- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Among the Intellectualoids
Truth, Economics, and Politics
Someone please tell me it's about to end. That it's O-V-A-H in New England. That's it's D-U-N in Rio Linda. That it's fini in France and finito in Italy.
I've experienced a build-up of evidence that undermines climate change alarmism, and I'm at the tipping point. My head has formed a canopy of truth-trapping that can only contain so much before my circuits overheat, blood pressure elevates, and my faith in broad-based common sense melts away. So please: polish it off in Poznan -- wishful thinking, you might think, but signs point to the beginning of that end. Read on.
As global warming pathologists insist that increasing carbon dioxide drives planetary meltdown, scientists who actually watch the climate trends -- as well as all the forces that affect it – see something different. They observe unchanging (if not declining) temperatures over the last dozen years despite increased global CO2 emissions during the same time period. They see Antarctic ice swells despite a greater media emphasis on Arctic ice (PDF) loss. They see a current warming bias across temperature monitoring stations; a cooling pattern since 1997; and a valid theory that solar cycles affect climate change more than any other phenomena.
That's just a start to what I will finish momentarily, but the point is this: that the politicos who push for CO2 emission reductions, and grant-seeking activist researchers, should be put out to pastures where they can examine cow flatulence (and a more effective greenhouse gas -- methane) up close and personal. Meanwhile let the rest of us who enjoy our variable climate move on to more important issues like malnourished children, genocide, and modern-day slavery.
Really, you alarmists: you waste our time and resources de-beefing your baloney. You lie about hockey stick graphs -- repeatedly (PDF). You deceive about "points of no return." You manipulate data and promote "tailored climate information." You claim there is agreement among scientists that supports your alarmist beliefs when in fact there is no such consensus. You attribute weather-driven disasters (PDF) to anthropogenic global warming. You talk all benefits and no costs when you tout the wonders of "green jobs." You've created a whole new industry sector for yourselves with this garbage. And now you've corrupted companies who want to skim off their portion.
Please, you're killing us with this crap.
Why are so many of you are a bunch of abortion promoting, population control socialists who hate the idea that free markets, capitalism, and access to cheap energy resources do more to enhance health and prosperity than your treasured government-mandated programs? Why do so many of your multimillion-dollar foundations have programs that support environmentalism excess and species protection while at the same time they promote human extermination? I suggest you visit places like Burma and North Korea, make your pitch about the horrid pollution that their economy-suffocating practices produce, and then come back and see us when you've got those bad boys straightened out. Then we'll know you're sincere about your priorities.
That anyone takes you seriously about CO2 emitting a stronger global warming "signal" than other contributing factors is amazing, but then again, we are talking about the environoia promoters in the media who love to stir up the sheeple, aren't we? Well, they had a good run of peril pushing for several years, but now the truth (and economic factors) appear to be turning public thought:
There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries….
Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.
Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend "extra time" on the effort, an eight-point drop.
And only one in five respondents -- or 20 per cent -- said they'd spend extra money to reduce climate change. That's down from 28 per cent a year ago.
Speaking of "signals" there is evidence that despite heroic-looking anchormen in t-shirts who like intimacy with nature, the overall media may be losing interest. News coverage of global warming has roughly paralleled the phony hockey stick, and with recent global surface temperatures dropping, there appears to be a plunge in articles.
Sure, the alarmists can still command a media tizzy at events like this week's conference in Poznan, Poland, which is designed to establish a foundation for the next worldwide Kyoto treaty to limit carbon emissions. We can only hope that the dome light comes on for a few more journalists as they see European nations combat over economic disarmament and over industry-specific exemptions from emissions mandates. Even the EU's queen of green, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has turned against the emissions targets she once championed.
So what of America's president-to-be? Barack Obama may believe with every essence of his cabinet that greenhouse gases must be reduced, but he too must deal with the irrevocable forces of truth and economics. These two factors will drive the impact on his policies by a third factor: politics. The rasslin' this summer over the Lieberman/Warner climate bill failed to draw support even from dependable Democrat Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Byron Dorgan (North Dakota).
It's not hard to imagine further stagnation on the issue through the end of 2012, by which time we may have finished off the heel of the hockey stick.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill| 12.12.08 @ 7:56AM
Great article. It correctly spells out what I have always felt. One advantage of being part of the 50 something group is that we have perspective of history in many areas with weather and climate being one of them.
Living close to the great lakes I have seen the water levels rise and fall many times, seen mild and severe winters and warm and cool summers. The climate has been constantly changing since the beginning of time yet the world keeps moving on.
My son, who is a geologist, also puts no trust in any of the environmentalist claims. One starts to wonder whatever happened to common sense.
My experience in the financial world is that financial numbers do not lie but liers figure and I think the same applies in this case.
Jason Gillman| 12.12.08 @ 9:15AM
Excellent! You really hit the nail on the head when talking about real issues (starvation, genocide etc..) Real issues deserve more of our time and energy.
My father whom I consider a pretty bright guy had been falling for this nonsense, leading to my own frustrations. The manipulation of data and its presentation by willing accomplices in the media has been compelling for many. It is pervasive and its relationship to more government control of our lives is no coincidence.
Gazinya| 12.12.08 @ 9:39AM
Herbert Spencer wrote "There is a priciple which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance, that priciple is 'contempt prior to investigation." Using just the header on this article "Truth, Economy, Politics" would, for me, describe the three areas where, globally, there is the most contempt and the most ignorance. These three items are under such attack as to make my head spin.
