The Coming Environmental Disaster

For about 10 months now we have been watching public officials openly flip and flop and prevaricate with little or no shame. From locations as diverse as French laundromats, they have violated their own diktats with reckless disregard. Their actions have resulted in great damage to the economy and brought about the failure of countless businesses. All of this has been dismissed as collateral damage and the regrettable - albeit, unavoidable - side effects of fighting a pandemic. All the while, these open hypocrites have been poo-pooing the damage done by their meddling while acting as though the entire edifice of science supports their every whim. They turn an ounce of truth into a pound of overreaching cure. If you didn't think demagoguery could bring us this far, well now you have learned what the founding documents sought to push against.

Enter climate change. Do you think that, given what these demagogic prevaricating pols have learned thus far, that there will be any restraint to imposing draconian solutions while cloaked in the liturgical vestments of climate change? Even the IPCC acknowledges that if the most oppressive Kyoto-cap and trade-Paris solutions are implemented, only negligible reductions in greenhouse gases will result. But it comes at the cost of devastating economies - which will lead to far greater environmental damage.

But who will win in such an Orwellian power grab? Not the individual or small business but rather large corporations and the wealthy. Just as with covid, the ruling class doesn't care how much damage is done to your livelihood, the poor, minorities, the sick, or whoever as they, with religious fervor, spool up legitimate issues into apocalyptic catastrophes that only they can fix. And oddly, the only fix is more government control and power for them.

If you don't think we are going to see this dress rehearsal replayed over the next four years with John Kerry and his lackeys shame-fucking each and every one of you that dares to ask a question, you are either rooting for statism or you are unquestioningly naive. 

Weather vs. Climate

Here we go again

Harry Reid shares this free speech notion with John Kerry.

It's time for us all – whether we're leaders in Washington, members of the media, scientists, academics, environmentalists or utility industry executives – to stop acting like those who ignore the crisis or deny it exists entirely have a valid point of view. They don't.

QOTD

If Conservatives are anti-science, then is the Left is anti-math?

Green Jobs

I guess we are all green now. Green jobs include:

• Manufacturing wind turbines
• Sweeping the floor in a solar panel facility
• Driving a hybrid bus
• Driving any bus
• Putting gas in a bus
• Clerk at a bicycle shop
• Selling antiques at an antique shop
• Selling used goods at a Salvation Army or consignment shops
• Selling rare books and manuscripts
• The teenage kid who works full time at a used record shop
• Manufacturing railroad rolling stock
• Hauling trash
• Oil lobbyists who advocate environmental issues

Issa was asking similar questions back in September of 2011:



Remember, no new jobs are created. They are just now reclassified as "green jobs".

Klavan helps us to understand this complicated matter:

Linzen on AGW

The Telegraph reports on Linzen's presentation to the House of Commons.  

One of the zingers by Linzen:

Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.

Climategate 2.0

James Taylor looks at the some of the shenanigans in the AGW story.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

So the science is not exactly settled.  But it is settling.  

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds. 

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

Not sure why the NYT and others aren't crowd sourcing this to get to the bottom of the settling science.

Manufacturing

There is a lot of concern about sending jobs overseas. And not keeping manufacturing jobs here at home.

Why is oil production not considered manufacturing that could keep jobs here in the US? Canada seems to keep a lot of people empoloyed manufacturing petroleum products. Couldn't we bring those jobs home?

Papal Infallibility

When a person says that the science has been settled, why isn't this considered to be as silly as Papal infallibility? 

Ignore the Right

Al Gore has taken a page from John Kerry by recommending that we just ignore the dummies on the right.

But there is nothing new here. These are the folks who use dismissal as a form of argumentation. Dismissing the other's arguments as stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical is thought to be sophisticated. And sophisticates are not required to have meaningful and thought-provoking discussions with the preceding list of reprobates. One just dismisses them with a pejorative and moves on.

The knuckle draggers who have the temerity to question the enlightened are likened to holocaust deniers or racists and dismissed as ignorant fools. There is no need to discuss details with a lout. Those that disagree with the stated opinion are to be marginalized. Only the enlightened position should be pondered. There is no room or need for debate because the issue has been settled.

