change” action.

        Without Germany, the whole political will has evaporated.

        Yes, there maybe furtive attempts to enforce “something” – but that would happen under another cover of an excuse, such as “acid rain” or “Nasal Passage Cleanliness Act”. Government doesn’t need a real excuse to enforce its crimes.

        But “Man-made Climate Change” as an excuse is dead.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          …But the animal will thrash around violently for quite some time in it’s death throes and could still be extremely dangerous to anyone nearby, even though it is “technically” dead!

          Beware!

    • Quick question:

      Of the scientists (not politicians, but guys in white coats working in labs or whatnot) who advocate the theory of Global warming, what percentage would you guess are deliberately lying to advance this theory versus the percentage who believe it to be the truth?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I believe that many of them started out believing it was the truth BEFORE THEY PERFORMED ANY MEASUREMENTS, TESTING, OR MODELING!

        They then quickly figured out that in order to get grant money, they had better have studies that supported AGW.

        This is a simple case of “follow the money”. In the past 30 years, world governments have issued close to $80 BILLION in grant money for “climate studies” while the EVIL Exxon Mobil has put out well less than $100 MILLION for “climate studies”.

        It doesn’t take long, as a “crusading” scientist with a predisposition towards a particular hypothesis to figure out which side his bread is buttered on.

        So, in my view the problem does not break down into “who is lying vs. who really believes it”.

        The problem is that a large majority of climate scientists believe it, AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT TO ADVANCE THE THEORY both because of their pre-set belief and because it is lucrative and guarantees they get tenure at their academic institution, because any professor that can bring in the bacon (government grants) will NEVER lose their job!

      • Mathius,

        First, you have define what is a “Climate Scientist”.

        Of those in Physics – 95% will answer:
        “We do not know”

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          95% of Physicists will answer “we do not know” no matter WHAT the question was 🙂

          • Q. Is the sky blue?

            A. We’re not really sure. Reasoned examination and empirical evidence seems to suggest that the sky is indeed blue. While observation does seem to show that this is the case, we have no evidence to support the theory that “blue-ness” is necessary a permanent characteristic of the sky, nor that the sky will be blue tomorrow. Likewise, we cannot rule out error. Further, our sampling was only of a select geographical area during a select period of time – for a higher confidence level, we suggest a longitudinal study of multiple regions over multiple time periods. The results should be peer reviewed and replicated by several independent labs before we can say with any confidence that we think that “the sky is probably blue.”

            • Mathius,

              Not quite.

              We know the sky IS blue, because we measure the frequency – and the frequency is at the space we have defined to be blue. It is not in the frequency we defined to be red.

              We know why the sky is blue, and thus we know it is permanent to the degree the condition of the atmosphere remains the same. If it does not change, neither will the sky color.

              We know the sky is blue everywhere, even where we do not measure, because we know the Laws of Physics does not change dependent on location.

              Science has certainty in many things,.

              Where science has large uncertainty is in Chaotic systems which by definition (and design) are impossible to offer certainty – the best that can be offered is probability.

              • Yes, the much less quantifiably answered question is:
                “Is love blue?”

              • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

                What is blue?

                Isn’t talking about blue being unfair to that percentage of the population who suffers from color blindness? How inconsiderate.

        • For purposes of this question, let us define a “climate scientist” as an individual who studies aspect of Earth’s climate professionally.

          X % are true believers
          (1-X)% are liars perpetuating a massive fraud

          Your best guess, sir. X = ?

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            See my post above Mathius, the dangerous ones are the ones who BELIEVE, and their belief CAUSES THEM TO LIE.

          • Mathuis,

            100% of Climate Scientists adhere to the theory of Global Warming.

            Of the smaller percentage considers an hypothesis it is Anthropogenic – 100% of them get funding from government based on that hypothesis.

            Some do not agree that the hypothesis has merit (though they are considering it), but accept funding for further study.

            Some say the hypothesis has merit, but accept funding for further study.

            Which one of these two groups do you think is fraudulent?

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Glaciers do not calve tremendously huge icebergs if they are SHRINKING. Glaciers calve tremendously huge icebergs if they are GROWING and the excess mass of the glacier as it hits the SEA (which is at MUCH LOWER ALTITUDE THAN THE MOUNTAIN WHERE THE GLACIER STARTED GROWING) is such that the sudden presence of that much mass of ice suddenly over open water instead of land causes the leading edge of the glacier to break off!

