Everything You Know About Alternative Energy is Wrong

A trio of articles published in the last week blow the doors off everything the media has been telling us about alternative energy. The first two are from Bjorn Lomborg, the economist who accepts that global warming is real but rails against top-down economy-crushing solutions (his “Cool It!” documentary is worth a look).

First, the electric car: the salvation to our energy and climate woes. How is that doing? Certainly it must be … oh:

While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.

To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: “Don’t Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much.”

For an electric car to have net environmental benefit, you would have to drive it for 90,000 miles between battery changes and get all your electricity from carbon-free sources. Even then, you’ve only cut 24% off the emission of a similar gas-powered car. Frankly, I think engineering more efficient gasoline engines would be a more practical way of cutting emissions. And we’re subsidizing this crap to the tune of thousands of dollars per car.

Well, you say, maybe the electric car isn’t as huge a thing as we thought it would be. But we have to subsidize green tech and put cap-in-trade in place. Look how well it’s working in Europe!

Yeah, about that:

Yesterday, we saw how Great Britain’s much-hyped carbon reductions have simply been exported to China.

The same holds true for the much of the developed world 1990-2008. We see how the US has increased its territorial (domestic) CO2 emissions, but Europe has reduced its emissions, as has the Former Soviet Union (rest of Annex B). The reductions in the FSU are mainly from the collapse in 1991. But the much vaulted EU reduction is exactly the same as the increased CO2 emissions import just from China. Overall, the EU emissions have increased, not as the national accounts seem to indicate, decreased.

This matters because when nations claim to be able to cut CO2, it often simply means that they have exported the CO2 emissions to somewhere else, leaving them feeling better, but obviously with no real environmental benefit.

Actually the evil, capitalist United States is seeing CO2 emissions fall in real terms as we switch from coal power to gas power. And economically, the greenhouse emissions per dollar of GDP has fallen dramatically owing to improvements in the technology of household appliances, computers and lighting — stuff companies are investing in anyway.

So, subsidized tech isn’t saving the planet. But hey! At least it will stimulate the economy. After all, if we don’t go all-in, we’ll stay behind the Chinese in … oh:

So China must hold a massively large trade surplus in clean energy with America, right? Quite the opposite, finds a striking report titled “Advantage America” released on March 6th. The two countries traded about $6.5 billion in solar, wind and smart-grid technology and services in 2011—and America sold $1.63 billion more of such kit to China than it imported from there. The analysis was done by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), an industry publisher, and funded the Pew Charitable Trusts, a charity.

So let’s summarize. Continuing to pressure Americans to use alternative energy and subsidize alternative energy is not cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The European model on which these policies are based is only shifting greenhouse gas emissions. And they really can’t be justified economically as some “green energy boom” because we are already exporting the clean energy technology that is actually useful.

So why do we need to do this? Oh, yeah. Wealthy donors need to have their businesses propped up. And here I was thinking it was about the science.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000 *

    The thing is that electric cars have limited uses. As this article points out (http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/08/20/there-is-no-better-battery/) batteries are a pretty shitty source of energy compared to fossil fuels. They can barely deliver the punch needed to move a car, let alone a trailer truck, a train, a plane or a freight ship. I think wind and solar have their place and can contribute. But the more I look at this, the more I think nuclear and/or carbon sequestration is the key.

    Thumb up 0

  2. ScottE

    Of course they are a storage medium for energy, not a source. Electric cars scoot along pretty well (tesla roadster) but for a limited time until your next charge. Battery storage density per pound and per cubic foot will be the limiting factor for the foreseeable future.

    Now that we live in Frack Nation, bring back the natural gas cars without the stupid subsidies. (that was back when people cared about pollution (particulates, noxious fumes) instead of carbon, how primitive we were just 2 decades ago!)

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    What about those of us that have been saying for a very long time that the stories where all wrong? Do we get to say “I told you so” now?

    If the electric car was such a big deal it would have by now not needed massive government subsidy, regulation, and coercion to sell it.

    AI have always said that if the cult of AGW was for real, they would have replaced energy generation everywhere with nukes, and volunteered to go do so in growing countries like China, India, and other such Asian nations. Tht they did not was an immediate give away to me that this was just another scheme to do the whole one world government thing and then cull people to save Gaia.

    Thumb up 5

  4. Mississippi Yankee

    Electric cars have been around for almost 200 years. Their limitations have never been overcome, and frankly never will be.
    Just a little history:
    http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html

    ScottE,
    If you want to go with LPG as an automotive fuel you first must re-design the internal combustion engine.
    Myself and others here have pointed out the senseless destruction that natural gas conversions did to gas engines during the late 70’s -very early 80’s. It was a knee jerk reaction to real or imagined foreign oil shortages. Thank you Jimmah.

    Hal,
    As I write this, 40 miles north of this HQ,there is a spanking new, and still shiny, coal gasifacation electric power plant. The legal battle with the federal govt have been fierce. It would seem the one campaign promise prezbo intends to keep is to kill the coal industry. Clean coal technology be damned. And the is the heart of coal country.

    I also have a dog in the fight for nuclear energy too. My oldest son heads up the crew that upgrades and refits nuclear reactors. A province that was solely dominated by the French until 5 or six years ago. He will never run out of work, never.

    But IMO the poster children for “Crony Capitalism” in this country is solar and wind power. Just to power this little 1200 person town the solar array would be enormous. With good farm land beneath Chinese made panels. And as for wind power, even the dumb-asses in the EU are backing away and quickly too. Germany has stopped erecting them for the foreseeable future. Think about that for a moment, if German engineering can’t make them a viable source of power how do suppose Obama Bucks will do any better?
    Can you say off-shore tax haven? Of course you can.

    Thumb up 6

  5. CM

    AI have always said that if the cult of AGW was for real, they would have replaced energy geneartion everywhere with nukes, and volunteered to go do so in growing countries like China, India, and other such Asian nations. Tht they did not was an immediate give away to me that this was just another scheme to do the whole one world government thing and then cull people to save Gaia.

    There we go Hal and AGW. In. Your. Face. You just can’t hope to compete with that sort of logic.

    Hot! Thumb up 4

  6. CM

    My verdict

    The authors of this new paper are evidently not saying that electric cars are “bad” for the environment in all circumstances, but they are confirming what many already knew: that as electric cars become more popular – which is being encouraged by policymakers across many countries – we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that the carbon intensity of the electricity used to power them is key. Another crucially important factor to monitor (and, hopefully, ameliorate) is just how energy- and resource-intensive the production of these vehicles can be.

    The problem for electric cars is that they will only increase their environmental credentials (compared to “conventional” cars) once more and more of them are made and used, which, in itself, will drive faster and deeper innovation in battery technology, production efficiencies and end-of-life recyclability. It’s somewhat unfair to compare them to conventional cars at present because they are an immature, fledgling technology, but the opportunity for increased efficiency throughout their lifecycle seems significant as/if they become more popular.

    But a bigger problem, perhaps, is that their environmental “success” hangs largely on factors beyond their manufacturers’ control. As has been shown in China, electric cars powered by electricity generated through the burning of coal and oil make very little environmental sense. They need to run off a low-carbon, “smart” grid where renewables and nuclear do much of the heavy lifting. So policy-makers have a twin challenge if they want to see more people driving electric cars: they need to ensure a low-carbon, smart grid is delivered and they need to assist manufacturers in bringing down the cost of these vehicles. Doing that in a synchronised and timely manner is going to be hard, but a prize worth reaching for.

    Thumb up 1

  7. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3

  8. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  9. Hal_10000 *

    CM, I think there is some research showing that people who buy EV’s and hybrids have a tendency to use more energy in other contexts, i.e. they do have a sort of plenary indulgence effect.

    Thumb up 10

  10. AlexInCT

    CM, I think there is some research showing that people who buy EV’s and hybrids have a tendency to use more energy in other contexts, i.e. they do have a sort of plenary indulgence effect.

    Most of these EVs are powered by electricity generated from burning fossile fuels. The physics are very simple to look at, but it boils down to the fact that the combusion engine is far more efficient at generating the energy to move the vehicle in question than the process of generating, trasnporting, and recharging electricity in an EV. I remember reading that we are looking at an almost 7 to 1 ratio, if not higher depending on the type of fuel and the other factors such as age of the plant, transportation efficiency, and effective storage conversion, of efficiency, making the EV vehicle a far more environmentally unsound proposition. But don’t let that shit get in the way of the cultists. They will just spam you with a ton of concensus science garbage and pretend you are the ludite for daring to speak up against them.

    Look, the truth is that all the AGW conferences now are nothing but expensive tax payer paid vacations for massive CO2 generating elites to go to and eat lobster, caviar, and choice cut steaks, while drinking champagne, and tell us rubes we should live like cavemen. Fuck the lot of them.

    Thumb up 8

  11. Hal_10000 *

    Look, the truth is that all the AGW conferences now are nothing but expensive tax payer paid vacations for massive CO2 generating elites to go to and eat lobster, caviar, and choice cut steaks, while drinking champagne, and tell us rubes we should live like cavemen. Fuck the lot of them.

    Holy crap, Alex, we agree on something in AGW!!! :) I also noticed that they always pass laws to reduce global warming by 2080, by which point they will all be, technically speaking, dead.

    Thumb up 4

  12. AlexInCT

    Holy crap, Alex, we agree on something in AGW!!! :) I also noticed that they always pass laws to reduce global warming by 2080, by which point they will all be, technically speaking, dead.

    That whole passing laws that do harsh things long after the politician/slave lord is able to be held accountable sounds familiar. Hmmm, where have I seen a lot of that recently. Oh yeah! Look at the proposed cuts, the few that really exist, in the US non-budget, budget predictions, and you will see a lot of that there too. All that means is it will never happen.

    Thumb up 5

  13. CM

    CM, I think there is some research showing that people who buy EV’s and hybrids have a tendency to use more energy in other contexts, i.e. they do have a sort of plenary indulgence effect

    I’m sorry? Even if that’s true, how is that any sort of evidence for your assertion?

    But don’t let that shit get in the way of the cultists. They will just spam you with a ton of concensus science garbage and pretend you are the ludite for daring to speak up against them.

    You should certainly ignore those who misrepresent research. And who misrepresent what consensus means in this context. And those who simply won’t accept basic scientific principles and concepts where it may conflict with their political beliefs.

    Holy crap, Alex, we agree on something in AGW!!! :) I also noticed that they always pass laws to reduce global warming by 2080, by which point they will all be, technically speaking, dead.

    Yes, just because the whole thing is extremely complicated and there are no quick fixes or easy answers, it’s best we keep our collective heads in the sand. Let’s all just repeat the mantra: “Well I’m not responsible”.

    Thumb up 0

  14. CM

    BTW here is the study:
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full

    Conclusion:

    We provide a new level of transparency and detail to the ongoing public discussion on the life cycle merits of EVs relative ICEVs. The production, use, and end of life of these two technologies were inventoried in a manner ensuring an appropriate comparison. The production phase of EVs proved substantially more environmentally intensive. Nonetheless, substantial overall improvements in regard to GWP, TAP, and other impacts may be achieved by EVs powered with appropriate energy sources relative to comparable ICEVs. However, it is counterproductive to promote EVs in regions where electricity is produced from oil, coal, and lignite combustion. The electrification of transportation should be accompanied by a sharpened policy focus with regard to life cycle management, and thus counter potential setbacks in terms of water pollution and toxicity. EVs are poised to link the personal transportation sector together with the electricity, the electronic, and the metal industry sectors in an unprecedented way. Therefore the developments of these sectors must be jointly and consistently addressed in order for EVs to contribute positively to pollution mitigation efforts.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Mississippi Yankee

    CM,

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.” – Cicero, 42 B.C.

    This IS a spam war right?

    Thumb up 6

  16. CM

    Yes but I bet he had little time for those who say black helicopters in every direction at all times…..

    This IS a spam war right?

    Is that how you see any discussion that doesn’t all immediately fall in line with what you know and believe?
    If you can’t even cope with people being reasonable……sheesh.

    Thumb up 3

  17. Mississippi Yankee

    Care to compare blocked comments… or just down-votes for that matter?

    Hell I’m only one person.

    ♪ ♫ Spam Me Baby One More Time♫♪

    Thumb up 3

  18. Miguelito

    CM, I think there is some research showing that people who buy EV’s and hybrids have a tendency to use more energy in other contexts, i.e. they do have a sort of plenary indulgence effect.

    This sounds like a lot of the thinking process for most liberals to me. They’re super generous with other people’s money, seemingly because they’re so selfish in their own lives. But since they advocate for the use of taxes to “help” those in need, then they’ve done their bit and don’t need to donate their own money/time/stuff to others.

    I’m not religious and don’t tithe, and I’m not exactly Mr. Super Duper Generous but I help out family, friends and people around me a lot. I don’t see it as the duty of gov’t to use mine (and other’s) hard earned dollars to do what most of us can (and probably should, but it’s our choice) do ourselves, with far less negative impact on our lives.

    Thumb up 5

  19. CM

    Care to compare blocked comments… or just down-votes for that matter?

    Sure. But on what basis? On the number of them, or what the comments actually contain. I bet I know which you’ll choose.

    When I simply link the actual study and question and quote the conclusion, what meaning do we take from 0 upvotes and 2 downvotes?

    Or when I link to a discussion on the report speciically for Hal and it gets 0 upvotes and 5 downvotes?

    The blocked comments contain nothing abusive or off-topic. One of them is simply the summary of the study Hal references, and it gets 1 upvote and 8 downvotes. What do we conclude from that?

    Hell I’m only one person.

    Right. You’d need to ask the others why they do what they do. Or you could just call me dishonest again and pick up some more upvotes and mob applause. If that’s how you measure things.

    ♪ ♫ Spam Me Baby One More Time♫♪

    I remember when I was 5 years old and I thought saying “I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?” to everything was just the most amazing and brilliant and intelligent thing EVER.

    Thumb up 2

  20. Mississippi Yankee

    Or you could just call me dishonest again and pick up some more upvotes and mob applause.

    Why do you suppose that is? Do other people find your demeanor dishonest too?

    ♪ ♫ Spam Me Baby One More Time♫♪

    Naw, I’m just a Brittney Spears fan.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    This sounds like a lot of the thinking process for most liberals to me. They’re super generous with other people’s money, seemingly because they’re so selfish in their own lives. But since they advocate for the use of taxes to “help” those in need, then they’ve done their bit and don’t need to donate their own money/time/stuff to others.

    That seems to be the common thinking process around here about what the thinking process for most liberals. I obviously can’t speak for most liberals, and certainly none in the US, but I believe the thinking process for most liberals is probably the same as it is for most conservatives – it’s based on how they believe their society should be structured. Rather than what’s in it for them personally, or so they can be less generous.

    For example I consider that government spending on infrastructure (transparent, accountable, and after appropriate cost/benefit analyses) is good for capitalism because it facilitates competition (by lowering barriers to the competition). I don’t think it’s good simply because it means that I don’t have to pay so much.

    I certainly don’t personally know of any liberals that don’t come at it from that perspective (and are “so selfish in their own lives”). I can only imagine the reaction to a liberal coming here and saying the equivalent.

    An MIT study last year found that conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities.

    I don’t see it as the duty of gov’t to use mine (and other’s) hard earned dollars to do what most of us can (and probably should, but it’s our choice) do ourselves, with far less negative impact on our lives.

    I largely agree. Govt should only be spending money on things that people can’t do themselves. However treating the planet as though it’s an oven has (and will increasingly have) negative impacts on most people on the planet. People aren’t going to do anything about that on their own.

    Thumb up 3

  22. CM

    Why do you suppose that is? Do other people find your demeanor dishonest too?

    I’m sure some here will sign up to any sort of explanation that puts me in a bad light. There is a constant and very strong echo chamber effect here.
    You’d have to explain more about this “dishonest demeanor” theory before I can hope to understand it. What does quoting from a referenced report say about my “demeanor” (tot he point where it gets so many downthumbs that it becomes hidden)? What have I done in this thread that is dishonest in your view?
    To me, dishonesty is blatantly making accusations and then failing to back them up (and I’m not just talking about me) That’s just shitty behaviour, in anyone’s world. I’m sure you wouldn’t do that in your real life. Why does being on the internet make it ok?

    Of course the ongoing irony is that those who profess to be strongest supporters of the freedom to express ideas actively go to the trouble to enable comments to be hidden. That is just gold.

    Thumb up 1

  23. Miguelito

    Rather than what’s in it for them personally, or so they can be less generous.

    From my own experience, they don’t do it so that they can be less generous, they already are less generous. They then push for gov’t to take care of everyone out of what seems like a sense of guilt. Similar to the so-called “liberal guilt” that pushes many to fight for things like Affirmative Action to atone for some perceived sins or sins of their fathers.

    For example I consider that government spending on infrastructure (transparent, accountable, and after appropriate cost/benefit analyses) is good for capitalism because it facilitates competition (by lowering barriers to the competition). I don’t think it’s good simply because it means that I don’t have to pay so much.

    I don’t disagree, as long as it’s spending within reason of course. I was referring more to the welfare and entitlement type programs. Things like national defense, police, infrastructure, I don’t see anyone (well, for the most part) arguing against those as legitimate functions of gov’t.

    I’ll have to read the methods used in that MIT study as pretty much every other one has shown (in the US at least) that conservatives tend to be far more generous with their own money and time then liberals.

    Thumb up 6

  24. CM

    From my own experience, they don’t do it so that they can be less generous, they already are less generous.

    You’re confident you have enough information to reach those sorts of conclusions? Who are the people you’re talking about – are they people you know personally? What specifically do you know about that makes it obvious they are “less generous”?

    As noted above, an MIT study last year found that conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities. If that’s true, how does this “less generous” characteristic manifest itself, if it doesn’t show up at the macro level?

    They then push for gov’t to take care of everyone out of what seems like a sense of guilt. Similar to the so-called “liberal guilt” that pushes many to fight for things like Affirmative Action to atone for some perceived sins or sins of their fathers.

    I have no doubt that this does happen. But so long as we acknowledge one thing doesn’t automatically mean the other. I support some affirmative action, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s based on some sort of ‘guilt’. I can support measures that seek to stop the ongoing increase in income inequality, but that doesn’t mean I do it for reasons of “fairness” or similar, it’s based on having a more sustainable and stable economic system.

    I don’t disagree, as long as it’s spending within reason of course. I was referring more to the welfare and entitlement type programs. Things like national defense, police, infrastructure, I don’t see anyone (well, for the most part) arguing against those as legitimate functions of gov’t.

    I should say that I would also criticise any liberals who vote that way but aren’t generous (appropriate to their own position obviously). I just don’t agree that it’s “most liberals” (but again, I’m speculating).

    I’ll have to read the methods used in that MIT study as pretty much every other one has shown (in the US at least) that conservatives tend to be far more generous with their own money and time then liberals.

    It does seem to be a question of methodology. From my link:

    …Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, frequently claims that conservative Americans are more generous with their charitable giving than their liberal counterparts.

    Michele Margolis and Michael Sances note that Brooks’ conclusion comes from a dataset that doesn’t really ask how conservative people are politically so much as how conservative they are socially. Using a dataset which uses more traditional questions to test political beliefs – the General Social Survey – they found no statistically significant relationship between peoples’ political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level. And this held at the state level too. There was no significant relationship between a state’s level of giving and the vote share that Bush received in that state in 2004.

    However, they did find that there was a strong relationship between political beliefs and what kind of giving people engaged in.

    It really does seem to depend on how and what you include.

    Link the actual paper (downloadable as PDF)

    Thumb up 0

  25. AlexInCT

    From my own experience, they don’t do it so that they can be less generous, they already are less generous. They then push for gov’t to take care of everyone out of what seems like a sense of guilt.

    ^^^^^ THIS!

    Every single lib I know. Oh, most of them will deny it until you corner them with logic, and even then, they will not admit it, but that’s what it comes down to.

    Thumb up 5

  26. ilovecress

    That makes a lot of sense Alex. I used to think that there were competing ideas on how best to run societies and economies, and people debated how best to translate those ideas into workable policy depending on the complexities of the myriad of different systems across different societies in the world at specific point in time.

    But it’s probably the guilt thing.

    Thumb up 2

  27. AlexInCT

    That makes a lot of sense Alex. I used to think that there were competing ideas on how best to run societies and economies, and people debated how best to translate those ideas into workable policy depending on the complexities of the myriad of different systems across different societies in the world at specific point in time.

    But it’s probably the guilt thing.

    Well, ilovecress, you do know that you can do all the things you mentioned and still feel guilty because after all the debating you do nothing practical or worthy with it? Maybe I should get to know you better if you truly do more than just chat about making things better and roll up your sleeves and do it yourself.

    BTW, I know a lib that tells me since he volunteers a few times a year to work at the soup kitchen, he does his part, and that’s why he is OK letting government do the heavy lifting for other things he doesn’t. I am not judging, but when I made him talk more he admitted to still feeling guilty.

    Thumb up 4

  28. ilovecress

    Alex – you need to get better friends and co workers. It’s not that the people you speak to are liberals, it’s that they are idiots.

    I’m not overly generous, but I do my bit. I do quite a bit of (unpaid) work for a few charities, and I can’t remember the last time I wasn’t sponsoring someone to run/bike/swim/shave their head. I’m sure there are people way more generous than me, and way more charitable than me – and those people have my respect.

    But that’s got nothing to do with my opinion on the systemic changes that can benefit society. It’s my opinion that income inequality is bad for society overall. But that opinion is in no way affected by whether or not I gave the homeless guy a dollar or not. I don’t want to see global action on Climate Change because I feel guilty about the type of light bulbs I buy – it’s because I like my bach on dry land, rather than under water.

    Thumb up 1

  29. CM

    But that’s got nothing to do with my opinion on the systemic changes that can benefit society. It’s my opinion that income inequality is bad for society overall. But that opinion is in no way affected by whether or not I gave the homeless guy a dollar or not. I don’t want to see global action on Climate Change because I feel guilty about the type of light bulbs I buy – it’s because I like my bach on dry land, rather than under water.

    Precisely.
    But as I already said much the same thing, it’s like banging your head against a wall.
    If someone wants to see all people they disagree with as selfish retarded arseholes, there’s a good possibility they NEED to do so to justify their own beliefs/situation. Not necessarily so, but I’m sure there’s a pretty decent fit there.

    Thumb up 1

  30. AlexInCT

    Alex – you need to get better friends and co workers.

    Tell me about it bro. Unfortunately sometimes you do not get a choice.

    It’s not that the people you speak to are liberals, it’s that they are idiots.

    I knew I liked you for some reason :)

    I’m not overly generous, but I do my bit. I do quite a bit of (unpaid) work for a few charities, and I can’t remember the last time I wasn’t sponsoring someone to run/bike/swim/shave their head. I’m sure there are people way more generous than me, and way more charitable than me – and those people have my respect.

    I wish the liberals I have to deal with where a fraction of the person you are dude.

    But that’s got nothing to do with my opinion on the systemic changes that can benefit society. It’s my opinion that income inequality is bad for society overall.

    Would it suprise you to find out that I feel the same, but that where we differ is the belief that wealth redistribution is ever the right answer?

    Thumb up 3

  31. ilovecress

    Would it suprise you to find out that I feel the same, but that where we differ is the belief that wealth redistribution is ever the right answer?

    Not at all, but I don’t think that our differences are anything to do with how many stray cat shelters we fund or the number of hobo teas we make.

    Thumb up 2

  32. Iconoclast

    I don’t want to see global action on Climate Change because I feel guilty about the type of light bulbs I buy – it’s because I like my bach on dry land, rather than under water.

    And I don’t want to see “global action” period, because I have little reason to believe that any proposed “cure” won’t be worse than the alleged “disease”. You may be utterly convinced that our only alternatives are “being underwater” or “global action” (and only God knows what form that would take), but frankly, I see that as a false dichotomy. I don’t particularly care if “science sez” that the Earth is warming, or that it’s all my fault. I really don’t.

    If the God of Christianity exists, then He has a plan that overrides and utterly trumps whatever plans humanity might make. If there is no God, then I say let Natural Selection do its work, even if it means the end of humanity. The universe won’t give a rat’s ass if we’re gone, so why should I?

    In the mean time, the Al Gores of this world are jetting from one Climate Change Gala to another (while raking in Oil Money from the sale of Current TV), in order to yammer on about that “global action” y’all think is so necessary, which, again, I am convinced will only have a negative impact on my personal life. Ban incandescents, ban internal combustion engines, ban ban ban, for the Greater Good, of course. Take my hard-earned money in the form of carbon taxes or whatever, and what is the payoff, again? Your great-great-grandchildren won’t be living “under water”, assuming they ever would have in the first place.

    I simply see this never-ending “crisis” as a perfect opportunity for the powers-that-be to erect whatever dystopian “utopia” they care to conceive.

    Thumb up 4

  33. CM

    If the God of Christianity exists, then He has a plan that overrides and utterly trumps whatever plans humanity might make.

    So there is no free will in how we treat the planet? If God exists, we can do what we like to the planet, because it must be his plan? Isn’t that simply a complete abdication of responsibility?
    Don’t we have any responsibility to future generations?

    Take my hard-earned money in the form of carbon taxes or whatever, and what is the payoff, again? Your great-great-grandchildren won’t be living “under water”, assuming they ever would have in the first place.

    Or another way to look at it: why should your great-great-grandchildren have to heavily subsidise your lifestyle (via a severely degraded planet), by suffering the costs you’re incurring but are unwilling to pay yourself?

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    This is what I don’t understand: there are people who lecture constantly in one or another about people being responsible for their actions (and this seems to form a fundamental part of their political and life philsophy), and yet they ceasefully mock and ridicule even the notion that we should act responsibly in how we treat the environment/planet. How is it any different?

    Thumb up 0

  35. Iconoclast
    If the God of Christianity exists, then He has a plan that overrides and utterly trumps whatever plans humanity might make.

    So there is no free will in how we treat the planet? If God exists, we can do what we like to the planet, because it must be his plan?

    I am simply at a loss to understand how my statement could possibly lead to such an absurd line of questioning. Do you not comprehend the meaning of such words as “override” and “trump”? Why would I use such words if I were claiming that whatever man did was “in God’s plan”???

    And why would you ask about free will? What part of “whatever plans humanity might make” negates free will?

    The point is simply that whatever plans man might make will be superceded when God decides to enact His plan (second coming, millennial reign and so forth), but until then, man is quite free to play god any way he wants.

    Assuming the Christian God exists, of course, for the sake of argument.

    Isn’t that simply a complete abdication of responsibility?

    No, that is simply a complete straw man argument.

    Or another way to look at it: why should your great-great-grandchildren have to heavily subsidise your lifestyle (via a severely degraded planet), by suffering the costs you’re incurring but are unwilling to pay yourself?

    You can just keep on preaching and pontificating about “good faith” discussion all you want, but when you use such utterly loaded rhetoric as this, your pontifications ring hollow. You act as if it is an established fact that the Earth of Tomorrow will be “a severely degraded planet”, but we simply do not know that to be the case. You personally might be utterly convinced. The “science” may be utterly convincing, but science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again in the future. “Science” has been telling me the sky is falling for decades, now.

    And who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to tell me that unborn generations have some sort of claim on my life? You seem to be pronouncing me guilty of some sort of crime, just for living my life, and acting extremely judgemental in your pronouncements. And yet you want to pontificate about “good faith” discussion…

    This is what I don’t understand: there are people who lecture constantly in one or another about people being responsible for their actions (and this seems to form a fundamental part of their political and life philsophy), and yet they ceasefully mock and ridicule even the notion that we should act responsibly in how we treat the environment/planet. How is it any different?

    The difference is individuality versus collectivism. We are indeed instructed by God to be good stewards of this Earth, and I have no problem with individuals doing what they can to make the world a better place. What I have a problem with is government action and government mandates, which is simply a manifestation of collectivism. It basically boils down to how much you trust people as individuals versus how much you trust people as a collective, in the form of a government bureaucracy. My money is on the former.

    There are people who seek power, and will use the crisis-du-jour to obtain it. That is the danger of AGW in the here-and-now, but I realize you will never be convinced of that. You are sooooo convinced that the Earth of Tomorrow is a blistering wasteland that you simply cannot have a conversation outside of that assumption, by all appearances.

    And I repeat, if there is no God and we are indeed on our own, then explain to me why I should care about future generations when I have no kids of my own, and therefore have no genetic dog in the race, so to speak? My genes end with my survival machine, my phenotype, so what possible “kin selection” mechanism could possibly be in play? If it’s about survival, what possible claim can unborn generations who don’t share my genes have on my life?

    If you are so familiar with the science and literature, then tell us, exactly, what needs to be done in the here-an-now to prevent “a severely degraded planet” being our fate? Do you, or anyone else, really know? Or is it just speculation?

    And if other countries are increasing their carbon output for the foreseeable future, what incentive do I have to decrease mine?

    If you want to prevail on this issue, brow-beating and pontification with loaded rhetoric will not get you very far, appeals to “good faith discussion” notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 5

  36. Dave D

    And who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to tell me that unborn generations have some sort of claim on my life?

    The ilk that dominates the left surely don’t ahve a problem claiming unborn generations labors to spend now!

    Iconoclast: You hit it out of the park nearly every time!

    Thumb up 5

  37. CM

    I’m at a loss as to the value of a discussion about “for the sake of argument” possibilities that make climate change irrelevant. A whole lot of stuff *might* happen to make climate change irrelevant, including earth being destroyed by a meteor. It goes without saying that these possibilities exist. And if they occur in the short-to-medium term, climate change isn’t going to matter.
    To anyone who is utterly convinced that something like that is going to happen anyway, I can happily agree that climate change isn’t going to mean jack.

    No, that is simply a complete straw man argument.

    No, it was moot if the answers to the preceeding questions were ‘no’. Huge difference.

    You can just keep on preaching and pontificating about “good faith” discussion all you want, but when you use such utterly loaded rhetoric as this, your pontifications ring hollow.

    Wow, you can’t even handle a few questions which seek to clarify what you mean? That is seriously weak. It was a fricking question, only relevant if the preceeding questions were answered a certain way. Given how many actual straw men are beaten on this site every day, I must have missed your criticism of all that. I guess they never pretended to argue in good faith though, so it’s fine.

    You act as if it is an established fact that the Earth of Tomorrow will be “a severely degraded planet”, but we simply do not know that to be the case.

    The evidence is very strong. The evidence to the contrary is pretty much non-existent. Again, sensible risk management would involve taking the strong evidence seriously.

    You personally might be utterly convinced.

    I’m still at the mercy of the quality of the science and the professional assessments of those far more qualified than me. I can also hold on to the possibility that something else might happen which renders it all moot – although I think the possibility is so extremely low that we shouldn’t be factoring it in.
    So there are certainly are qualifiers to my level of certainty.

    The “science” may be utterly convincing, but science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again in the future.

    Sure. But not all scientific cases are built equally. I certainly wouldn’t assess the quality of the theory and the science based on how right or wrong science has been before.

    “Science” has been telling me the sky is falling for decades, now.

    Not really sure what you’re referring to.

    And who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to tell me that unborn generations have some sort of claim on my life?

    If you don’t place any value on the planet (and people on it) after you die, then sure, I can see how you’d have that view. It’s about whether you think it’s ok for the effects of how you live your life to be subsidised by others.

    You seem to be pronouncing me guilty of some sort of crime, just for living my life, and acting extremely judgemental in your pronouncements. And yet you want to pontificate about “good faith” discussion…

    No, nothing to do with a ‘crime’. As outlined, it’s more about whether you think it’s ok for the effects of how you live your life to be subsidised by others. How is it any less “judgemental” than pointing out how the lifestyles those on welfare are subsidised by others?

    You are sooooo convinced that the Earth of Tomorrow is a blistering wasteland that you simply cannot have a conversation outside of that assumption, by all appearances.

    I’m happy to have it. Let me know when it gets beyond the veneer and the blatant dishonesty and accusations.

    And I repeat, if there is no God and we are indeed on our own, then explain to me why I should care about future generations when I have no kids of my own, and therefore have no genetic dog in the race, so to speak?

    I can’t tell you why you should care. I spent time explaining why I felt that I should care, and you immediately threw it back in my face and told me I was ‘pretending’.

    If you are so familiar with the science and literature, then tell us, exactly, what needs to be done in the here-an-now to prevent “a severely degraded planet” being our fate? Do you, or anyone else, really know? Or is it just speculation?

    There’s plenty out there about it. If you were interested, you could read about it yourself. It’s the weekend and I don’t have time to get into detail right now.

    And if other countries are increasing their carbon output for the foreseeable future, what incentive do I have to decrease mine?

    Agreed, which is why a global agreement on limiting emissions needs to be part of the plan. I know you categorically reject that though.

    If you want to prevail on this issue, brow-beating and pontification with loaded rhetoric will not get you very far, appeals to “good faith discussion” notwithstanding.

    If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you’ll find I simply trying to understand your position. That’s why I asked questions about what you said. Over-reacting and pretending I’m acting in bad faith is in fact another example of bad faith. Not nearly as bad as what happened in our last discussion on this, but getting there.

    The ilk that dominates the left surely don’t ahve a problem claiming unborn generations labors to spend now!

    I guess we could argue about differences, but I think that’s a decent point Dave.

    Iconoclast: You hit it out of the park nearly every time!

    Yeah, who cares about Dave’s kid and their kids ;-)

    Thumb up 2

  38. Mississippi Yankee

    \/ \/

    BLAM BLAM BLAM

    \/ \/

    CM,
    The G/F is out of town, I have elevated levels of testosterone and other stuff. Do you really mean to bring a horrible high school pop band to a gun fight?

    Thumb up 0

  39. Dave D

    “The ilk that dominates the left surely don’t ahve a problem claiming unborn generations labors to spend now!”

    I guess we could argue about differences, but I think that’s a decent point Dave.

    OMG! I am so full of “win”! This is the CLOSEST I have EVER heard CM come to conceding a point to a right winger.

    Thumb up 2

  40. CM

    Then you must miss a lot Dave. Within the last few weeks I said simply ‘Nice’ to a rebuttal piece posted by Iconoclast (about gun deaths in DC) and I also agreed with points made about raising the minimum wage.
    Anyway, why do you care what sort of debt is left to unborn generations? And how is that different to burdening them with a degraded planet? Both are short-sighted surely?

    Thumb up 0

  41. AlexInCT

    And how is that different to burdening them with a degraded planet?

    I think your idea and my idea of a degraded planet differ greatly.

    Thumb up 1

  42. Iconoclast

    I’m at a loss as to the value of a discussion about “for the sake of argument” possibilities that make climate change irrelevant.

    If you don’t value the discussion, then don’t participate. My response was to ilovecress, and I mentioned God up front. You then decided to engage me. Since you don’t believe God exists, I simply threw in “for the sake of argument” as a courtesy to your viewpoint. (Oops, there I go, being “dishonest” again).

    Like I keep saying, no one has a gun to your head; you aren’t forced to enter into a given discussion, so it strikes me as disingenuous to complain about its alleged value after you have chosen enter into it, especially when that which allegedly diminishes its value (the possibility of God’s existence) was essentially stipulated up front.

    Wow, you can’t even handle a few questions which seek to clarify what you mean?

    I can, and did, handle them just fine, your forthcoming denial/disagreement notwithstanding. I explained that I used specific words which have specific meaning, and asked why I would have used such words if my statements meant what your questions implied, and how those words could not have meant what your questions implied. My quoted statement above was made in response to your “another way to look at it” assertion, which was an assertion and not a question.

    That is seriously weak.

    I suppose it would be if it were true (that I “couldn’t handle a few questions”), but it ain’t, so it ain’t.

    It was a fricking question…

    No, it wasn’t. It was a “fricking” statement, containing loaded rhetoric.

    Given how many actual straw men are beaten on this site every day, I must have missed your criticism of all that. I guess they never pretended to argue in good faith though, so it’s
    fine.

    Non sequiturs noted and dismissed.

    The evidence is very strong. The evidence to the contrary is pretty much non-existent.

    How can there be “evidence” for future events, exactly? Especially events which are decades away? I can agree that there is evidence that the Earth is warming, and have said so a number of times already. What I don’t buy is that we have “evidence” that the Earth of Tomorrow is a “severely degraded planet”. That is speculation, based on forecast models, which may or may not be accurate. I don’t consider guesswork to be “evidence”, even if said guesswork is supported by computer models. I know enough about computers and software to know just how infallible they are not, especially when trying to model extremely complex systems, the complexities of which we barely understand ourselves.

    And I am certainly not prepared to base world government policies on such houses of cards, especially when doing so can impact not only my personal life, but everybody else’s life as well. For better or worse, there are always Unintended Consequences.

    Again, sensible risk management would involve taking the strong evidence seriously.

    But in your “risk management” you aren’t taking all the risks into account, only selected ones, ones based on speculation of what the future holds, which is in turn based on computer models that may or may not be reliable.

    I’m still at the mercy of the quality of the science and the professional assessments of those far more qualified than me.

    Exactly, and you are at the mercy of whatever it is that motivates them.

    So there are certainly are qualifiers to my level of certainty.

    Fair enough.

    If you don’t place any value on the planet (and people on it) after you die, then sure, I can see how you’d have that view.

    One doesn’t have to “not place any value on the planet (and people on it) after they die” to hold such a view. Like I said (and you apparently ignored), God does instruct us to be good stewards, we are to value all life, and I have no problem with people seeking to make the world a better place for current and future generations. But that isn’t the same as asserting future generations have a “claim” on my life.

    And, like it or lump it, your statement is rhetorically loaded and judgmental. You merely assume that I “don’t place any value on the planet (and people on it) after [I] die”, based on my questioning whether they have a “claim” on my life, and based on my unwillingness to cede my liberties to government bureaucracies.

    It’s about whether you think it’s ok for the effects of how you live your life to be subsidised by others.

    And again, we don’t know that it amounts to that. It’s just as assumption on your part.

    No, nothing to do with a ‘crime’.

    You’re implying that my living my life is going to do harm to countless other (as yet unborn) people. Doing harm to others can indeed be described as criminal behavior.

    As outlined, it’s more about whether you think it’s ok for the effects of how you live your life to be subsidised by others.

    And again, we do not know that such is the case. It’s still speculation.

    How is it any less “judgemental” than pointing out how the lifestyles those on welfare are subsidised by others?

    I’m not claiming it is “less” judgmental. Just the opposite, given that it’s a simply fact of life that “the lifestyles those on welfare are subsidised by others”, but it simply is not a fact that the Earth of Tomorrow is “a severely degraded planet”. It may or may not be. We simply do not know. We think we know based on computer models which may or may not be reliable.

    I’m happy to have it. Let me know when it gets beyond the veneer and the blatant dishonesty and accusations.

    “Blatant dishonesty”? It’s rather ironic that you complain about “accusations”. There was nothing the least bit “dishonest” about my original response to ilovecress, and there is nothing the least bit “dishonest” about anything I write. I simply don’t see any point in dishonesty, but you seem to accuse me of it on a regular basis.

    I spent time explaining why I felt that I should care, and you immediately threw it back in my face and told me I was ‘pretending’.

    I never said that you were “pretending” to care. I said that you were “pretending” to understand the issues and the science, which may seem unfair, but I have grown weary of assuming that my opponent knows what they’re talking about when it comes to issues of science, only to come to the realization that they don’t. Such has happened many times in my past. Maybe you really do understand the actual science, but you haven’t actually demonstrated that you do. You have evenly admitted, tacitly, that perhaps you don’t when you said, “I’m still at the mercy of the quality of the science and the professional assessments of those far more qualified than me”.

    I have gotten into involved discussions in the past where actual scientific papers were cited and referenced. I read the papers that were cited, and they were heavily laded with meticulous mathematical statistical analysis of the data. Lots of equations and algebra, with alpha levels and subscripts and the rest of it. My degree is in Mathematics, Statistics Option, and I have done graduate level work in Applied Mathematics, and the analysis of that one paper still made my eyes blur and my head hurt. I suppose I could have absorbed it if I had the time to devote to the effort, but you understand how fast things move in blog discussions, so I simply asked my opponent to explain the analysis, to show that he really understood the paper he was using to support his argument. Of course, he never replied.

    Another example is when I specifically asked why we have sexual reproduction, why natural selection ever selected for it when asexual reproduction was so much more efficient. I was told by a number of people to go read “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins, and I would have my answer. So I read it. In the book, Dawkins explicitly states that it’s a difficult question, and that he deliberately evades addressing the question in his book.

    “So what’s the significance?” you may ask. Well, it pretty much proved that all those people who told me to go read the book didn’t know what the frack they were talking about. They merely assumed that, since I was skeptical of the Darwinian explanation, I must have been some kind of ignoramus that simply needed to read the right book(s) to get my head right, books that they themselves obviously never read. As a result, after taking on one reading assignment after another, I grew to be equally, if not more, knowledgeable on the intricacies of Darwinian neo-synthesis as its most staunch supporters. And the upshot was that I came to learn that those who claim to be “all about the science” were oftentimes themselves quite ignorant of it. They simply parroted what they heard elsewhere, without digging in themselves to actually understand the underlying science.

    And this same dynamic played out on another level. Darwinian supporters would often knee-jerk cite Talk Origins, which was supposedly the web site that had all the answers, including answers to all the criticisms leveled by skeptics. And again, the pages cited simply didn’t make the claims those who cited the page said it claimed, again illustrating that my opponents simply didn’t have the full grasp they, well, pretended to have.

    And so we have the same thing here, with the Skeptical Science web site being the AGW equivalent to the Talk Origins site. You may indeed be different from all the rest, but I haven’t seen it yet…

    There’s plenty out there about it. If you were interested, you could read about it yourself. It’s the weekend and I don’t have time to get into detail right now.

    …and responses such as this do absolutely nothing to change my initial perceptions. It’s ironic that you chide me over my alleged “inability” to “handle a few simple questions” (which I did, in fact, handle quite easily, whether you care to agree or not) when you flat-out refuse to answer a few simply questions of mine. If you “don’t have the time” to demonstrate that you actually do understand the science and the issues, why should I not believe it’s pretense?

    When you asked your questions, I suppose I could have simply responded, “It’s all in the Bible. If you were interested, you could read about it yourself. It’s the weekend and I don’t have time to get into detail right now.” I cannot help but be convinced that you would find such a response to be an absolute cop-out on my part.

    If you go back and re-read what I wrote, you’ll find I simply trying to understand your position.

    Yes, your questions are so innocent, or so you would claim, but they did have implications which pretty much ignored specific words I used in my original response, as my subsequent response explained. Because of that, I consider your appeal to innocence to be unfounded.

    Over-reacting and pretending I’m acting in bad faith is in fact another example of bad faith.

    And now we’re at schoolyard IKYABWAI responses. Explaining my choice of words is “over-reacting”? And I never explicitly accused you of acting in bad faith. I merely pointed out the irony of your appeals to good faith, considering your choice of rhetoric.

    I suppose you will now claim that I didn’t “merely do any such thing”. C’est la vie…

    Thumb up 4

  43. Dave D

    And how is that different to burdening them with a degraded planet?

    The debt will come due within the next generation (20 years)and destroy our way of life.

    AGW will raise the average temp of the planet 0.23 degC in the next 50-100 years, and

    A) most not in the faith don’t believe in the “A” part of “AGW”.

    B) there is no proof we can even do anyting about it, and lots of people are starting to think it might be benficial in some ways.

    AGW collectivist zealonts sure are funny! They want to toss trillions MORE at a problem that may not even exist all while racking up debt that will destroy our economoy in less than one generation.

    Thumb up 2

  44. Iconoclast
    It was a fricking question…

    No, it wasn’t. It was a “fricking” statement, containing loaded rhetoric.

    My bad. It was a question, after all, but it is still loaded rhetoric:

    Or another way to look at it: why should your great-great-grandchildren have to heavily subsidise your lifestyle (via a severely degraded planet), by suffering the costs you’re incurring but are unwilling to pay yourself?

    Since it was preceded with, “Or another way to look at it…”, it struck me as a question that was rhetorical in nature, which is simply another way of making an assertion. But yes, CM is correct, it was a question. And I was incorrect, although, again, the question was, by all appearances, rhetorical. So I commented on the rhetoric, which is still loaded.

    I will now answer the question, since CM has made it clear that he expects one…

    …a severely degraded planet…

    Again, we don’t know that this is the case. It is speculation, based on computer models which may or may not be accurate and/or reliable.

    …suffering the costs you’re incurring but are unwilling to pay yourself…

    I asked what those specific costs were (assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are any costs at all, that there is really any problemat all):

    If you are so familiar with the science and literature, then tell us, exactly, what needs to be done in the here-an-now to prevent “a severely degraded planet” being our fate? Do you, or anyone else, really know? Or is it just speculation?

    CM’s response? Here you go:

    There’s plenty out there about it. If you were interested, you could read about it yourself. It’s the weekend and I don’t have time to get into detail right now.

    CM simply couldn’t be bothered to tell me what those alleged “costs [I’m] incurring but are unwilling to pay [myself]” actually are. Given this, it’s the height of hubris to claim:

    Wow, you can’t even handle a few questions which seek to clarify what you mean? That is seriously weak. It was a fricking question, only relevant if the preceeding questions were answered a certain way.

    Again, for the record, I did answer the first set of questions, so claiming I “can’t even handle a few questions which seek to clarify what” I meant is clearly disingenuous. Ditto for “That is seriously weak.”

    At least CM concedes that the question I considered to be rhetorical is also potentially irrelevant.

    Finally, assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are “costs I’m incurring”, who is to say that I am “unwilling to pay” them? Throughout these discussions, the point I have been trying to make is that I am unwilling to cede my hard-won liberties to government bureaucracies, because I see that as the way to tyranny, and not as a solution to AGW, assuming AGW is a genuine problem in the first place.

    For the sake of argument.

    As Ronald Reagan once said, “Government isn’t the solution to our problem…government is the problem.”

    That may or may not be true in this particular case, but when I see Al Gore flying around in a private jet and raking in half a billion dollars of oil money for his Current TV network, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that “those guys” are looking out for my best interests, or the best interests of future generations…

    And yet I am the one being brow-beaten over my alleged unwillingness to “pay the costs”, said costs not even being explicitly defined. There are few things more dangerous that committing oneself to being willing to “pay” poorly-define “costs” “for the greater good”, having little idea just what those “costs” are going to ultimately be.

    Before accusing me of “being unwilling to pay the costs”, tell me precisely what those costs are. If you can’t be bothered to tell me, then simply sod off.

    …your great-great-grandchildren…

    Like I said, I ain’t got no kids, biologically speaking, so it seems unlikely that I will ever have “great-great-grandchildren”.

    Hopefully, I have addressed this question to CM’s satisfaction, although I won’t hold my breath…

    Thumb up 5

  45. AlexInCT

    Finally, assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are “costs I’m incurring”, who is to say that I am “unwilling to pay” them? Throughout these discussions, the point I have been trying to make is that I am unwilling to cede my hard-won liberties to government bureaucracies, because I see that as the way to tyranny, and not as a solution to AGW, assuming AGW is a genuine problem in the first place.

    HERETIC!

    Don’t worry the reeducation camps will fix you. That is unless you are amongst those we think should be culled so Gaia can be all happy again when everyone but true believers gets forced to live like primitives or gets killed off.

    The reality is that earth is far, far, more resilient than any of these fuckers want to pretend it is. If we had a nuclear holocaust tomorrow, I guarantee you the planet’s ecosystem would recover a few millennia into the future. It recovered from extinction level events that make what the AGW cultist predict look like a walk in the park. The fact of the matter is that the planet warms and cools, that oceans rise and cede, that life comes and goes, and NOTHING is forever. The only thing that is guaranteed is that things change.

    If these bastards really believe the bullshit they spout about saving Gaia, they would have by now forced us all to convert to the use of nuclear energy, and they would have been giving power, for free, to the up & coming third world. Instead they want people to believe that the solution to a problem that would require a massive engineering feat is more restrictive and all powerful government that redistributes wealth. And then they get angry when you point these discrepancies out to them, because the science is settled and their collectivist idea is the only thing that can save us. Go look at the damage done by the old USSR, the damage being done by China today, and tell me these people once they have undisputed authority over life & death of the masses would do differently.

    Any time I hear the collectivsts tell me the answer to a problem is more collectivism, I know I am being bullshit.

    Thumb up 2

  46. ilovecress

    As you were responding to me Icon, I thought I’d respond to you. I really don’t want to get into an AGW pissing competition, but what I’m interested in is why we hold the positions we do.

    It seems to me that there are two arguments that keep getting mashed together. A) Is climate change happening as a result of mans actions? and b) Should we do anything about it (sometimes leading to c) what should we do about it)

    Icons post seemed to answer both of those, so I’ll separate them out.

    You may be utterly convinced that our only alternatives are “being underwater” or “global action” (and only God knows what form that would take), but frankly, I see that as a false dichotomy.

    I really don’t want to get into an ‘is AGW happening’ discussion, I really don’t. (and yet here I go..) In a lot of ways you’re right though. Those on ‘my side’ haven’t done the discussion any favours by presenting it as a fait acomplis. But I do think that the best way to describe it is through risk management. Of course we don’t *know* what’s going to happen, and a sideswipe from a particularly naughty meteor could make all this moot (as would the existence of an interventionist deity).

    But weighing up the information available to me and my level of understanding (I don’t claim to be a statistician) I have assessed personally that I feel like the probability of climate change being a real danger to my daughters future, and the future of the country(ies) I love is high. There exists the probability that it is a giant hoax, but I feel that probability of a hoax fooling so many people, corporations, governments and scientists, while maintaining a level of secrecy is low. Nothing to do with Gaia or wanting to oppress everyone under the imperial yolk of the perpetual drum circle. Just weighing up perceived probabilities.

    If there is no God, then I say let Natural Selection do its work, even if it means the end of humanity. The universe won’t give a rat’s ass if we’re gone, so why should I?

    if there is no God and we are indeed on our own, then explain to me why I should care about future generations when I have no kids of my own, and therefore have no genetic dog in the race, so to speak?

    I’ll admit, this stumped me. The life is meaningless argument. I struggled to think of a single way to convince someone who doesn’t care about the future of humanity. I define things in terms of ‘a better world for my daughter’ – but without a genetic horse in the race, and a nihilistic outlook – then why should you give a monkeys? Unless we freeze your head, like in Futurama. So let’s do that.

    And I don’t want to see “global action” period, because I have little reason to believe that any proposed “cure” won’t be worse than the alleged “disease”.

    For sake of argument, lets imagine that somehow AGW was ‘proved’, and everyone agreed that it was happening and that it was bad. The question of what to do about it. Again, I totally agree with you that there exists the potential for the ‘cure’ to be worse than the ‘disease’. If there was a magic potion that solved it all and affected no-one, then I’d be all for it

    The reason I said ‘global action’ (and I admit, that’s a scary term I probably shouldn’t have used) is that there’s no point in having a solution for the US or NZ or Somalia, or Italy- if India doesn’t follow suit. I don’t mean that laws should be passed by a one-world government – simply that whatever solution we come up with should be a global one.

    I simply see this never-ending “crisis” as a perfect opportunity for the powers-that-be to erect whatever dystopian “utopia” they care to conceive.

    Me too. And we should guard against that. There will inevitably be winners and losers, just as there is at any stage of human and societal development, and opportunity for corruption. I guess the difference between us is that I would characterize those people as ‘taking advantage’ and you’d characterize them as ‘manufacturing an advantage’.

    The difference is individuality versus collectivism. We are indeed instructed by God to be good stewards of this Earth, and I have no problem with individuals doing what they can to make the world a better place. What I have a problem with is government action and government mandates, which is simply a manifestation of collectivism. It basically boils down to how much you trust people as individuals versus how much you trust people as a collective, in the form of a government bureaucracy. My money is on the former.

    Yep. But individual action is useless, as long as there exist nihilists with no genetic dogs in the race. If there was a way to get done the things that need to get done (again for sake of argument) without it being mandated – then I’d be all for it, and twice on Sundays. I just don’t see it. It doesn’t make any economic sense for a company in the private sector to factor in long-term climate change costs in their (relatively) short term business models. Corporations are the definition on nihilists with no genetic dogs in the race. So if we agree that climate change is real and we agree that we need to do something about it (big ifs, I know) then the private sector is actually the last place you’d expect a solution to come from. And it’s that healthy mistrust of the public sector that needs to stop the corruption.

    (I’m not expecting us to agree on this one, just staking out the thinking behind the position rather than letting Alex defie it for me)

    Addendum :

    AGW will raise the average temp of the planet 0.23 degC in the next 50-100 years

    Maybe it’s because CM and I are in Australasia, but we’re seeing the adverse effects right now. I did some work for an insurance company on this issue, as the climate was getting the risk profiles all out of whack, and costing a crap tonne of money to pay out on claims. What used to be a 1 in 100 year flood, is now a 1 in 17 year flood, with the reinsurance costs that go with that. Wind damage has increased by 650%. Simply put, the amount of claims people are making due to severe weather is increasing a lot, and is costing a lot of money, and that is being passed onto consumers through higher premiums. Then there’s also the fact that if you step outside in NSW you’ll probably burst into flames.

    Thumb up 1

  47. CM

    I think your idea and my idea of a degraded planet differ greatly.

    I don’t doubt that for a second Alex.

    Since you don’t believe God exists, I simply threw in “for the sake of argument” as a courtesy to your viewpoint. (Oops, there I go, being “dishonest” again).

    I agree, if God exists and has a plan which renders climate change and its effects redundant, then NONE this matters at all. However, if not, it must matter to anyone who has any sort of investment in the future of mankind, and also those who don’t but subscribe to a theory that man should be a good steward/caretaker of the planet.

    How can there be “evidence” for future events, exactly?

    The evidence relates to the scientific case for AGW. Nobody is claiming that evidence already exists for future events. However we can look at what happened in the past when CO2 levels rose (albiet not at this speed).

    Especially events which are decades away?

    Effects are in evidence now and have been for some time.

    What I don’t buy is that we have “evidence” that the Earth of Tomorrow is a “severely degraded planet”. That is speculation, based on forecast models, which may or may not be accurate. I don’t consider guesswork to be “evidence”, even if said guesswork is supported by computer models. I know enough about computers and software to know just how infallible they are not, especially when trying to model extremely complex systems, the complexities of which we barely understand ourselves.

    AGW (including long-term forecasting) doesn’t just rest on the reliabilty of models. Far from it.
    Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called “Detection and Attribution Studies”. Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases).

    Of course even though the models do a great job of simulating the climate over the past 150 years, as you run the models farther into the past (or the future), the uncertainties become greater. But then no reputable scientist is saying anything different.

    The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future – and indeed have successfully done so. Certainly there is the danger that climate modellers may occasionally be seduced by the beauty of their constructions and put too much faith in them. Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism – that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.

    I agree – I wouldn’t consider ‘guesswork’ to be any sort of evidence.

    And I am certainly not prepared to base world government policies on such houses of cards, especially when doing so can impact not only my personal life, but everybody else’s life as well. For better or worse, there are always Unintended Consequences.

    Thing is, AGW is pretty much the opposite of a ‘house of cards’. It isn’t supported by a single pillar. Or a few data points. There are established basic laws. There are known physical processes. AGW theory is fundamentally based on these (the Greenhouse Effect theory, which has it’s origins in 1824). It has a very soild foundation. There are multiple lines of evidence. Which is why the scientific consensus is remarkably strong on the fundamentals.

    ‘It’s a house of cards’ is another standard fallacy, much like ‘it all relies on models’.

    …denialists typically will rely on stray bits of discordant information — an incorrect reference in a UN report, a suspicious-seeming “climategate” email, some hypocrisy or other from a bien-pensant NGO type — to argue that the whole theory is an intellectual house of cards. In these cases, one can’t help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon-landing photos, or the “umbrella man” from the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/

    Climate Science Not a House of Cards
    Perhaps the most worrisome part of this incident is that it could easily leave the public wondering about the science of human-induced global warming. But do the potentially unethical acts implied by these e-mails invalidate the hypothesis that human output of greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, creates a serious risk of rapid climate change? No.

    Outspoken critics often portray climate science as a house of cards, built on a shaky edifice of limited data and broad suppositions. However, it’s more realistic to think of the science as a deck of cards, spread out, face up. Some data and interpretations of those data are more certain than others, of course. But pulling out one or two interpretations, or the results of a few scientists, does not change the overall picture. Take away two or three cards, and there are still 49 or 50 cards facing you.

    The “house of cards” view results partly from the representation of human-induced climate change in opinion polls and in the press, which split the debate into “believers” and “skeptics.” This dichotomy is misleading for many reasons, particularly because it implies that those who are concerned about human-induced climate change believe every single claim made by every scientist on this topic, in the way that some fundamentalists claim to believe in the literal truth of every word in a religious text. Similarly, it implies that all skeptics doubt the entire theory.

    In fact, most scientists are skeptics, to one extent or another, about climate science and almost everything else. Of course, there are a few who actually believe with complete certainty that they are right, and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. These folks can’t conceive of the possibility that they could be mistaken; they really are like religious zealots. However, the genuine scientific skeptics greatly outnumber the true believers, and in most scientific debates the skeptics prevail … after a while.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/4338343?page=1

    But in your “risk management” you aren’t taking all the risks into account, only selected ones, ones based on speculation of what the future holds, which is in turn based on computer models that may or may not be reliable.

    I agree, the whole point of risk management is to accurately assess the risk (taking into account uncertainties). There are entire industries involved in risk management (e.g. insurance) and it’s no surprise that they are treating climate change very seriously.

    Exactly, and you are at the mercy of whatever it is that motivates them.

    On an individual level that’s true. But their work is scrutinised by their peers, and published in journals. Mistakes are made (perhaps some of them aren’t mistakes, but motivated by something else) but inevitably the process usually corrects that. So I don’t consider it very likely that fraud and conspiracy on a such a level would continue to be so well organised, managed, and hidden.

    And again, we don’t know that it amounts to that. It’s just as assumption on your part.

    What I mean is – we know that our heavy carbon-emitting lifestyles are having a large negative effect on the climate of the planet (we can see the specific fingerprints). If we continue as we are, we’re knowingly living our lives in a way where the price we pay (for energy etc) simply doesn’t reflect the actual costs. How is that anything else but a subsidy? What code says it’s morally acceptable to let others (here and now, or later) pay the costs? Of course for the vast majority of the time since the Industrual Revolution we were blissfully unaware. But we’re not unaware now. So we’re now making an active choice.

    And again, we do not know that such is the case. It’s still speculation.

    The only area of disagreement is exactly how bad it will be. And that’s not alarmism, that’s what the current body of science is clearly telling us, whether we wish to accept it or not.

    “Blatant dishonesty”? It’s rather ironic that you complain about “accusations”. There was nothing the least bit “dishonest” about my original response to ilovecress, and there is nothing the least bit “dishonest” about anything I write. I simply don’t see any point in dishonesty, but you seem to accuse me of it on a regular basis.

    I was talking generally. These discussions never get beyond the veneer, and are riddled with blatant dishonesty and accusations (of fraud and conspiracy).
    Notwithstanding that, when did I previously accuse you of dishonesty?

    I never said that you were “pretending” to care. I said that you were “pretending” to understand the issues and the science, which may seem unfair, but I have grown weary of assuming that my opponent knows what they’re talking about when it comes to issues of science, only to come to the realization that they don’t.

    I completely understand that, as exactly the same thing has happened to me.
    And yeah, it certainly did “seem” unfair. I’m sure you picked that up by my reaction.

    Such has happened many times in my past. Maybe you really do understand the actual science, but you haven’t actually demonstrated that you do.

    What have I gotten wrong?
    What would you like to know?

    You have evenly admitted, tacitly, that perhaps you don’t when you said, “I’m still at the mercy of the quality of the science and the professional assessments of those far more qualified than me”.

    Sheesh. Really? Now that’s seriously weak. How does acknowleding the obvious have anything whatsoever to do with my understanding of the science?

    I have gotten into involved discussions in the past where actual scientific papers were cited and referenced. I read the papers that were cited, and they were heavily laded with meticulous mathematical statistical analysis of the data. Lots of equations and algebra, with alpha levels and subscripts and the rest of it. My degree is in Mathematics, Statistics Option, and I have done graduate level work in Applied Mathematics, and the analysis of that one paper still made my eyes blur and my head hurt. I suppose I could have absorbed it if I had the time to devote to the effort, but you understand how fast things move in blog discussions, so I simply asked my opponent to explain the analysis, to show that he really understood the paper he was using to support his argument. Of course, he never replied.

    I have some post-high-school education in mathematics and science, but none that really assist me. So even though I also attempt to read papers themselves, I’m usually left with relying on what others thought of the papers, and whatever layman explanations I can find. I recognise that this leaves the possibility of misrepresentation, so I try to find at least a few. Always easier when a paper is challenged of course, because then both sides put across their arguments and others ask questions etc.

    And so we have the same thing here, with the Skeptical Science web site being the AGW equivalent to the Talk Origins site.

    Thanks for the interesting account of your experiences (honestly, I mean that, I appreciate you taking the time and effort to explain).
    I’d be interested to see some examples of how the Skeptical Science site is like the Talk Origins website (which I wasn’t aware existed). If you find tme citing pages which don’t say what I claim they do, you should feel free to come down hard and fast on my ass. That goes for any link/source I provide.

    You may indeed be different from all the rest, but I haven’t seen it yet…

    To be honest I get the impression that it would be impossible to reach the required standard.

    …and responses such as this do absolutely nothing to change my initial perceptions.

    I had no choice. I literally had no more time (I do have kids, and therefore the weekends are for kids, not for arguing with strangers on the internet). I could tell my wife was already annoyed at the time I’d spent on that post. I guess I could have simply ignoring that, or the whole thing entirely. But then I’m sure that would also have done “absolutely nothing to change my initial perceptions”. I don’t think I really have a chance.

    It’s ironic that you chide me over my alleged “inability” to “handle a few simple questions” (which I did, in fact, handle quite easily, whether you care to agree or not) when you flat-out refuse to answer a few simply questions of mine.

    Which questions did I flat-out refuse to answer? That’s not really my style. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been abused for answering too many.

    If you “don’t have the time” to demonstrate that you actually do understand the science and the issues, why should I not believe it’s pretense?

    Sure, go right ahead. Whatever you can get away with justifying I guess. We all have our own standards.

    When you asked your questions, I suppose I could have simply responded, “It’s all in the Bible. If you were interested, you could read about it yourself. It’s the weekend and I don’t have time to get into detail right now.” I cannot help but be convinced that you would find such a response to be an absolute cop-out on my part.

    I would never consider people saying they don’t have time right now (because it’s the weekend, they are on holiday, they are sick, they are having family-time, etc etc) to be a cop-out. Everyone has other things to do. I’ve said a number of times relatively recently that I won’t really be around on weekends.

    Thumb up 0

  48. CM

    Superb post ilovecress. Much better than anything I’ve written here. At the risk of reducing its value, I agree with it entirely.

    Thumb up 1

  49. AlexInCT

    When you find out things like this, and nobody in the supposed AGW scientific community cries foul, and grows skeptic about any and all work by these people, but instead they close ranks and defend the indefensible and totally unscientific shit going on, I know we are dealing with a fucking bunch of assholes, with an agenda, pretending to care about science. The goal of these the elite amongst these cultists has ALWAYS been one world government that robs people of freedom and lets them cull some people.

    I agree, if God exists and has a plan which renders climate change and its effects redundant, then NONE this matters at all.

    What does god have to do with anything dude about AGW? I am talking plain and simple science. This planet’s atmosphere and climate have changed, and done so drastically, long before man came into the picture. It has happened because of solar activity, oceanographic changes and activity, and plain and simple geology. The system isn’t close and it is incredibly adaptive.

    As I pointed out, live is so fucking tenacious it has survived numerous cataclysmic events and it has done so by adapting to change. From the near extinction of single cell organism to that of the dinosaurs, life adapted and survived. Heck, at some point there where only some 2400 of our ancestors out there according to recent DNA studies. They are talking about cloning some frog that went extinct in Australia in the 80s. Did these people not watch Jurassic Park (that’s a damned joke). I remember hearing that scientists speculate that the number of species on this planet that have gone extinct number in the trillions. Stop and think about that. The one constant thing is change.

    AGW, which ignores the sun, the oceans, other natural phenomena, and not only exaggerate man’s role, but predict cataclysm unless we let government completely take away our freedoms, is gobbledygook. An affront on science. As an educated engineer and someone with enormous respect for science and the scientific concept, I see AGW as charlatanism. It is a conspiracy between fucking totalitarians in government, narcissistic and despicable charlatans, desperate to get name recognition, pretending to be scientists, and a whole bunch of people with so little meaning in their lives they are wont to glom onto this cultish shit to give themselves purpose. All you AGW believers please do me a favor and find some other religion to go get your meaning of life from, please.

    Thumb up 5

  50. CM

    When you find out things like this, and nobody in the supposed AGW scientific community cries foul, and grows skeptic about any and all work by these people, but instead they close ranks and defend the indefensible and totally unscientific shit going on, I know we are dealing with a fucking bunch of assholes, with an agenda, pretending to care about science. The goal of these the elite amongst these cultists has ALWAYS been one world government that robs people of freedom and lets them cull some people.

    Alex, have you carried out any research of your own to see why the data used might have been different in each case? If so, what did you find?

    What does god have to do with anything dude about AGW?

    As discussed (did you read the thread?) He might decide to call an end to it all, and render climate change redundant (well at least the effects on man would be limited to what happens between now and then).

    This planet’s atmosphere and climate have changed, and done so drastically, long before man came into the picture.

    Unquestionably. No doubt about it. Nobody would dispute that.

    It has happened because of solar activity, oceanographic changes and activity, and plain and simple geology. The system isn’t close and it is incredibly adaptive.

    Indeed. It’s changed at different times by varying degrees for different reasons. Part of climate science is figuring out when, by how much, and why. The more we know, the more it becomes apparent that we’re a fairly large component in the current warming.

    As I pointed out, live is so fucking tenacious it has survived numerous cataclysmic events and it has done so by adapting to change. From the near extinction of single cell organism to that of the dinosaurs, life adapted and survived.

    Unfortunately, we didn’t live through much of that. We certainly didn’t have societies set-up for a such a narrow climate band.

    AGW, which ignores the sun, the oceans, other natural phenomena, and not only exaggerate man’s role, but predict cataclysm unless we let government completely take away our freedoms, is gobbledygook.

    It most certainly doesn’t ignore the sun or the oceans, or other natural phenomena. That’s simply ridiculous. For example, models wouldn’t work at all if they were ignored. If we ignored natural variations in climate, we would still be at Square One in terms of understanding the climate.
    Do you have any evidence that man’s role is exaggerated? Beyond the fact that it must be because that’s what the conspiracy requires?
    I have seen no evidence that the world’s scientific community all subscribe to gobbledygook because they want government to take away everyone’s freedoms. If you have some evidence, you should present it. If the research is all flawed, you should prepare a series of papers for publication.

    As an educated engineer and someone with enormous respect for science and the scientific concept, I see AGW as charlatanism.

    I’ve seen you claim that before, but all the evidence is to the contrary. You seem to prefer the ‘science’ which is undertaken on right-wing political internet blogs. That’s about as far from a ‘scientific concept’ as it’s possible to get.

    It is a conspiracy between fucking totalitarians in government, narcissistic and despicable charlatans, desperate to get name recognition, pretending to be scientists, and a whole bunch of people with so little meaning in their lives they are wont to glom onto this cultish shit to give themselves purpose.

    Believing in conspiracies (sourced from online political blogs), let alone the largest one the world would ever have know, is also contrary to any sort of scientific method.

    All you AGW believers please do me a favor and find some other religion to go get your meaning of life from, please.

    Sorry, no ‘belief’ required here. We’ll go with the balance of evidence, and take into account the number and quality of professionals who have looked at the science and tell us we have a problem. You can go ahead and continue to place your faith in the what would be the largest and most remarkable case of fraud humanity has ever known.
    I’ve never felt any need to get meaning out of life. Too busy enjoying it. Maybe when I get older, if I enjoy it less. Hope not.

    Thumb up 0

  51. AlexInCT

    Alex, have you carried out any research of your own to see why the data used might have been different in each case? If so, what did you find?

    CM, I have had the opportunity to do a lot of research back in the day, and there was one fundamental underlying principle: you did not fudge the data or pick and choose what you wanted to make a point. Ideological bullshit will do nothing to keep the aircraft engine, or the aircraft frame, or its electronics from failing and the thing dropping out of the sky, killing the people in it. I saw the same from counterparts in other disciplines that did research. I also saw anyone that got caught fudging their numbers get hammered, fired, and discredited. Even if it was a genuine mistake and not on purpose. The only place I see people constantly faking numbers, hiding inconvenient data, “massaging” the data to have it make the point they want, and creating predictions that constantly end up wrong, never lose their credibility, but actually gain more support and protection rather than the scorn they should, is when it comes to the AGW cult.

    I do not need to do any of this work to know differently. I have done quite a few physics experiments, and I am well versed in the physics of energy and energy retention. When I have people telling me the sun doesn’t matter, water vapor is ignored, and the focus remains on CO2 which then can be used to justify government freedom robbing schemes, I immediately know there isn’t much science going on. Besides, I can look at others that have put the time into the effort to look at the data, and I know which ones to trust and which ones not to. For example, I know for a fact that anyone that still takes Mann or this asshole Marcott seriously, o anything they have done, after the information of the blatant fraud we have on their part, doesn’t much care about science.

    The whole Dan Ratheresque “Fabricated evidence, but you should believe that the TANG story is still true” approach that permeates the AGW cult disgusts me. It has done irreparable harm to science, real science, not the politically motivated bullshit you worship, and when people find this out they will lose faith in science. When something real comes around and we need people to believe too many might not because they are aware that they have been had once too many to trust the scientific community ever again. Know what I am saying?

    That was a rethorical question BTW. I know that you do nto give two shits about the truth. You are a believer and nothing will ever cause you to doubt or say that so much fraud should make anyone doubt, because the whole AGW crisis is a convenient construct for the real larger purpose.

    As discussed (did you read the thread?) He might decide to call an end to it all, and render climate change redundant (well at least the effects on man would be limited to what happens between now and then).

    Discussed where? By the voices in your head? I think I am done here. I do not hear god, gaia, or any other power telling me things about the coming heat wave and the subsequent waterworld unless I give up all my freedoms to big government, or that this is not happening by their devine grace, although I do fantasize about some hot women occasionally telling me I make them hot. The real thing is always more fun anyway.

    Thumb up 6

  52. Iconoclast

    To be fair, I am the one who brought God into the discussion, with my initial response to ilovecress, and subsequently in various other replies.

    Thumb up 1

  53. CM

    Alex thanks for confirming that you’ve undertaken precisely ZERO research of your own into the issue you’ve raised, and are simply parroting political rhetoric and yet another round of accusations and insinuations about professionals. What a surprise. Not.

    When I have people telling me the sun doesn’t matter, water vapor is ignored

    But nobody is telling you that Alex. You’re making that up.

    Thumb up 1

  54. CM

    Iconoclast if you have time I’d be interested to see some examples of how the Skeptical Science site is like the Talk Origins website (in that “the pages cited simply didn’t make the claims those who cited the page said it claimed”.

    Thumb up 0

  55. AlexInCT

    But nobody is telling you that Alex. You’re making that up.

    Oh bullshit, you did that right here on this site, repeatedly, when I pointed out how the AGW cult consistently ignores the most important weather mechanism the sun, planets’ biggest heat sink, and the most abundant greenhouse gas: water vapor, so you could exaggerate the importance of CO2 which at best is a trace gas in the grand scheme of things and research clearly shows is not a precursor to warming but an after effect.

    Keep pretending otherwise, and even lie, like you just did here, but solar activity is why we are seeing what we are happening with the mythical optimal temperature the AGW cultists tell us is going to high so they can scare people about life in waterworld. There are no SUVs on Mars or Venus, and both have been warming. Heck, they have even seen warming on Jupiter for Christ’s sake. But you cultists do not care about that because you cannot convince people to abdicate their freedoms when the sun is the culprit, like you can if you keep pretending the problem is CO2, and manmade CO2 specifically.

    Thumb up 5

  56. CM

    Oh bullshit, you did that right here on this site, repeatedly, when I pointed out how the AGW cult consistently ignores the most important weather mechanism the sun, planets’ biggest heat sink, and the most abundant greenhouse gas: water vapor, so you could exaggerate the importance of CO2 which at best is a trace gas in the grand scheme of things and research clearly shows is not a precursor to warming but an after effect.

    WTF?! I did no such thing. What the hell are you talking about?
    Quote me. Go on, for once in your life back up your accusations.
    Also demonstrate that any reputable scientist or scientific organisation has made such a claim. The IPCC documents discuss water vapour and the sun thoroughly. Maybe you should think about checking them out yourself, rather than being mislead by your politicial bedfellows?
    As usual, I won’t be holding my breath. You couldn’t even follow through and show how you’d even begun to look into the claims against Marcott, which you’ve clearly swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

    Keep pretending otherwise, and even lie, like you just did here,

    What did I lie about here? There must be a name for someone who compulsively makes accusations. I’m sure it’s a recognised condition.

    but solar activity is why we are seeing what we are happening with the mythical optimal temperature the AGW cultists tell us is going to high so they can scare people about life in waterworld. There are no SUVs on Mars or Venus, and both have been warming. Heck, they have even seen warming on Jupiter for Christ’s sake. But you cultists do not care about that because you cannot convince people to abdicate their freedoms when the sun is the culprit, like you can if you keep pretending the problem is CO2, and manmade CO2 specifically.

    This really is Climate Science 101 Alex.

    In the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.
    This link provides the calculations and links to the relevant research.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

    The argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points – there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars’ climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm

    Jupiter’s climate change is due to shifts in internal turbulence fueled from an internal heat source – the planet radiates twice as much energy as it receives from the sun. There is no connection between Jupiter’s climate change and Earth’s warming.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter-intermediate.htm

    I look forward to your rebutal which (as usual) completely avoids the science and concentrates solely on accusations of cultism etc etc, even though it’s the very definition of what you’re doing. Face it Alex, you have no interest at all in the science, you’re only interested in repeating your nutjob conspiracy mantras. Although I can see why – when you do try to bring actual science into it, the best you can do is regurgitate this sort of nonsense.

    Thumb up 0

  57. CM

    Alex here’s a very simple question for you with respect to the sun’s role: If an increase in solar output had been responsible for the recent climate warming, shouldn’t the troposphere and the stratosphere both have warmed?

    Thumb up 0

  58. Mississippi Yankee

    shouldn’t the troposphere and the stratosphere both have warmed?

    Or could they have acted like the lens of a pair of glasses?

    Why, as the glaciers in places like Greenland and Norway melt, do we find evidence of human habitation from 300AD in Norway and up to 800AD in Greenland?

    Archeologist are starting to “dig” this whole global warming phase. Perhaps they’ll find the SUV’s of DOOM that caused all of the melts tho… then you may come off as more than a screeching child. Or not…

    Thumb up 2

  59. CM

    Or could they have acted like the lens of a pair of glasses?

    Is there any evidence of this?
    Perhaps you should alert someone ;-)

    Why, as the glaciers in places like Greenland and Norway melt, do we find evidence of human habitation from 300AD in Norway and up to 800AD in Greenland?

    What is your point?
    If it’s that we lived with temperatures at the same level – did those civilisations fundamentally lock themselves so heavily into the planet retaining it’s status quo? Or did they adapt by simply picking up and moving?
    If it’s that temperatures now are not unprecedented – nobody is saying that are, it’s the rate of change and the cause of change that is alarming and potentially catastrophic to our way of living.

    Archeologist are starting to “dig” this whole global warming phase. Perhaps they’ll find the SUV’s of DOOM that caused all of the melts tho… then you may come off as more than a screeching child.

    Not all climate change is the same. Climate 101 really…..

    Thumb up 0

  60. Mississippi Yankee

    Not all climate change is the same. Climate 101 really…..

    Ah, the old, Climate Change is what “WE” say Climate Change is mantra.

    Now I understand

    Thumb up 4

  61. Mississippi Yankee

    BTW what possessed you to respond to a comment I made over a month ago? Are ya feelin’ lonely Binky?

    It may be a fluke, but it seems too coincidental. What it may be is a leading indicator that the establishment press and international advocates of global wealth redistribution have figured out that “global warming” and “climate change,” its deceptive substitute term, have lost their luster thanks to a lack of scientific rigor, scandals, and deception.

    What I’m referring to is the fact that in reviewing three Associated Press items which would appear to have been opportunities to bring up the topic of “warming” and “climate” in connection with the U.N.’s latest “earth summit,” none of them contained either word. It seems that “sustainable development,” a term which has been around for a while and which basically means “stopping most development regardless of merit,” is now the go-to term when one wishes to avoid the aforementioned W-word or C-word.

    Thumb up 2

  62. CM

    Ah, the old, Climate Change is what “WE” say Climate Change is mantra.

    Now I understand

    It’s simply pointing out that previous causes of significant climate change aren’t necessarily the same reasons for current climate change. The whole “they didn’t have SUVs a million years ago” argument is silly for obvious reasons.

    BTW what possessed you to respond to a comment I made over a month ago? Are ya feelin’ lonely Binky?

    Iconoclast specificially referred to it. I missed your comment when you made it.

    It may be a fluke, but it seems too coincidental.

    It may be a fluke that climate change is real and coincides with some sort of overwhelming desire by a large number of people to control everything?

    What it may be is a leading indicator that the establishment press and international advocates of global wealth redistribution have figured out that “global warming” and “climate change,” its deceptive substitute term, have lost their luster thanks to a lack of scientific rigor, scandals, and deception.

    How do the actual scientists fit into this diabolical scheme? You know, the ones that have spent their whole professional lives building up their reputations as professionals? And if all the science is so obviously wrong, why hasn’t it all unravelled?

    “Climate change” is simply more accurate than “global warming”. “Global warming” only describes one aspect of what is happening. Why does this have to be part of the conspiracy when it just makes complete sense?

    What I’m referring to is the fact that in reviewing three Associated Press items which would appear to have been opportunities to bring up the topic of “warming” and “climate” in connection with the U.N.’s latest “earth summit,” none of them contained either word. It seems that “sustainable development,” a term which has been around for a while and which basically means “stopping most development regardless of merit,” is now the go-to term when one wishes to avoid the aforementioned W-word or C-word.

    Not sure I really understand your complaint there (about the articles).
    To the contrary, instead of prescriptive “you can do that there, you can’t do that over there” sort of framework (very black and white, very rigid), “sustainable development” can be far more pro-development because it’s essentially effects-based. So if you can demonstrate (to the appropriate degree in each case) that your development will have little adverse effect, what it is and where it’s proposed doesn’t matter.

    Thumb up 0

  63. CM

    …its deceptive substitute term…

    GOP strategist Frank Luntz strongly suggested using it because it’s apparently less “frightening”
    http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001330.php

    It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming and ‘conservation ‘ instead of preservation.

    Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used:

    Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

    But then NASA faked the moon landings so we should really set that aside.

    Thumb up 0