-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The trouble with talking points as opposed to, say, personal inquiry, is that they leave you saying things that don’t do your image much good. For example, per ClimateWire today:
“All I know is, 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring,” Huntsman told Time. “If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, we’d listen to them.”
Ummm. “Occurring”, “causing”. “Occurring”, “causing”. Something’s not connecting in this comparison, but I just can’t put my finger on it.
And anyway that talking point is either a misquote of a recent scam too many fell for, or just made up and regardless silly because, really, no one disputes that climate changes, always has, always will, that’s what it does. No one, that is, except for people who revise history to create ‘smoking gun!’ Hockey Stick graphs and the like.
But, ok. 90% of my neighbors say leaves covering their lawns are falling from trees. All I know is that if 90% of my neighbors said it was my kids who were spray-painting their garage doors, I’d listen to them.
And if that meant also a severe response with no evidence that it would change the alleged problem the case for which cannot be made — leading to ‘post-normal’ science and calls of ‘consensus’ that it simply must be my kids becasue, after all, those saying that have been making all sorts of claims and looking for ways for decades to get my kids in trouble — like tanning their hides, I’d have child services in my living room in an hour for my lack of judgment and proportion.
Someone send child services to Huntsman’s campaign HQ.
View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Chris Horner
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/05/17/more-deep-climate-thoughts-fro
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
PattyMor| 5.17.11 @ 11:59AM
Its not that the climate isn't changing (warming and then cooling), but that man and his activities are causing the changes. And if he (and she) are effecting the climate, what should we do about it.
However, the "climate mongers" have not demonstrated a causal effect of man-made activities to any change in the climate. They shout down, drown out, lie, and skew data to prove their point. As such, it is nothing but a political solution, of which, the goal is to relieve you of your money and reduce your freedom and mobility.
Mike| 5.17.11 @ 12:58PM
PattyMor,
While the "climate mongers" have not demonstrated a definitive causal relationship between two hundred years of industrial pollution and climate change, their opponents have not definitive demonstrated that there has been no consequence of polluting. As for shouting down etc. look at what AmSpec is doing to John Huntsman whose rather innocuous statement fails to adhere to strict right wing doctrine. As for being relieved of my money, freedom and mobility, my alternative is what? Fouled air and polluted water.
dc| 5.17.11 @ 1:33PM
Idiot: neither you, nor Huntsman, nor your fellow "climate mongers" are innocuous. If you'd like to live under a government that promises "clean air and clean water", and confiscates more than half your property every year so that the "polluters" pay, there are plenty of them around the world. Go there and enjoy the fruits of those promises. But please, don't pretend that your goal isn't to ration and tax Americans into a particular kind of life that you, in your infinite wisdom and benificence, have decreed is more healthy for the plant. And when your rationing doesn't change the climate for the "better," whatever that is, then what? Of course, the eco-totalitarian regime won't be dismantled--it will continue to crush freedom, comfiscate money, and ration mobility. So there isn't really a "on the one hand," and "on the other hand" thing here: your hand presumes to be wiser and deserving of the full weight of government force behind it, to restrict the rest of us. The other hand prefers freedom and isn't arrogant enough to believe that human activity can change the weather more than, for example, the F-ing SUN.
If your air is really fouled and your water is really polluted, by the way, file a nuisance lawsuit or a citizen suit under any number of state or federal laws. Most judges in the country, unfortunately, agree with asses like you, so surely you can squeeze some money out of people more productive and useful than yourselves, merely by alleging that you're uncomfortable.
And people ask why secession is a good idea? Leave us alone. Go away, or let us go away.
Mike| 5.17.11 @ 2:58PM
dc,
In order for them to work, you must take your meds.
dc| 5.17.11 @ 4:16PM
Mike, I'm impressed with your argument. Very clever. Why don't you just pull your thumb out of your ass, switch it with the thumb in your mouth, and in the brief interim, tell me (be specific) why I'm wrong about the underlying goals, ideology, and philosophy of Huntsman and those who are so "open minded" about this subject. "Open minded" people do not arrogate to themselves the power to ration energy for a once-great nation that should and could produce far more energy than it does, for a growing population. Ah, but that's the problem isn't it? How to keep that pesky population from growing. If we could just ration humans as efficiently as Huntsman and his brilliant elite want to ration energy. China's got it figured out--go, check it out for yourself. Don't come back.