You win the conversation by disallowing a conversation in the first place.

The insidious part of this is the unspoken accusation that must be accepted in order to feel comfortable dismissing those you disagree with as holocaust deniers. The metaphor suggests that anthropogenic global warming skeptics have taken up a position that is so extreme and evil that it is comparable to taking up the case for Hitler's final solution. So just as one does not need to have a serious conversation with a Hitler sympathizer, so one should not even dignify the opinions of those who disagree with the popular ethos.

This subtle, yet effective, debating technique questions the motives of those on the other side, and then sets up a caricature, rather than the actual argument, to be attacked. Can anyone say straw man?

Another recent example of Al Gore's "I don't debate evil idiots" non-debating technique occurred when John Kerry admonished the press for even covering ideas he doesn't agree with. Apparently freedom of the press is not to be made available to those with opposing views. So now, not only should opposition ideas not be debated, they should not even be covered by the press lest these dark, frenetic, maniacal ideas be seen by the great unwashed and believed. (Pertinent comments begin at about 2:13)

And if that weren't enough, Paul Krugman informs that Republicans are anti-science and anti-knowledge. In his article he exposes Republicans who wonder if money might influence some scientists as "vile." I suppose Mr. Krugman would use this adjective for this observation:

To see what’s really going on, follow the money. Wall Street used to favor Democrats, perhaps because financiers tend to be liberal on social issues. But greed trumps gay rights, and financial industry contributions swung sharply toward the Republicans in the 2010 elections. Apparently Wall Street, unlike the voters, had no trouble divining the party’s real intentions.

Well, maybe not. These are his words from May 1, 2011. (link) Either he believes that it is okay for Democrats to question the effect that filthy lucre has on Republicans while labeling that questioning as "vile" when turned to Democrats, or he changed his mind during the four months that transpired between these articles. Or maybe he is a partisan "charlatan" or a "crank"?

But Krugman has provided a service. He has packed so many liberal talking points into one article that it saves the reader a lot of time. Instead of reading a tome of articles to discover how wonderful Democrats are and how mean and ugly Republicans are, the reader can just review the highlights in this one article:

• Republicans can never have honorable motives while Democrats do.
• Republicans are malevolent and manipulate to get their way while Democrats present truth.
• Republicans are against facts, science and common sense while Democrats have all three.
• Republicans often, if not always, are moved by greed and corruption while Democrats aren't.
• When Republicans dare to wonder whether money may have motivated the manipulation of data in favor of global warming theories, it is vile. When Democrats opine about greed and avarice driving much of the decision-making of Republicans, it is revered.
• When Republicans reference experts who question anthropogenic global warming, it is a crazy conspiracy theory. When Democrats find experts who agree with their position, it is merely consensus.
• When Republicans judge their candidates based on their positions on specific issues it is willful ignorance becoming a litmus test for candidates. When Democrats do this it is intelligent vetting.
• When Republican candidates have similar beliefs as their constituency it is the result of cynical power mongers pandering to the ignorant. When Democrat candidates share the beliefs of their constituency it is the beautiful symbiosis of intelligent voters and their caring public servants.
• Republican economic ideas are the gut feelings of charlatans and cranks while Democrat economic ideas are the hard thinking about matters economic.

And this from those who are often self-congratulatory about their penchant for nuance.

Arctic Thawing

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from those who sail the seas of the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.

…so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north ns 81 ° 29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

He says that he first noted warmer conditions [four years ago], that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that today the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of [54 years ago] to [five years ago].

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

NOAA source document

Turns out this was in 1922.

Where Are the Climate Refugees?

GlobalWarming.org article.

Today’s (pre-Earth Day) edition of the Wall Street Journal reports that the 50 million climate refugees did not materialize. In fact, many of the places UNEP supposed would be hardest hit by global warming are rapidly gaining population!

Hockey Stick... Not.

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller.

Let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline.

This justification would not have survived peer review in any journal that I am willing to publish in.