ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

The danger of global warming

Dr. Patrick Moore explains why AGW/CC is not merely nonsense, but dangerous, anti-human nonsense:
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization. The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.
No one who buys into the AGW/CC scam should be taken any more seriously than an economist who "invests" in a Ponzi scheme. AGW/CC is scientific fraud, it is historical ignorance, and it is political ideology. I've been saying this for years now, and every single piece of information that has come out since has strongly supported that contention.

Labels:

66 Comments:

Blogger Cataline Sergius March 22, 2015 6:48 AM  

I don't buy into any kind of global warming however, there is an argument to be made that we haven't actually left the last Ice Age.

Of course natural global warming wouldn't do it for them at all. It wouldn't cure their need for a civilization based on masochism.

I've long pondered this matter, My own suspicion is that, their need for AGW is spiritual in nature.

They are constantly moaning on about how guilty they feel all the time. Most of us view this as nothing more than an expression of solipsism on their parts. It lets us look down our noses at their foolishness.

But what if it's real.

What if they are constantly, genuinely feeling guilty all the time?

It's something I've run into with people who have suddenly made it big. They aren't enjoying the toys anywhere near as much as they thought they would. Unlike gratitude, guilt is a genuine emotion. Humans were born psychology to live in community of no more than 200 people. Fail in your obligations to this small community. Slough off and lay in shade all day instead of hunting and gathering and you endanger your own progeny. There is solid genetic reason for guilt.

God designed man for struggle not satisfaction.

Give a man everything he ever wanted and he usually falls apart. Lottery winners are noted for this, they suffer tremendous guilt.

In the past, the church provided you ways of dealing with this. Tithing and charity. If you got so big that money didn't matter anymore, then you hauled your own ass down to the soup kitchen and ladled soup for the bums with your own hands.

But liberals gave up on God about the same time middle class protestant denominations did in the 1970s.

What do you about your guilt then?

Simple! You make up your own religion. And boy have they done so. AGW is a religion complete with a required liturgy, a complicated theology (a noted device for allowing agnostics to stay within the church) and an utterly corrupt and unattractive clergy (witness Al Gore and his $10,000 a month heating bill). All to deal with guilt.

And then they throw that away by the sale of Indulgences for the wealthy (buying carbon offsets).

Blogger Shimshon March 22, 2015 6:51 AM  

It's rather pathetic that Slashdot's link to the article has a totally unnecessary aside, urging readers to "consider the source," the Heartland Institute. I know nothing about it, but I can surmise it is possibly Koch funded, but certainly not even close to qualifying for Evil Legion of Evil membership. Are they even geeks anymore, or just SJW facsimiles?

Anonymous Krul March 22, 2015 7:05 AM  

Shimshon - It's rather pathetic that Slashdot's link to the article has a totally unnecessary aside, urging readers to "consider the source,"

Yeah, that reminds me of something at the Body Language Success blog (click to read).

Brown is writing about VP Joe Biden's awkward creeper body language when he writes this "Make a strong effort to separate yourself from the bias of politics." Underlined, no less. For some reason he doesn't feel the need to say that when he's writing something unflattering about a republican or celebrity or anyone who isn't a prominent D politician.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2015 March 22, 2015 7:06 AM  

The only statistic you need to know is that optimal plant growth for the life that exists on earth occurs somewhere about 1200 parts per million CO2.

Stomatal densities in fossil plants affirm the fact the earth's atmosphere was optimal in the past.

Mega fauna had big diets - there had to be denser plant growth on earth to sustain the size of the animals. One metre wing span dragon flies needed higher partial pressures of oxygen to live and has been found in fossil amber trapped bubbles.

You are the resistance. Trying to lower CO2 levels is like choking plants/ literally. Choking plants, choking animals, it is a death cult for fools

OpenID simplytimothy March 22, 2015 7:14 AM  

Like gun-control, they will not give up pushing this; they do attack, always. However, AGW appears to be on the ropes.
They will need something different for their ends. To that end, it is imperitive we recognize the properties of this lie as I suspect the next lie will envince most of the current properties we see today.

Here is a back-of-the-comment-box list


It is big, beyond any one country to control. The solution must be a global one and binding on all nations.
It is 'scientific'. i.e the scientific infrastructure gives it a veneer of legitimacy and obscurity.
It is a lie
Dissenters are ostracised, punished and threatened
It is secretive--the release of FOI.zip was the beginning of the end in that it crystalized a motive and plausible fraud.
It is political
It is a religious movement among the credentialed rabbits who lack the ability to reason.
It depends on a trust in scientists, government and 'science'
It is lucrative for 'the right people'
It is a drain on 'the wrong people'
It is urgent "we must act now!"
It is popular--children will urge us to save the planet, the earnest cat-lady at the recycle bin will not approve as I just dump trash.



Anonymous MrGreenMan March 22, 2015 7:34 AM  

If humans can so change the earth in under 300 years of industrialization, and yet things like burning whole forests for charcoal happened pre-industrialization, how does one avoid concluding that not only is TENS and human evolution with branching and descent wholly incompatible with AGW, but AGW most strongly implies something like YEC?

OpenID simplytimothy March 22, 2015 7:41 AM  

MrGreenMan's mention of a fact has revealed another property of these 'crisis' .

To my list, add
"It is Gamma"

Anonymous scoobius dubious March 22, 2015 7:43 AM  

I've never considered myself qualified (given my limited scientific education) to make a strict judgment on AGW on scientific grounds; but I have a sophisticated enough education in art and history, to know horseshit when I smell it.

What I find most damning about the whole thing is the perfectly predictable presence of The Usual Suspects. The people who yap that "the science is settled" are exactly the same set of people who thought Marxism was a "scientific" view of history. A clever 12-year-old can easily refute this absurd viewpoint, but people with Ph.D.'s in Nonsense spent their lives clinging to it.

The sociology of it tells me more than the science does.

Anonymous Rhys March 22, 2015 8:08 AM  

I don't buy into any kind of global warming however, there is an argument to be made that we haven't actually left the last Ice Age

Another, and more worrying scenario, I've read is that we're about to enter another ice age (or mini ice age) coupled with pole shift. There is far more evidence for this than AGW.

Anonymous anon123 March 22, 2015 8:09 AM  

And yet someone as rational as The Derb, a mathmatician and computer programmer is on record as siding with the scammers.

Blogger Vox March 22, 2015 8:13 AM  

Derb is smart, but he's a bit of a science fetishist. Give him enough white coats and credentials and his instincts are to sign on.

Anonymous Philipp March 22, 2015 8:19 AM  

You are absolutely right Vox. I can recommend Rupert Darwall's superb book "The Age of Global Warming: A History" to everybody.

Blogger wrf3 March 22, 2015 8:20 AM  

From the linked article: "Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth {280 ppm} back to 400 parts per million today."

Nature is finely balanced. Is it sensible that we unbalance things and, if so, how much margin do we have?

Anonymous Salt March 22, 2015 8:26 AM  

Applying the rubric MPAI and that people are happiest within the herd, how does one effectively deal with such Gaianesque mentality? Cull the herd of its leaders but the nature of the herd remains. I often consider whether it might be best to let it run off the cliff. It wouldn't be so bad if they were merely clucking around the barnyard, but as these people have a material effect on policy and policy is used to benefit government, all I see ahead is the cliff.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 22, 2015 8:33 AM  

Its a cult for white people with above average IQ but little more than the usual trainable specialist type mentality. They should be made to go to the conventions of the Democratic Party's racial blocs and try and convert them to their beliefs. But it won't happen since white conservatives love to play the "common enemy" instead of turning the political opposition against themselves.

I would personally love to see the video of Al Gore being eaten alive by the cannibal savages of Al Sharpton's little cult when he tells them "No more Escalades for you."

Blogger natschuster March 22, 2015 8:45 AM  

It seems to me that secular people, for some reason have the same need to believe in an eschatological era that religious people do. They use to say that communism will bring in a new era of lots of good stuff for workers. There was also the belief that science would make our lives better with flying cars and such in some golden future time, that was just a few decades away. Now there is this vision of an apocalyptic future of global warming. Why is this the case?

Blogger Student in Blue March 22, 2015 8:47 AM  

@Salt
My best guess is to fight culture with culture.
Bring a gun to a gunfight, a religion to a religious war, and your own culture to attempted culture hijacking.

That saying of "a person is smart, but people are dumb" seems to derive a very large portion from the social proofing that people operate on. They take their cues from what they think others believe. And I'm ballparking that MPAI is half social proofing and half the poor education of today.

@VD
A very minor correction, the line
No one who buys into the AGW/CC scam should be taken any more seriously than an economist who "invests in a Ponzi scheme.
doesn't have a closing quote mark. I'm guessing it should be "invests".

Anonymous Gary March 22, 2015 8:51 AM  

"I've never considered myself qualified (given my limited scientific education) to make a strict judgment on AGW on scientific grounds; but I have a sophisticated enough education in art and history, to know horseshit when I smell it."

When you can look out your window and it refutes what the global warming idiots are pushing the jig is pretty much up. It only hurts their cause when their claims becoming wilder and wilder for more press.

Only so many times you can scream the end is neigh... and it doesn't show up.

Anonymous Gary March 22, 2015 8:57 AM  

Again this is the perfect opportunity to stick the knife in with a sly smile among the sheep.

When asked to give report last week one nugget I popped in was "we are expecting 3-5 inches of global warming between Friday and Saturday" If you can mock the usual suspects pushing AGW in a way that can't be refuted you just might get people to think its all B.S. Connect what is going on in front of their very faces, people have short attention spans.

Blogger Corvinus March 22, 2015 9:03 AM  

Even the ice core data that AGW pushers try to use actually shows that CO2 lags, not leads, global temperatures. In other words, CO2 goes up or down after the global temperature does, not before it.

The only anomaly is within the last couple of hundred years, due to the industrial revolution, when CO2 went way up. But the temperature only went up very slightly, and not any different from random natural fluctuations.

The ice core data would thus appear to show that CO2 is actually not a greenhouse gas at all, or at the very most, an extraordinarily weak one.

Blogger Ben March 22, 2015 9:17 AM  

I always laugh when people ask me what I think about AGW/CC/whatever it's called these days.

What I *think* about it is irrelevant. What anyone thinks about it is irrelevant. Whether or not it is "real" doesn't matter because realistically, we can't do anything about it. It's not a problem of converting the heathen masses to believe, it is a problem of economics and technological advancement. Without those things it couldn't even be solved if it were real.

Al Gore can run his mouth and jet around the world till he's blue in the face. He's not making one damn of a difference fighting "climate change" unless he puts on his big boy pants, sits down and engineers a workable molten sodium/thorium reactor, sustainable fusion, 40 percent efficient solar, or a supercapacitor that can power a locomotive or a tractor for eight hours straight. And without government funding, because they're all broke as hell.

I won't believe "climate activists" until they start actually behaving like the sky is actually falling. If they're leisurely jetting off to SXSW to bitch to a bunch of neckbeards about "OMFG WE NEED TO PUNISH TEH SCIENCE DENIERSSS!!!1!, their actions are speaking louder than their words. And their argument is invalid.

Anonymous Homesteader March 22, 2015 9:43 AM  

I am in my mid 40' s. My life jas been punctuated by episodic environmental crises*. White men are the culprit in just about all of them. As a White man, I take great pride in my people's ability to alter the very firmament itself. Evidently, we are meant for Great things...

*1. Nuclear war/ MAD
2. Overpopulation/Soylent Green
3. Impending Ice Age
4. Ozone Hole
5. Acid Rain
6.Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/ No You Can't Have My Raw Data, You Denier You....

Anonymous Homesteader March 22, 2015 9:46 AM  

-has-

Blogger grendel March 22, 2015 9:50 AM  

"Nature is finely balanced"

Can you prove that? Evidence points to multiple previous near extinction events including meteor strikes, volcanos, massive floods, and many polar shifts. Can you demonstrate that humanity is able to temperature change on the scale that fluctuations in solar output cause? Or the change caused by an active volcano spewing gases smoke and dust into the jet stream?
Human-hating "Scientists" need nature to be in perfect balance so that they can claim that when natural disasters strike or species go extinct it was humanity's fault for unbalancing things. But they claim out the other side of their mouth that the earth's climate has undergone the most ludicrous contortions when they're arguing for TENS.

Anonymous Luke March 22, 2015 9:50 AM  

Every sincere environmentalist has already committed suicide. The rest are hypocrites. (A geologist who is pretty sure that global climate being significantly affected by humans is hooey.)

Anonymous takin' a look March 22, 2015 9:55 AM  

-Cataline Sergius

Yes we are in an Ice Age. This is merely an interglacial warm period. CO2 or no, we WILL be entering a glacial within a millenia.

The only way to prevent a glacial or end the Ice Age, will be to dig/nuke trenches down to the abyssal plains in four key areas: Panama, Suez, Sundaland Shelf and Sahel Shelf. Only a truly uninterrupted equatorial current can stave it off.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 22, 2015 10:13 AM  

The usual conservative conversation of facts in a race to see who is the smartest, but the most important word and fact was that Vox used the word "fraud."

Imagine that a conservative who wants to de legitimize the Left, oh my!

Anonymous Homesteader March 22, 2015 10:28 AM  

"Conservative Conversation of facts"

I know. Why use icky facts when there are Feelings!....

OpenID cailcorishev March 22, 2015 10:32 AM  

Derb is smart, but he's a bit of a science fetishist. Give him enough white coats and credentials and his instincts are to sign on.

Also, he looks at the denier/skeptic side (which all gets lumped together), and sees, along with some sensible folks, some who are shrill and obviously political, some who show ignorance of the topic, some who mix bible quotes in with their scientific claims, and so on. They don't fill him with confidence. The AGW side would be the same way, but doesn't have to be, because it owns the megaphones. So just as in the vaccination debate, the pro- side can sit back in their white coats and act like the only reasonable ones in the room, because they're in charge.

Anonymous cecilhenry March 22, 2015 10:35 AM  

The propaganda never ends. Just today the 'Weather network' keeps pushing its weekly update on climate change with sensationalist headlines about 'sea temps warming fastest ever' and Arctic ice lowest in 30 years. Both are not true. But so what?? 'Pravda' knows all!!!!

The real agenda:

The climate is changing!!!

So???

So Hands up!!! Gimme all your money.

That's the agenda. Tax, tax, tax. Take, take, take. NO more.

Anonymous Gary March 22, 2015 10:39 AM  

State of Fear introduction, Michael Crichton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGodDOLvBxw

Earth has been frozen and on fire long before man set foot on it. Only man would have the arrogance to think it should remain "just right" for himself.

The AGW fools are statists and anti-human or worse.

Anonymous sawtooth March 22, 2015 10:47 AM  

Ah, after yet another record setting winter cold season, the first signs of the spring thaw.
The first sighting of a robin redbreast.
The day is still light when you get off work.
Short sleeves' and...
AGW slugs oozing out from their under-rock hibernation.

The weather is heating up and the climate change alarmists can pick up on their propagandizing/scolding right where they left off last Fall.

Blogger Russell Morrison March 22, 2015 11:29 AM  

Everyone talks about the carbon emissions, but if human-generated carbon is a problem, then surely human-generated hydrogen, in the form of water, is also significant.

The two most prominent products of hydrocarbon combustion are carbon dioxide and water. If CO2 is important, so is the water. Is it possible that the extended drought in California is caused by the reduction in hydrogen emissions?

I'm not saying it's so, just wondering why the question isn't even being asked.

Blogger Russell Morrison March 22, 2015 11:29 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 22, 2015 11:46 AM  

Simple! You make up your own religion. And boy have they done so. AGW is a religion

It is amusing how closely AGW mirrors the typical atheist characature of a Christian church. I suspect it's because in the past, before SCIENCE! was popular, the nannymongering control-freaks, shameless con men, and blue-nosed scolds congregated in churches trying to hijack the agenda there. I have this image of a swarm of parasites that drift from one institution to another, using the damage their infestation had done to their previous host as justification for increasing the authority of their current host.

Brown is writing about VP Joe Biden's awkward creeper body language when he writes this "Make a strong effort to separate yourself from the bias of politics." Underlined, no less. For some reason he doesn't feel the need to say that when he's writing something unflattering about a republican or celebrity or anyone who isn't a prominent D politician.

Leftism is the politics of solipsists, so if you criticize one lefty, you criticize all lefties. Or at least all lefties will think you are criticizing them personally.

Another, and more worrying scenario, I've read is that we're about to enter another ice age.

We've been in an ice age (I prefer the name Pleistoene, but officially it's the Quaternary) for two and a half million years, with ten to fifteen thousand year warm periods like the current one happening every 100k years or so. We are about 12,000 years into this warm period. There's a very long winter coming soon.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni March 22, 2015 11:58 AM  

What evidence do we have that "greenhouse gasses" even exist? Greenhouses don't warm the air inside them because of some special characteristic of the glass, but only because the air can't circulate.
What experiment could we even design that would prove or disprove the standard version of global warming? Build another Earth-sized planet and run it forward to 1800 or thereabouts and let it run without petroleum use? Something that cannot be proven is not true. Tha predictions of AGW zealots are all based on such a span of time that they cannot be proven within the adult lifetime of anyone now living. Does not that raise a red flag?

I am tired of thinking of such nonsense. But I know that until AGW can be brought by ridicule or fact to the status of Nazism today, we will never be able to shut these craven criminal idiots up.

Anonymous Anonymous Cowherd March 22, 2015 12:04 PM  

Science fetishist ignore the fact that in the past the earth was hotter to support dinosaurs and that to maintain their large sizes the oxygen content of air was around the 25% mark rather than the current one of 20%. There are bacteria from that time who die when exposed to the current atmosphere.

Blogger Ghost March 22, 2015 12:10 PM  

I only need two pieces of evidence to prove to me it's bunk: how many times have they been dead wrong, and what's their solution. How many times have they been wrong? I'm pretty sure "every time", but I'll just say enough of their predictions have been the opposite of reality to make me question their ability to predict the future. And what is their solution? Give the power to the government; the same government that dammed the rivers, flooded valleys, detonated nuclear warheads, dropped deleted uranium all over the damn place... That's who they want protecting the environment?
That's like hiring Sandusky as a babysitter now. They're either incredibly stupid or lying.

Anonymous Rolf March 22, 2015 12:26 PM  

I use "AGW via CO2" as simply the most recent example of scientist getting things wrong when I introduce the scientific method to a class. Science =/= scientist, and they are not always right.

Blogger John Saunders March 22, 2015 12:28 PM  

Belief in CAGW can be reassuring and ego-stroking - if human beings are powerful enough to physically change the world, we can undo that change as well. In fact, if human beings can physically change the world, we can do anything.

Ironically, this perspective is very much in keeping with the John W. Campbell style-scifi technocratic Liberalism of 1880-1960, and very much opposed to the Gaianism that has dominated the Left ever since the emergence of the New Left and the Generation of '68.

Anonymous Miserman March 22, 2015 12:34 PM  

I always posit two questions when it comes to Climate Change.

First, if the ultimate result of Climate Change is natural disasters that will cause the death of millions of people, isn't that a good thing, given the idea of overpopulation?

Second, why are they so worried about Climate Change, don't they have faith that Natural Selection will sort everything out?

Blogger Noah B March 22, 2015 12:47 PM  

Global warmists are the televangelists of the left: we're all going to die from climate change, but we can be saved if we pay more taxes!

Blogger wrf3 March 22, 2015 1:30 PM  

Corvinus wrote: Even the ice core data that AGW pushers try to use actually shows that CO2 lags, not leads, global temperatures. In other words, CO2 goes up or down after the global temperature does, not before it.

From here: "While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2)."

Blogger wrf3 March 22, 2015 1:38 PM  

grendel asked: Can you prove that [nature is finely balanced]?

If the fine structure constant "were α to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were > 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the universe would be warm enough for life as we know it."

Evidence points to multiple previous near extinction events including meteor strikes, volcanos, massive floods, and many polar shifts.

Sure. But just because nature is resilient, doesn't mean that life as we know it is. Deprive your brain of oxygen for as little as 8 minutes and you're a vegetable. Just a little bit of cyanide and it's all over for you.

Can you demonstrate that humanity is able to temperature change on the scale that fluctuations in solar output cause? Or the change caused by an active volcano spewing gases smoke and dust into the jet stream?

That's not the issue. The issue is how much the system can change and still support us and whether or not we're pushing the system to a tipping point.

Human-hating "Scientists" need nature to be in perfect balance so that they can claim that when natural disasters strike or species go extinct it was humanity's fault for unbalancing things.

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just venting your spleen? Why, oh why, would you think that it's smart to unbalance a system? You don't do it with your tires, why would you want to do it with nature?

Blogger Noah B March 22, 2015 2:33 PM  

If the fine structure constant "were α to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce carbon...

As far as we know, is it actually possible to change the fine structure constant?

Blogger Noah B March 22, 2015 2:36 PM  

"Just a little bit of cyanide and it's all over for you."

And people ingest sublethal doses of cyanide all the time. A microscopic amount does not kill you.

Blogger wrf3 March 22, 2015 3:00 PM  

Noah B wrote: And people ingest sublethal doses of cyanide all the time. A microscopic amount does not kill you.

Sure. The body produces cyanide in small amounts. But, "Initial symptoms of cyanide poisoning can occur from exposure to 20 to 40 ppm of gaseous hydrogen cyanide..." and "Due to the variability of dose-response effects between individuals, the toxicity of a substance is typically expressed as the concentration or dose that is lethal to 50% of the exposed population (LC50 or LD50). The LC50 for gaseous hydrogen cyanide is 100-300 parts per million."

Non-lethal, to toxic, to deadly is a range of less than 100 ppm. Balance can be a precarious thing.

Blogger Vox March 22, 2015 3:09 PM  

And people ingest sublethal doses of cyanide all the time. A microscopic amount does not kill you.

Do try not to sperg pedantically all over the comments. He did not say "microscopic amount". He said "a little bit".

Anonymous Anubis March 22, 2015 4:25 PM  

The worse part is that its harder to adapt to the cold and the GW people are making everyone avoid thinking about adapting to it. If it gets warm enough to plant pineapples in Canada it wont be as bad as if it is too cold to grow potato's in FL. If its really hot the Stirling engines might make a come back for people other than hippies.

We had people arguing about putting their hands in boiling water before now people are arguing about how much cyanide they can drink, what is next a contest to see who can piss farthest into the wind?

Blogger Student in Blue March 22, 2015 4:55 PM  

@Anubis
[...]what is next a contest to see who can piss farthest into the wind?

Dude, I could get at least five feet. Easy.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 22, 2015 5:40 PM  

Do try not to sperg pedantically all over the comments. He did not say "microscopic amount". He said "a little bit".

True, but if we're going to compare the AGW catastrophe predictions to cyanide poisoning, wrf3 is freaking out over eating a handful of almonds.

Blogger Corvinus March 22, 2015 5:46 PM  

Brown is writing about VP Joe Biden's awkward creeper body language when he writes this "Make a strong effort to separate yourself from the bias of politics."

Biden is a straight white male Democrat... I'm sure we can all guess his sociosexual rank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy07yHAgM4E

Blogger Noah B March 22, 2015 5:47 PM  

The whole cyanide thing is a useless diversion. Point taken.

Blogger deadman March 22, 2015 7:29 PM  

'They' promote this vague notion of global warming; yet when it comes to one of the most significant environmental disasters of human history - Fukushima.
The silence is deafening...
Hell, the bastards even try to deny Fukushima has any impact.
Then for the Pacific, there's the Great Pacific garbage patch to consider as well.

However, when strictly discussing the notion of global warming; I've yet to see anyone accurately address outside factors (aside from Robert Felix that is).
Such as a weakening earthly magnetic field.
Coupled with unexpected solar activity (either heavy solar flares or a complete lack of solar flares).
Then throw in an increase in volcanic activity worldwide; both above & below sea.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though. "Progressives" are neurotic, control freaks at the end of the day.

Blogger grendel March 22, 2015 9:17 PM  

"Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just venting your spleen? Why, oh why, would you think that it's smart to unbalance a system? You don't do it with your tires, why would you want to do it with nature?"

Tires are an interesting metaphor because a car is designed, built, operated, and maintained by human intelligence. If planet were like a car, it would be designed/built/operated/maintained by an intelligence. Said intelligence could maintain conditions perfect for human life, or could choose to flood the place and kill everything, and there's precious little we could do about it. So let's set the tire metaphor aside as not useful for this specific discussion.

Now, you asked for evidence of my assertion that man hating scientists assume a stable environment on earth as a means of pushing an anti-human agenda. I offer up the spotted owl. The population of Oregon's spotted owls was seen to be declining, and in the absence of evidence the envirofascist lobby asserted that 1) The population should be stable and 2) The instability was human caused. They then, in keeping with their agenda, scapegoated logging. This did irreparable harm to many livelihoods and raised the market price of timber, but it didn't do the spotted owls a bit of good because what was actually killing them was nature, in the form of barn owls.

Now, with respect to your claims about nature in general being in balance, the fact that the sun has to burn in a certain temperature range or we'll all die doesn't get us very far. True, it does so at present. That doesn't guarantee that it always has or always will. But this is still a rabbit trail because it has nothing to do with whether humanity has, is, or even can affect the prevailing climate on earth. Even if we could, the AGW temperature hockey stick has been repeatedly proven to be a fabrication. Even if the data showed a clear trend, which it does not, it would be useless to undertake an effort to change the global temperature because we don't know whether the next 200 years will be hotter due to the sun or greenhouse emissions or cooler due to volcanic activity. AGW Apostles and their effort to destroy nearly every technology which has enabled the modern world to support 7b people are a clear threat to my children's ability to survive the future, whereas taking control of the climate into human hands is a pipe dream.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 22, 2015 9:43 PM  

"Within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," Dr David Viner senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) March 20, 2000"

I am going to have to put that on a T-shirt for the summertime. Funny how the solution for global warming is the same for global cooling, higher taxes.
" We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles " ~Thomas Edison capitalist
"I am going to make coal really expensive because blacks are not smart enough to live in a house heated by coal" Bath House Barry.

Blogger wrf3 March 22, 2015 9:58 PM  

grendel wrote: So let's set the tire metaphor aside as not useful for this specific discussion.

It's a metaphor. Specifically, it's a metaphor for any system, intelligently designed or not, that has to be in equilibrium for correct operation, and the dangers of getting out of equilibrium. Getting a system out of equilibrium is clearly something you don't want to think about, so you wave your hands to try and make it go away.

Now, you asked for evidence of my assertion that man hating scientists assume a stable environment on earth as a means of pushing an anti-human agenda. I offer up the spotted owl.

"However, jobs were already declining because of dwindling old-growth forest harvests and automation of the lumber industry. One study at the University of Wisconsin–Madison by environmental scientists argued that logging jobs had been in a long decline and that environmental protection was not a significant factor in job loss." ... "While timber interests and conservatives have cited the northern spotted owl as an example of excessive or misguided environmental protection, many environmentalists view the owl as an "indicator species," or "canary in a coal mine" whose preservation has created protection for an entire threatened ecosystem." ... "In 2004 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reaffirmed that the owl remained threatened, but indicated that the recognized causes of endangerment had changed, mostly as a result of invasion by barred owls into the range and habitat of the spotted owl."

That doesn't guarantee that it always has or always will.
We already know that it won't. We have to deal with the now.

But this is still a rabbit trail because it has nothing to do with whether humanity has, is, or even can affect the prevailing climate on earth.

The skeptic whose article Vox cited said, ""Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth {280 ppm} back to 400 parts per million today." So, clearly, we can effect the prevailing climate.

AGW Apostles and their effort to destroy nearly every technology which has enabled the modern world to support 7b people are a clear threat to my children's ability to survive the future...

The technology itself is a threat to our ability to survive the future. That doesn't mean we give up technology, but that we find cleaner ways to harness the power of the sun.

Do you really think that fouling our own nest -- currently our only nest -- is a sane way to live?

Anonymous meh March 22, 2015 11:23 PM  

I am in my mid 40' s. My life jas been punctuated by episodic environmental crises*. White men are the culprit in just about all of them. As a White man, I take great pride in my people's ability to alter the very firmament itself. Evidently, we are meant for Great things...

*1. Nuclear war/ MAD
2. Overpopulation/Soylent Green
3. Impending Ice Age
4. Ozone Hole
5. Acid Rain
6.Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/ No You Can't Have My Raw Data, You Denier You....


Don't forget Nuclear Winter, which was spun off from "1. Nuclear war/ MAD".

Of course the Nuclear Winter moral panic was wrapped up in late Cold War western democratic politics so it's a bit more complicated than a straight forward environmental moral panic.

A bit pointless, too, since a full-on nuclear exchange between the USSR and the USA would have killed so many people (not just directly through nuclear explosions, but indirectly through the destruction/disruption of the highly complex infrastructure that keeps billions of people fed every day) that the survivors would have had more immediate things to worry about than just a long period of cooling/limited sunlight. If Nuclear Winter were true it would simply mean that we would be somewhat more screwed than we would be if not true. The important thing was to avoid the full-on nuclear exchange in the first place. Which we did, but not by means of unilateral Western disarmament which is what the promoters of Nuclear Winter wanted.

Blogger grendel March 22, 2015 11:28 PM  

"Getting a system out of equilibrium is clearly something you don't want to think about, so you wave your hands to try and make it go away."

This is inconsistent with my statements.

"So, clearly, we can effect the prevailing climate."

This is a bait and switch. You've proven that man has raised carbon dioxide levels and then left unspoken the assumption that raising CO2 levels by that amount has in fact raised the temperature, when the data shows otherwise. You claim that I should be very concerned about the system becoming unstable when there is no evidence that the system has deviated from the normal range at all, let alone enough to be a danger.

I'm not against developing alternate forms of energy, but I'm not going to discuss that in this thread because it's a seperate and large subject which you've only dragged in here as a diversion. You argue like a little kid being drug off to bed and grabbing onto every doorway and table leg on the way. This thread is about the fact that temperature data doesn't support AGW/CC, and you've drug in car tires, solar panels, and the sun's generation of carbon. That's three for me, and I'm out.

Blogger Eric March 23, 2015 7:26 AM  

For those calling out Derb, his actual position sound pretty reasonable to me: "affirmative on warming, guardedly affirmative on the causes being human activity, negative on alarmism, hysteria, and grand globalist projects to fix the problem, if it is a problem."

It is the calls to "fix" the problem that are the most dangerous.

Anonymous Anonymous March 23, 2015 8:12 AM  

They were not the people believing in flying cars and trips to the moon back then, they were the beat generation, the Marxist cell leaders, and other America haters, generally. The latter is cut from the same cloth as the global warming crowd - green is the new red.

Blogger wrf3 March 23, 2015 8:18 AM  

grendel wrote: This is inconsistent with my statements.

You wrote: "So let's set the tire metaphor aside as not useful for this specific discussion." So no inconsistency at all. You don't want to consider systems that go out of equilibrium.

This is a bait and switch. You've proven that man has raised carbon dioxide levels and then left unspoken the assumption that raising CO2 levels by that amount has in fact raised the temperature, when the data shows otherwise.

Again, see here. The money quote: "While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase."

You claim that I should be very concerned about the system becoming unstable when there is no evidence that the system has deviated from the normal range at all, let alone enough to be a danger.

That's not what I said. I said we should be very concerned about the system becoming unstable because we are out of balance with the system. We're putting more CO2 into the system than is being taken out. This is leading to warming, ocean acidification, ...

which you've only dragged in here as a diversion.

You're the one who brought it up with "AGW Apostles and their effort to destroy nearly every technology which has enabled the modern world to support 7b people are a clear threat to my children's ability to survive the future..."

Anonymous Jack Amok March 24, 2015 3:15 AM  

We're putting more CO2 into the system than is being taken out. This is leading to warming,

That's an assertion, not a fact. Actually, it's two assertions. Growing plants suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, and aggriculture grows a lot of plants. All those acres of farmland irrigated out of the California (and Nevada, and Oregon, and Idaho...) deserts are absorbing a lot more CO2 that the scrub that used to cover it did.

So it's speculation on your part that we're actually pumping more free CO2 into the system than we are pulling out with our horrid civlization activities, and it's speculation on your part that adding CO2 to the system causes warming.

Blogger wrf3 March 24, 2015 9:21 AM  

Jack Armok wrote: That's an assertion, not a fact.

It's based on what the article referenced by Vox said: "Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today." and "... we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted."

This is data from the skeptic. So, at worst, it's "appeal to [hostile] authority."

All those acres of farmland irrigated out of the California (and Nevada, and Oregon, and Idaho...) deserts are absorbing a lot more CO2 that the scrub that used to cover it did.

On the other hand, global deforestation proceeds apace. Have we replaced the flora that we've destroyed? Are we in, or out, of balance?

it's speculation on your part that adding CO2 to the system causes warming.

Again, you can actually look at the data, e.g. here.

Anonymous Anonymous Cowherd March 24, 2015 12:04 PM  

Climate change could make steak worse

Climate change could make steak and other foods taste worse possibly curing the obesity problem.

Blogger Akulkis March 25, 2015 12:45 AM  

Wrf3, quit being a concern-troll loser.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts