High AGW Priest Tom Friedman thinks that we deserve to be hit by a massive storm:
Absent such a storm that literally parts the Red Sea again and drives home to all the doubters that catastrophic climate change is a clear and present danger, the domestic pressures in every country to avoid legally binding and verifiable carbon reductions will remain very powerful.
That will be our come-to-Gaia moment.
[Update a few minutes later]
Is global warming a dead issue?
It may well be. We’re now too broke to be able to afford such an ostentatious, gaudy and pointless religion.
[Update a few minutes later]
I kind of buried the lede in the link above — it cites a paper claiming that global temperature is more influenced by CFCs and cosmic rays than CO2. It’s peer reviewed, too.
If the biggest problems are cosmic rays and solar radiation, it’s hard to see how the power-hungry bureaucrats are going to leverage that into taking over the global economy.
We’re never too broke for Obama to dig us in further, using the EPA if he has to.
Anyway it should help reduce CO2 as more people die due to the population reduction -oops, I meant heathcare – plan coming into effect.
The Chinese ruling elite BTW now considers the US to be a dead power, at worst a passing annoyance to the millennia-long proper hegemony of the Middle kingdom – witness how they treated Obama in Copenhagen.
Welcome to life (and death) as a real, dying paper tiger.
1 percent of scientists think climate change might not be human caused. Only 1 percent. The consequences of doing nothing stand to be a lot higher than the consequences of doing something and having it all turn out to have been a false alarm.
And besides…what’s so bad about clean air and water, livable cities where you don’t need a car to survive, and sustainable agriculture? Those things sound great, climate change or not.
Ethan
If you would actually do some research instead of simply kissing Al Gore’s butt, you would know that up to one-third to one half of climate scientists believe that climate change is completely natural or that our contribution to it is so miniscule that there is no justification for Kyoto type measures.
The consequences of doing nothing stand to be a lot higher than the consequences of doing something and having it all turn out to have been a false alarm.
Repetition of baseless and illogical nonsense doesn’t render it true, or valid.
Ethan,
The problem with your rather charming (if hopelessly naive) question is that you assume that the costs fo getting to this fairy-tale world (sustainable agriculture?, cities where you don’t need a car to survive?) are sufficiently low (trivial, in fact) that the only objection to them were bull-headedness or stupidity on the part of those objecting. This is not the case, and thus any possible suggestion that we should move towards decarbonization because ‘it is a good idea anyway’ must be evaluated in the context of the costs associated with such a move.
As others have pointed out here, the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ is anything but (have you read anything about ClimateGate lately?), so the ‘1% objections’ you refer to are simply mistaken (I’ll be generous and assume you are merely ignorant, not decietful), and the notion of the consequences of doing nothing being less than those of doing something has been sufficiently debunked by our host that I don’t believe it is necessary to embarass you further.
The point is that while decarbonizing might be a good idea for any number of reasons (none of which you have managed to ennunciate), that possible benefit must be measured against very real costs. You have utterly failed to do this, thus your comments carry very little weight indeed.
Run along now, the other children are waiting for you….
The word sustainable is evil.
To give the whole world the U.S. standard of living one would consume 8 times the resources we presently do. Simple conservation and switching to CFL light bulbs is not going to give us a factor of 8.
Recycling your soda bottle and driving a prius is not going to get a factor of 8. Studies have shown that the “public” transport the left so dearly loves is just as big a consumer of resources and energy as small cars and roads if you full account for the resources used for the infrastructure, trains wear out and need replaced just like cars, count these resources and they aren’t a good deal. So unless you can convince the 1st world to take warm showers just once a week and stop driving, flying or otherwise moving about you aren’t going to create a sustainable world. We need to stop this fiction of being sustainable on earth, either we doom some part the humans on earth to perpetual underclass status, or we in America personally undergo a huge reduction of standard of living. Neither solution is acceptable to me.
We need to be talking about how to go get resources OFF planet. Mine the asteroids not the planet, space based solar power built from insitu resources, etc… etc….
The word sustainable makes us feel good and gives us an entirely false hope. It is a lie. The sooner we can kill it as a concept the sooner we can get on with going out and getting what we need.
One interesting thing about Friedman’s “the worse, the better” attitude, which is also shared by all the Climategate reactions, is that you would THINK that the AGW believers would be the ones most relieved by the thought that maybe the evidence that the world is going to be destroyed isn’t so certain as they had thought. The thought that maybe the world isn’t going to come to a violent end shortly ought to be especially welcome to the people who most believed it, right? The thought that maybe the horrors of climate change won’t kick in for awhile ought to be welcome to Friedman, right?
But instead, they don’t so much want the Earth to continue serene and happy while CO2 builds up, as they want to see the people who disagree with them suffer. If I didn’t already think AGW was a false religion, I’d be perplexed by their reactions. As it is, the observations tend to confirm the AGW-as-religion hypothesis.
It’s something of a pity, Ethan, that you are the token environmentalist presence here. With respect to global warming, how hard is it to understand that you need pretty solid evidence first, before you start messing with society? Further, you need pretty solid evidence of some sort of urgency before you start messing with society now. Nobody has that.
And besides…what’s so bad about clean air and water, livable cities where you don’t need a car to survive, and sustainable agriculture? Those things sound great, climate change or not.
In case you haven’t noticed, the developed world already solved the problem of clean air and water (abet in an inefficient and clumsy manner). These issues are completely irrelevant to carbon emissions. And what’s wrong with cities that require a car? A car is a very powerful tool of freedom. Sustainable agriculture? What makes you think we don’t already have sufficiently sustainable agriculture?
Paul, the problem with the use of “sustainable” by its most passionate advocates is that it’s based on garbage science. It takes present use rates and extrapolates them in all kinds of straight-line ignorant ways. It’s the equivalent of extrapolating the growth of a child in his first year out twenty years and saying Good Christ, he’s going to be taller than the house.
Uh, no, he isn’t. Because in something as complex as a human economy, almost nothing can be successfully predicted by simple extrapolation from present trends. Want to know what the price of oil will be in 10 years? The rate of inflation? The number of college educated 25-year-olds? How much oil the US will import? What the Federal budget deficit will be? Whether beryllium or copper will be scarcer? The number of people graduating with degrees in computer science or warp-drive engineering? One prediction is pretty reliable: any prediction made by simply extrapolating present trends is garbage.
There are only a few very reliable measure of sustainability when it comes to species surviving in a complex ecology, and that is sheer numbers, diversity in social structures, and flexibility.
That is, species which exist in large numbers, with a robust birth rate, are more likely to survive long-term. Social species which have a variety of social models — differing social myths, differing cultures, different types of goverment — are more resilient. Species which adapt quickly and imaginatively to environmental challengs are also more likely to survive.
Ironically, almost everything the “sustainability” fetishists preach would reduce the prospects for long-term survival of the species — because they would reduce our numbers, and stigmatize birth and child-rearing, because they would homogenize our social mythology and impose uniformity in government and social behaviour, a “monoculture,” like rice growers planting all the same hybrid crop worldwide, and they would lock us into decades-long, if not centuries-long plans that eliminate our ability to adapt on a short-time scale to new developments.
Really, like much else that comes from the Left, “sustainability” is these days a code phrase for its opposite, for fossilized thinking, ponderous slow-moving institutions, and inertia.
Ethan wrote: “1 percent of scientists think climate change might not be human caused.”
Believing that humans cause some degree of warming is one thing, but how many believe that humans are causing catastrophic warming?
The IPCC reports show that CO2 can act directly as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infra-red radiation and, based upon this mechanism, estimates that doubling its concentration will cause less than a 2C rise in world temperature, of which we should have already experienced half; a situation that most agree is not a problem. To get to a greater than 4C rise (i.e. levels where people think real problems arise) requires the so-called ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’, which assumes that positive feedbacks dominate Earth’s climate system though, unfortunately, there is no real-world evidence to support this theory.
Given these facts, I think it’s true to say that most scientists believe in the basic greenhouse mechanism but that few believe in the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ because it remains an unproven theory. Belief in catastrophic AGW is, therefore, based upon what Richard Feynman termed “Cargo Cult Science” and is something that real scientists should be genuinely concerned about.
Is it acceptable if I wish that Tom Friedman be hit by a gas truck?
Is it acceptable if I wish that Tom Friedman be hit by a gas truck?
Only if it explodes on impact, like in the movies… 😉
“Is it acceptable if I wish that Tom Friedman be hit by a gas truck?”
You violent, bitter and clinging right wing extremist!
/s
DaveP. Says:
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“Is it acceptable if I wish that Tom Friedman be hit by a gas truck?”
Or perhaps an asteroid? Oops! I guess there are a great many things in this universe that seek to annihilate our existence. Better not get target fixated and instead seek to diversify our catastrophic threat mitigation approach. I’d wager that a policy of enhancing productive ability, increasing median wealth levels, and improved technological acumen would be the best approach to overcoming a variety of threats to our human existence.
Hey Ethan, how about a source for your 1 percent claim? BTW, I am a Scientist although only tangentially practicing at the moment.
I also do more for the Environment before 10:00am than you likely have done in your entire life. I am assuming it has been a short life because your argument is sophmoric at best and reads like the reasoning of a typical mush-fed high schooler.
I worry about real Environmental issues like Landfill Design and percent BOD removal. Heck, I even do Arrest Warrants when called for! I make Captain Planet look like a fucking bedwetter!
Just what have you done for the environment besides rote repetition of the gruel you have unquestioningly consumed?
Apparently “conspiracy theory with jesse ventura” just aired an episode on AGW, in the process painting the denialists ( there were no skeptics there ) as true conspiracy theorists and kooks, putting them on the same bar with the people claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.
God is not a human and therefore does not have the same ideas of punishment that we have. God is actually LOVE. This s force or energy and LOVE gives UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. The is no “sin” that is unforgivable. There is no hell, no pugatory and no devil – these are all concoctions of the various churches and previous kings. You cannot die as you are a spirit being a human and simply change back in energy (the vibration rate speeds up) to bring you back to who you are – a spiritual being.
I don’t know. “Gaia will strike down the wicked” sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.
Maybe we should sacrifice a virgin to Gaia. I nominate Jim.
Karl, it sure is. The side effects of each and every urban SUV driver being simultaneously hit by a thunderbolt might be a bit fierce, though.
I am a great believer in alternative energy. I am not, however, a great believer in wind, ground solar or biomass, if said biomass is being grown on land that either used to be in a state of nature or could be used for growing food.
By “alternative” I mean “real alternative” of which by far the most practical and the farthest advanced is nuclear. Real environmentalists (including James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia Hypothesis) agree with me. Phoney ones, largely known as watermelons, do not.
Automotive fuels are actually a side issue. With enough power from another source, they can be created if necessary.
None of this means that it isn’t a good idea to save energy anyway, by such means as district heat and power, better insulation, smaller cars with more efficient engines and better aerodynamics, that sort of thing – including more efficient lighting, but that ought to wait until the price of LED lights becomes a bit more reasonable.
Outstanding Carl. Elimination of adaptability certainly must be high on the list of goals for leftists. If we can continue to adapt, and continue to evolve greater ability to adapt, they know their objectives won’t be obtainable.
“I also do more for the Environment before 10:00am than you likely have done in your entire life. I am assuming it has been a short life because your argument is sophmoric at best and reads like the reasoning of a typical mush-fed high schooler.”
You guys are hilarious.
I’ve never been insulted so harshly…and for making such a benign statement. I apologize if I didn’t cite the relevant research to back my comment up, and I apologize even more for my idealism. Only cynics need apply around here, I should know that after the amount of time I’ve spent reading the comments on this blog.
Ethan, it is because, apparently unwittingly, you made some very offensive comments.
“1 percent of scientists think climate change might not be human caused.”
We are sick to our teeth with argumentum ad verecundiam. It is, most often, a thinly supported, lazy and/or technologically illiterate person’s rationalization to go along with the herd. To a rational and capable person, confident in his or her own mental prowess, it is a disgusting tactic.
“…what’s so bad about clean air and water, livable cities where you don’t need a car to survive, and sustainable agriculture?”
What’s so good about mass economic dislocation, poverty, disease and death, which are always visited upon us when our elite decision makers reach exceeds their grasp? The best solutions, which recognize inevitable and necessary tradeoffs, will evolve on their own, without elite know-nothings picking winners and losers in the competition. Inevitably, the latter process leads to inefficient allocation of resources, and the opportunity costs end up far exceeding the ultimate benefits.
“Mass economic dislocation, poverty, disease and death,” though, are all consequences of climate change. Sea level rise will send billions of people scrambling for higher ground, competing with the existing population for dwindling resources. The deserts will spread, and indeed are already spreading, destroying millions of acres of arable land in the southwestern United States and northern Africa.
Now, I am not suggesting solutions to this problem. Massive government intervention leaves a bad taste in my mouth, too. But it makes me sick to think that there is still so much doubt about climate change and its consequences among the general population, when the science is solid. My statement that 1 percent of scientists think climate change might not be human caused may be “argumentum ad verecundiam,” but it is nearly accurate…the number varies slightly from survey to survey, but in all the reports I could find it has never been above 4%. So we’re looking at, at worst, 97% consensus that climate change is a reality, and that human activity is the driving force behind it.
I have read the “climategate” emails, and frankly, there is nothing in them that suggests a vast conspiracy of scientists. They contained unprofessional language concerning doubters of climate change, but all of the quotes which seem to point to such a conspiracy were obviously removed from their proper context when reprinted by the media. In fact, I blame the media for the fact that so many people in the United States are not sure if climate change is a reality. That 1 – 4% of scientists is given equal time with the 97 – 99% who are positive climate change is happening, which creates widespread doubt when it should be minimal.
Now, again, I don’t know exactly what should be done about climate change. Action on a large scale is needed, and frankly I don’t know if people are ready for that. But the consequences of inaction will be very high, and will be seen in my lifetime. The consensus is that our emissions of greenhouse gases (e.g., our consumption of fossil fuels) must peak by 2015 for the temperature to stabilize at no more than 2 degrees Celsius above temperatures at the end of the last century. So I don’t know about you, but I’m probably going to buy an electric car when they hit the streets, and I think I’ll be doing my shopping at local farmers’ markets whenever possible. Even those little things (buying potatoes grown in your state instead of ones that were flown or trucked across country) make a difference. I just hope those little things are enough.
Commence throwing rocks, guys. I’d be disappointed if you didn’t.
Ethan, I’ve continued this thread in a newer post.
As a Layman – just a small observation.
It seems to me that something with enough power to change winter to spring, to end The Ice Ages, to create one the most vibrant times of the growth of the human race and its wealth (The Medival Warming Period) probably has bit more than a little to do with the climate of the globe. Sir, I present – The SUN!
The I am sure the other gentlemen/ladies here can direct you to more scientific sites, but I and my lowly means can only direct you to the most successful long range weather / climate data base I know of. A forecast that has helped shape agriculture in the U.S. for generations. They use solar sun spot activity as a key indicator in future weather / climate patterns – the Farmer’s Almanac.
http://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange/region/us/14
Kindly note – I live in the Desert SW – they currently predict a cool spring and summer this year (it’s all relative) we shall see. However, I would lay odds they are as or more accurate than many computer models currently used.
Regards,
I’ll move my comment over there – thanks!
Regards,