Mike| 5.17.11 @ 4:28PM
dc,
Rick Santorum said that John McCain doesn't understand how torture works. Rick's thought processes are a great deal like yours. You should find him an attractive presidential candidate
PGlenn| 5.17.11 @ 2:21PM
Mike,
It's not "shouting down" for AmSpec to point out Huntman's use of an (illogical) bait & switch in his argument.
Also, you're changing the subject from anthropogenic global waming (AGW, aka "climate change") to air pollution, which tells me that your conceding the argument. If Co2 is not causing AGW, then it is not a "pollutant"; thus it would be irrelevant for you to bring it up in this context.
Of course, more 15 years ago, I heard from AGW alarmists that they were concerned it was an existential threat, but if it turned out that they were wrong, heck, at least the efforts to combat AGW would contribute to a cleaner planet, and so forth. Is that what you're falling back on?
Mike| 5.17.11 @ 2:56PM
PGlenn,
I interpret Huntsman as having an open mind about the causes of global warming. I see AmSpec as attacking him for this.
PGlenn| 5.17.11 @ 4:02PM
Mike,
Okay, then, let's encourage Huntsman to maintain logical consistency while he's keeping an open mind about the causes of global warming. Such encouragement is not an "attack," especially compared to what we generally see in political discourse.
Mike| 5.17.11 @ 4:33PM
PGlenn,
Logical consistency, although good, isn't really the point is it? The fact that Huntsman has given credence to the scientists who argue that human activity may be affecting the climate is really what AmSpec's article is all about.
dc| 5.17.11 @ 5:30PM
PGlenn--Mike isn't capable of answering questions or formulating logical thoughts; rubbing his nose in his own feces does him no favors (puppies are capable of learning; he isn't). But, with a hat tip to another fine blogger on another article on this site today, here are the kinds of people, and the endgame of the ideological crusade, that Huntsman and Mike, and Algore, and Il Duce Nero, etc. etc.--the whole leftist elitosphere, supports.
The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state. - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. -- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. -- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run. -- Economist editorial
We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight -- David Foreman, Earth First!
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS -- Earth First! Newsletter
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. -- David Graber, biologist, National Park Service
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." -- Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995
We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels. -- Carl Amery
Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem -- Lamont Cole
Now, Mike: agree or disagree with any/all of the above? Come on, answering one question per day shouldn't tax the wilting greyish matter between your ears.
Mike| 5.17.11 @ 5:56PM
dc,
What you have proven here is your ability to pull together quotes out of context and use them in the service of your unhinged rants. Actually, I suspect I have given you more credit than you deserve as I am reasonably certain that someone else did the heavy lifting for you.
bill| 5.19.11 @ 7:01PM
i read your collection of quotes and your other posts. try as i might to make sense of your thinking,
i just cant.
you are out there.
angry and very very strange.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.17.11 @ 12:19PM
Ninety percent of the scientists are not claiming mankind is causing climate change.
The indicates that 100% of the Jon Huntsmans are wrong.
elSurfeador| 5.22.11 @ 10:05AM
Your statement may or may not be true as it's never been polled whether scientists as a whole believe in climate change. What Huntsman is referring to is a poll taken of just climate scientists and he actually understates the findings. The number came out to 99% of climate scientists believe in climate change. When you have that much consensus in the scientific community on any topic it's worth listening to. You can always find those who disagree and they should also be heard, but 99% and we're willing to ignore all of them and only listen to the 1%???
Occam's Tool| 5.17.11 @ 12:27PM
When one is forced to tamper with data, then there is nothing useful from the results. It's a crock.
Wayne | 5.17.11 @ 1:24PM
Especially when they "lose" the original data.
Wayne | 5.17.11 @ 1:23PM
Huntsman is obviously not qualified to be President. He does not challenge authority. My guess such a man would also not expect the authority to be responsible and as president he would just want to grab authority and accept no responsibility.
Sounds just like the guy we've got.
wodiej| 5.17.11 @ 3:33PM
Yep.
Old Progrmr| 5.17.11 @ 2:35PM
I was looking forward to Huntsman entering the GOP race. But if he has, indeed, fallen for the Global Warming and CO2 fraud, he does not have the intellectual capacity required to be President. Very sad. Yes, there is climate change, there is now, has been and will be; but the potential for a man made climate apocalypse is the major fraud of our times.
wodiej| 5.17.11 @ 3:32PM
LOL...oh geez, wouldn't it depend on what 90% of scientists? Another potential nominee bites the dust.
Flee| 5.17.11 @ 3:40PM
Is he really considered a potential candidate for the R nomination? If truly buys into the man made warming claims, then we need better candidates to get behind.
Roy| 5.17.11 @ 5:15PM
"Polluted" and "Fouled" are loaded words when describing a colorless, odorless, non-toxic, inert gas, the effort to restrict which necessarily competes for resources with efforts to restrict things that ACTUALLY "pollute" and "foul".
pat| 5.18.11 @ 2:18AM
This man is a scientific moron.
Tom| 5.19.11 @ 10:55AM
This is the most incoherent article I've ever read.
ChocoCat| 5.20.11 @ 10:48AM
I agree.
skott daltonic| 5.19.11 @ 12:10PM
why is it so hard for people on the right to deal w/ science rather than the rapture?
OVER 90% of SCIENTISTS think that climate change is real. so you don't want to believe them.
okay. that's just ignorant.
enjoy your Exxon sponsored graves.
john dubose| 5.30.11 @ 12:00AM
Just because the greenhouse effect with CO2 is real does not mean that attempts to roll it back by taxation make any sense. It is not clear how much actual heating can be expected. There are massive uncertainties in the adjustments for cloud cover ) It is not even clear that a little heating is ( on balance ) a bad thing. What is obvious is that many newly industrilizing countries will not cut back reagardless of what we do or they say.
Mark| 5.20.11 @ 8:35PM
I've tried in vain to think of something more sad than today's conservatives angrily lynching any of their own if he has the gall to say we should defer to science on scientific matters. Decades from now, when we are reaping the chaos and horrors (yes, horrors - ask the Pentagon if you think that's hyperbole) that our inaction on this issue has sown, people will look back to the American conservative as the parasitic bane of early 21st century civilization.
Dennis Ambler's "debunking" of the EOS survey was nothing short of pitiful. You people should be ashamed of yourselves for what you are doing.
Bryson Brown| 5.21.11 @ 9:47AM
Try looking into the evidence for a change. Comparing scientists to nasty neighbours who hate your kids is the silliest thing I've seen in days.
JEA| 5.21.11 @ 10:30AM
In the category of "drivel as commentary", this would win the gold medal far and away.
Jon Felson| 5.21.11 @ 10:36AM
How much longer do all our children have to endure the "faith based" -- "head in the sand" policies perpetuated by the far right? May I suggest that if the world doesn't end today... that perhaps we should pay attention to the overwhelming consensus of scientists and get busy sacrificing so it doesn't end for our great-great grandchildren. It used to be the American thing to do!
Walter| 5.21.11 @ 10:42AM
Mr. Horner's comments appear to be deliberately detached from reality. I would direct his attention to the testimony of Professor Richard Muller, who approached the topic with the skepticism, but has convinced himself there is an undeniable transition in global average temperatures, by means of a systematic reexamination of the data. Alternatively, I suggest Mr. Horner look at the many government and scientific reviews of the East Anglia controversy, which concluded -- contrary to some voices out there -- that there was no scientific fraud.
Benjamin| 5.21.11 @ 11:01AM
Wait a second, Chris -- you're saying that if nine out of ten of your neighbors said that your kids were vandalizing property all over the neighborhood, you wouldn't even for a moment consider that your kids might actually be destroying people's property?
Can any conservative on here really say they'd like to live next to a guy like Chris, who would presume that you and all of your neighbors are liars when you tell him that his kids are out of control and that they're vandalizing your private property? Please explain to me why assuming the worst about you and everyone else in the community is a desirable trait in a thoughtful conservative neighbor.
I'd personally hope if I and the rest of the neighborhood came to you, Chris, and we said your kids were totally out of control and were wrecking the place that you'd do something to get them to stop, rather than assume without cause that we were "looking for ways for decades to get [your] kids in trouble."
What you're saying is that you feel perfectly comfortable dismissing the statements of people who come to you in good faith with good evidence if what they're saying contradicts the way you want to see the world -- and you'll even decide people have nasty motives if that helps support your point of view. That's a recipe for being a terrible neighbor, and not a very productive part of any conversation, whether it's about garage door vandalism, or climate change.
Ormond Otvos| 5.23.11 @ 10:45AM
Just like to add my evidence-based view that the planet is warming, that industrial emissions of CO2 are the main reason, and that I don't intend to contribute to the American Spectator because it's a poisonous fraud. They also don't actually remove disrespectful right-wing posts. The bias is evident.
Tenney Naumer | 5.26.11 @ 6:54PM
Just keep putting your head in the sand. Actually, best if you just kept it there and stopped writing your usual nonsense.