    The rest of the article was even bigger idiocy than the part I just easily disproved with simple physics.

  9. The glacier connects the great Greenland ice sheet directly with the ocean. The new ice island has an area of at least 100 square miles and a thickness up to half the height of the Empire State Building. “The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days,” Muenchow said.

    The island will enter Nares Strait, a deep waterway between northern Greenland and Canada where, since 2003, a University of Delaware ocean and ice observing array has been maintained by Muenchow with collaborators in Oregon (Prof. Kelly Falkner), British Columbia (Prof. Humfrey Melling), and England (Prof. Helen Johnson). “In Nares Strait, the ice island will encounter real islands that are all much smaller in size,” Muenchow said. “The newly born ice-island may become land-fast, block the channel, or it may break into smaller pieces as it is propelled south by the prevailing ocean currents. From there, it will likely follow along the coasts of Baffin Island and Labrador, to reach the Atlantic within the next two years.”

    The last time such a massive ice island formed was in 1962 when Ward Hunt Ice Shelf calved a 230 square-mile island, smaller pieces of which became lodged between real islands inside Nares Strait. Petermann Glacier spawned smaller ice islands in 2001 (34 square miles) and 2008 (10 square miles). In 2005, the Ayles Ice Shelf disintegrated and became an ice island (34 square miles) about 60 miles to the west of Petermann Fjord.

  10. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_american-liberalism.html

    All I can say about this article (especially as relates to the topic of the day) is:

    Wow…. just… wow

  11. Assignment completed! I posted three responses at Huff&Puff, but they are awaiting approval.

  12. Yup, the Global Warming issue is dead. Sorry but NOT.

    “The world’s most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and “a challenge humanity must confront”, in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.”

    Full story at:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Lomborg is not an idiot, although his insistence that government can do R&D better than the private sector is indeed misguided.

      Here is the way I routinely address this topic:

      Is the “globe warming”?
      Sure, it has been since the end of the Little Ice Age

      Are humans causing the warming?
      They may be contributing to it, but if they are, their net contribution is pretty damn small.

      Should we be “investing” in alternative “clean” forms of energy?
      Depends on what you mean by “investing” and “clean”.

      What? (long answer follows)
      Private firms are always researching ways to produce energy more efficiently. More efficiency equates to “cleaner” 99% of the time. Private firms are also researching ways to store energy rather than simply just produce it on demand (as is done now). The ability to efficiently store energy until it is needed will also help greatly. However, we must remember what “clean” really is! Solar and Wind are intermittent, and require backup (usually coal-burning) plants to be built. A lot of “carbon” is emitted when solar panels, windmills, and the like are produced. When “wind-farms” are decomissioned because they lose money like crazy and don’t produce anywhere near 100% of their supposed capacity (usually under 5% to be more precise), they litter the landscape and do nothing. Is it really worth the materials to produce them if producing them pollutes, and then they produce so little energy that they get decommissioned and sit idle littering the landscape? (The same can be said for solar farms too by the way). If we are going to produce energy (and more importantly THINGS) more cleanly, more efficiently, and MORE CHEAPLY, the “investment” needs to be done in a free market. We should not be forced to subsidize less efficient energy of questionable cleanliness and benefit.

      Is global warming really that much of a concern?
      No. Plants and Animals thrive in warm conditions, and die of starvation and disease in cold conditions. In the next few years as both the AMO and PDO go negative, the earth is going to cool back to where it was in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It is even possible that we might cool to where we were in the 1760’s, but I sure hope it does not cool that much, or we will be miserable.

      How do you know it is going to cool like that?
      Even the government climate models indicate that this is going to happen, so it isn’t as if it is any kind of mystery 🙂 The only reason it is a mystery is that the government has not PUBLICIZED that the models indicate that this cooling has been well-characterized and predicted by the models!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Oh, and by the way, this isn’t that much of a “victory” for the AGW crowd. Even though Lomborg has been portrayed as a “skeptic”, he has always believed in human-caused global warming as evidenced by this article from February 2010:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7867422/The-EUs-response-to-global-warming-is-a-costly-mistake.html

      At no point in the article is he skeptical that man has “caused” global warming. He is merely skeptical of the proposed “solutions”.

      I am sure that the AGW crowd will crow very loudly that they have “converted a prominent skeptic”. In reality, all they did was “convert” someone who was already firmly a member of their congregation.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4218007/undue-panic-over-global-warming/

      Here is a clip of Lomborg on Stossel. Once again, he clearly AGREES with the hypothesis that man is causing “global warming”. He merely does not agree that we need to be pouring trillions of dollars into it “willy-nilly”.