Why, in these three social endeavors, is it so calamitous? I look to the motives of those who bring these unreasoned attacks. I mean to use the word 'attack' because they do not discuss or debate the issue. They attempt to make marginal those who disagree with their proclimations. They are 'The Smart ONES". We are the seething, unwashed masses who insist on clinging to old superstitions and traditions. Contemptable we are to them. We are the problem. Why? How did we become so fallen?
It is written somewhere that 'In the days of Noah, before the flood, God saw that there was no evil that entered into a mans' heart that was not done." We, the clingers, are an impediment to their desire to do evil and 'be as gods'. To dictate to the 'less than' the truth of their secular humanism.
It would seem, to me, that reason would be the only way to contain such arrogance but reason and self-discipline are all the 'clingers' have to offer.
Marc Jeric| 12.12.08 @ 10:59AM
Anthropogenic global warming scam has succeded the anthropgenic global cooling scam of the 1970's; then it was followed by the climate change scam. Those revolutionary marxists now transformed into environmentalists will forever try and try again. See internet for "Global warming petition" and "Manhattan Resolution" to read the 31,000 names of scientists (with 9,000 of them with PhD's) who dissent in no uncertain terms with these scams.
Joe| 12.12.08 @ 11:51AM
Hey Paul--direct hit on the greenie-Marxist Gaia worshippers. Circle error probable: ZERO. Detonation of high order munition confirmed. Continue to fire for effect!
John M| 12.12.08 @ 11:54AM
Man-made global warming has been a scam from day one. All the dire predictions we hear about constantly have been largely based on faulty mathematical models of a very complex system and don't take into account the natural variability of atmospheric water vapor (clouds) and solar irradiance. These have a much greater effect on global temperatures than atmospheric CO2 where the natural sources of CO2 are much larger than the man-made contribution. And it now appears that the predictions based on these models are not panning out.
What has been truly appalling about this entire episode is how quickly it became a political litmus test to be accepted like religious dogma long before all of the scientific facts had been fully explored and tested and where any scientists proposing legitimate counter explanations were ostracized as global warming "deniers". Much of the nation is now thoroughly indoctrinated; all school age children across the country were forced to watch Al Gore's movie where they were led to believe that there is no basis for skepticism. They have all been shamelessly duped. Man-made global warming and much of the environmental movement in general have simply been convenient tools used by the left to gain control of the global economy.
dgdc| 12.12.08 @ 12:21PM
Excessive alarmism would have much less effect if the electorate did not have a deep seated urge to protect the environment and natural resources. This urge is condescendingly ignored by the right driving moderate voters, with a sincere and genuine environmental conservationist principals , to the left.
Yes cap and trade is dumb, but a carbon tax would appease the environmentalists and do more to defund terrorists and strengthen national security than Bush's foolish adventure in Iraq.
Conservative principles can dovetail just fine with environmental conservationist goals.
WJ| 12.12.08 @ 12:44PM
Apologies for possibly stating the obvious, but environmentalists and others on the left don't really care about CO2 and man-made global warming. What they care about is power to control people's lives.
Man-made global warming is just the current preferred means to achieve their power. If it ever turns out to be widely known that the climate changes without man as the main catalyst, then they will just move on to another means to achieve power.
Robbins Mitchell| 12.12.08 @ 2:03PM
anAL GOREtentive
Tony Webb| 12.12.08 @ 2:49PM
There is no way, that the rich 1% is going to allow a bunch of underclass, to distroy the planet.
De-population is the solution, for example all this bailout money who has it gone to, the big business.
It's like the game is up, and the rich is carving up what is left amongst friends.
The greenest jobs has always been the same, use human bodies to fertilize the soil, in way of wars.
AIG is giving out one million USD per person in bonuses, compliments of the poor tax payers, who are losing jobs, homes, pensions.
Perhaps George W. Bush don't think they are going to need it. If that FEMA extermination camps is planning to de- populate America/ or it could be the pending brack out of Bird flu.
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.12.08 @ 3:59PM
Chesser started out so well. As a researcher well acquainted with the methodology behind prediction models I cheer his take on "global warming." But why, why, why does anyone throw in "abortion" in a discussion such as this.
John Marshall| 12.17.08 @ 5:33AM
Thids just about sums up the whole fraud! CO2 has not driven climate throughout geological history so why would it do so now with such low concentrations. Recent data has come to light from research carried out in 1890 Victorian England and their figures give the atmospheric CO2 concentration at 490-520 ppmv. This is some way above the 280 ppmv figure that Hansen shouts is the global ideal concentration. I might add that the Victorian scientists were very accurate in this sort of measurement. Their adsorption method is still the one accepted today.
I might also add that climate in 1890 was very much like todays. No global warming there then.
The cornerstone of the alarmist theories is the greenhouse effect. I have great problems with this as it supposes that CO2 in the atmosphere is heated and this heats the surface. We know that atmospheric temperature reduces with height ( 1.9 Deg.C per 1000 ft is the sat. adiabatic lapse rate) so how can cooler heat up warmer? Thermodynamics does not let this happen!
I think that Clouds are the answer and it is clouds that climatologists do not yet understand fully, by their own admission.
Harry| 1.26.09 @ 6:22PM
The looney left hasn't got it right, and neither do the right-wing nuts. Global warming is an issue, and CO2 isn't the main culprit, methane is. Exposing the Artic tundra to increased warming will increaes methane production by a factor of 1000, is pushing the needle past the point of no return. That's not my opinion, that's the opinion of Chevron and their geologists.
links of london jewellery| 9.10.09 @ 10:59PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！
gyvuj| 1.31.10 @ 3:05AM
www.napster.com
napster.com Low One Time Fee, Free to Download