      He has never been a “skeptic” of the hypothesis, merely the proposed “solutions”. Any attempt by the “AGW crowd” to paint him as a “convert from denialism” is highly disingenous at best.

  13. Brought from discussion at Huffington Post, have invited discussion here.

    Publicola
    Illusion: “can we bring in where scientists are predicting arctic melts and the ocean rising?”

    Sure – Arctic melting and rising sea levels were predicted by climate scientists as a consequence of man-made global warming, and so far said predictions have been correct.

    Illusion: “You have to either accept the computer models, which are based largely on ice core data, or reject it.”

    Wrong on two levels:

    1: Computer models are not “based largely on ice core data” – they are instead based largely on scientific theory.

    2: Anthropogenic global warming theory predates computer models by on the order of a century.

    Illusion: “The computer/ice core indicates the earth was much warmer in Roman times ( Jesus) as well as the medieval warm period.”

    Wrong again. Far from “much warmer”, for example per state of the art science the medieval warm period was slightly cooler than today.

    Illusion: “it was warmer in the past than present day, and had to be natural.”

    Cancer was “natural” before cigarettes, too – in your mind does that mean cigarettes don’t cause cancer?

    Illusion: “And a question for you, what is the largest (by volume) greenhouse gas, and what percentage of the greenhouse gases does in comprise?”

    H2O; ~99%.

    And a question for you: Can H2O, like anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2, be a multidecadal global warming forcing agent?

    Or do anthropogenic greenhouse gases instead influence atmospheric H2O concentrations, which in turn amplifies anthropogenic greenhouse gas-forced global warming?

    LOI wrote,
    Publicola,

    Interesting name, any meaning? Mine go to the Joe Walsh song. From above,
    “I love science denier humor.” Does that make me officially a DENIER? Can I get a badge or something?

    “The Sun’s linear radiative output trend has stayed relatively flat while the Earth has warmed.”
    There is a history of studies of sun spots that dates back to the 16th century. From what I have read, our studies on the sun’s effect on weather is minimal, and need to be addressed before we can make any reasonable projection.

    “Wrong again. Far from “much warmer”, for example per state of the art science the MWP was slightly cooler than today.” Sorry, need a source.
    You do seem sharp, but I can’t just take your word on this. One of my sources says it was 25 C 2,500 to 3,000 yrs ago, 24 C (medieval WP) 1,000 yrs ago, and it’s around 23 C right now. 23 C is cooler than 24 or 25 C, right?

    “while methane is the second largest GHG driver of GW after CO2, your assertion that “termites are the largest producer of methane” false – landfills produce 6 to 60 times more methane.” Sorry, without a source, I have to go with multiple sources that state termites produce more methane than all of mankind. I haven’t looked, but isn’t there a tremendous amount of ocean seepage?

    “Can H2O, like AGW gases, be a multidecadal GW forcing agent?” Yes, methane especially.

    Publicola
    Illusion: “Publicola, Interesting name, any meaning?”

    Yeah – it’s in homage to the U.S. Founding Fathers. The authors of the Federalist Papers – Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay – published under the pseudonym ‘Publius’ in homage to one of the founders of the Roman Republic: Publius Valerius Publicola. ‘Publicola’ is my humble homage to what those guys accomplished.

    Illusion: “There is a history of studies of sun spots that dates back to the 16th century. From what I have read, our studies on the sun’s effect on weather is minimal, and need to be addressed before we can make any reasonable projection.”

    First off we are talking here about climate – specifically with respect to multi-decadal global warming – not weather. Can and does the Sun ‘drive’ multidecadal global warming (in precise technical terms: it is a global warming ‘forcing agent’)? Of course: when then Sun’s radiative output goes up, which it can and sometimes does, the Earth warms.

    Over recent decades, however, the Sun’s linear radiative output trend has stayed essentially flat while the globe has warmed. (There is an 11-year solar cycle, which we are now at the minimum of, but that cycle is too short to drive a multidecadal global warming trend; it’s also too weak to drive the bulk of the trend we are seeing in any event.)

    Which is to say: solar radiation cannot be driving the global warming trend we have been experiencing over recent decades.
    Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive (0)
    Publicola: Illusion:

    Me: “Far from ‘much warmer’, for example per state of the art science the MWP was slightly cooler than today.”

    Illusion: “Sorry, need a source. You do seem sharp, but I can’t just take your word on this.”

    No problem.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

    Me: “while methane is the second largest GHG driver of GW after CO2, your assertion that ‘termites are the largest producer of methane’ false – landfills alone produce 6 to 60 times more methane.”

    Illusion: “Sorry, without a source, I have to go with multiple sources that state termites produce more methane than all of mankind.”

    Your sources are incorrect.

    http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html

    Illusion: “I haven’t looked, but isn’t there a tremendous amount of ocean seepage?”

    About the same level as generated by termites: ~2-16 Tg/yr.

    Compare with landfills: ~126 Tg/yr.

    Me: “Can H2O, like AGW gases, be a multidecadal GW forcing agent?”

    Illusion: “Yes, methane especially. ”

    Methane, like all anthropogenic greenhouse gases, can be and is a multidecadal GW forcing agent, but that is not my question. My question to you is whether you think H20 – which is a also greenhouse gas but is not anthropogenic (for the most part) – can also be a multidecadal GW forcing agent.

    What say you, Illusion?

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Anyone citing NCDC/NOAA obviously doesn’t realize that Hansen’s view of the MWP is incredibly biased, and he completely buys into the Mann Hockey Stick which has been thouroughly discredited.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Hey LOI,

      Perhaps you should ask Publicola why current models are showing SIGNIFICANT cooling coming over the next several years, and what is driving this coming cooling that the government models are all predicting. Obviously, whatever is driving the predicted cooling is a STRONGER FORCE than CO2, because the models show the cooling coming regardless of the fact that CO2 is still increasing in concentration in the atmosphere.

      If needed, I can refer you to some of the models in question so that you can link them to show the predicted cooling that is coming.

      Let’s just say that for the Eastern US, Jan-Mar 2011 is going to be pretty mild, but the rest of the world will be going into the icebox bigtime. This is not just my prediction, it is what the government models are currently showing. The cooling is not going to be confined to those 3 months either… it is predicted to go on for up to 30-40 years (long-range models are beginning to have agreement on that as well).

      Maybe Publicola can explain for you the paradox of CO2 increasing and yet global mean temperature cooling significantly over the next 30-40 years, starting in just a few short months from now.

    • LOI,

      Eek!

      Sure – Arctic melting and rising sea levels were predicted by climate scientists as a consequence of man-made global warming, and so far said predictions have been correct.

      False.

      All the data – all of it – show no significant rising sea levels at all – anywhere. After all, if there was, wouldn’t we have noticed???

      Thus, if he claims they have predicated it, and he claims this predication is what gives him credibility – then he just lost his case.

      Illusion: “You have to either accept the computer models, which are based largely on ice core data, or reject it.”

      Wrong on two levels:

      1: Computer models are not “based largely on ice core data” – they are instead based largely on scientific theory.

      No model exists that is capable of dealing with chaotic systems – none.

      All models have produced wrong predictions – there have been no correct predictions because they cannot do it

      Further, the statement infers that “Science” knows all the theories! What bunk!! We are barely at knowing the question, let alone knowing the theories!

      2: Anthropogenic global warming theory predates computer models by on the order of a century.

      True. And it was wrong then as it is wrong now.

      Illusion: “The computer/ice core indicates the earth was much warmer in Roman times ( Jesus) as well as the medieval warm period.”

      Wrong again. Far from “much warmer”, for example per state of the art science the medieval warm period was slightly cooler than today.

      This is not true. They grew grapes in England during the MEWP. Haven’t seen grapes growing in England since then, nor now, nor in the future either.

      Illusion: “it was warmer in the past than present day, and had to be natural.”

      Cancer was “natural” before cigarettes, too – in your mind does that mean cigarettes don’t cause cancer?

      Irrelevant analogy.

      Climate is not a cancer. It is a negative feedback loop chaotic system.

      To claim that a small perturbation in a minor gas concentration is enough to “tilt” the climate is bizarre, given if this held any truth, the Earth would have been either frozen solid or cooked and burned to its core – but it has not. 10 billion years and counting and its still humming along.

      “The Sun’s linear radiative output trend has stayed relatively flat while the Earth has warmed.”

      Love that naked “science” term, “relatively” — to what???

      In fact it has been increasing. Further, we have scientific proof of the impact Cosmic Rays as an influence of climate change. We also have scientific proof that sunspots influence Cosmic Rays. We have scientific observation that shows we have passed through a Maunder Maximum in the 90’s and now passing through a Maunder Minimum – with a high correlation to the apparent global warming and cooling.

      “while methane is the second largest GHG driver of GW after CO2,

      That would make Co2 the largest driver – but didn’t we all agree water vapor was the #1 Primo driver??

      First off we are talking here about climate

      Good! So Cancer is no longer on the table!

      – specifically with respect to multi-decadal global warming – not weather.

      Huh? The sun influences weather but not climate???

      Can and does the Sun ‘drive’ multidecadal global warming (in precise technical terms: it is a global warming ‘forcing agent’)? Of course: when then Sun’s radiative output goes up, which it can and sometimes does, the Earth warms.

      Ah, the whole – “Let’s ignore all other things the Sun does” – like sunspots, solar wind, and cosmic rays – because, darn, it correlates so much better than Co2!

      but that cycle is too short to drive a multidecadal global warming trend;

      Which raises a question, what other global effect has a decadal like sequence … right! El Nino/Nina! Wonder if that makes a difference … darn! … it sure does…lockstep, indeed. And what is the influence on El Nino…the sun

      it’s also too weak to drive the bulk of the trend we are seeing in any event.)

      But the Cosmic ray correlation is not too weak – it’s nearly spot on.

      Which is to say: solar radiation cannot be driving the global warming trend we have been experiencing over recent decades.

      Which is to say that does not matter if Cosmic Rays are the culprit.

      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

      Oops, sorry, you mean you are using the long discredited Mann Hockey Stick as the source for the “modern” warming – yeah, the one every one laughs at now??

      Let’s get a source that doesn’t depend on Mann’s liberal use of a handful of dead trees, like:
      http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

      Illusion: “Sorry, without a source, I have to go with multiple sources that state termites produce more methane than all of mankind.”

      Your sources are incorrect.

      http://epa.gov/methane/sources.html

      …while his is incomplete. Current studies have shown that the Siberian Arctic is a major source of methane.

      They found that the amounts of outgassed methane are greater than was thought to be emitted by the entire world’s oceans (Science 2010, 327, 1246).

      Me: “Can H2O, like AGW gases, be a multidecadal GW forcing agent?”

      Illusion: “Yes, methane especially. ”

      Methane, like all anthropogenic greenhouse gases, can be and is a multidecadal GW forcing agent,

      Prove it.

      but that is not my question. My question to you is whether you think H20 – which is a also greenhouse gas but is not anthropogenic (for the most part) – can also be a multidecadal GW forcing agent.

      Prove it.

      What say you, Illusion?

      • LOI,

        Another body blow to Anthropogenic Climate Change…

        *shock* The Earth’s climate is a negative feedback system

        The paper concludes that any increase in Co2 will be offset by an increase in clouds, creating variances with in about +/- 0.6C…

        http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/3446/

      • Dear Flag,
        I have caught you in another mistake(gloating laughter)

        ( Illusion: “You have to either accept the computer models, which are based largely on ice core data, or reject it.”

        Wrong on two levels:

        1: Computer models are not “based largely on ice core data” – they are instead based largely on scientific theory.)

        Perhaps I used poor wording. In building a computer model, they needed to input data, and I think most of that came from the ice core samples sets. I agree the computer models are going to continue to be a massive, and expensive fail.

        (This is not true. They grew grapes in England during the MEWP. Haven’t seen grapes growing in England since then, nor now, nor in the future either.)Ooops, Flag made a boo-boo.
        http://www.english-wine.com/

        ( Me: “Can H2O, like AGW gases, be a multidecadal GW forcing agent?”

        Illusion: “Yes, methane especially. ”

        Methane, like all anthropogenic greenhouse gases, can be and is a multidecadal GW forcing agent,

        Prove it.

        but that is not my question. My question to you is whether you think H20 – which is a also greenhouse gas but is not anthropogenic (for the most part) – can also be a multidecadal GW forcing agent.

        Prove it.

        What say you, Illusion?)

        Methane is a multidecadal gas in the upper atmosphere, and is thought to last even a century. On the whole, I agree with you that they will have to prove their theory on it being a “forcing agent”.
        I am very skeptical at this time, and still see the natural events far outweighing humans contribution. I am curious about the methane.
        They show we had much higher CO2 concentrations in the past, what about methane? Was it higher in the past and has cycled up and down naturally as well?

%d bloggers like this: