This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The High Cost Of Centrally Planning The Global Climate
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
Since I’m not a person who follows the climate-change debate or climate science in detail, I don’t get involved in discussions over temperature readings or climate trends. On the other hand, I find it’s a very bad idea to leave the science of economics and political economy up to climate scientists and their friends in politics who tend to be woefully deficient in their knowledge of how economies work or how scarce goods and amenities can be preserved, obtained, or manufactured.
It seems that for the global warming lobby, all that is necessary to set everything right is to hand control of the global economy over to governmental central planners. In their minds, the machinery of government only needs to be set in motion, and everything will be done with righteous precision to preserve the climatological status quo by increasing the cost of energy and cutting economic activity. The costs of such a venture, whether in money or in human lives and human comfort, need never be considered, because, we are told, the only alternative is the total destruction of planet earth.
This “Follow Us or Die!” routine is a propagandist’s dream of course, but in real life, where more rational heads — on occasion — prevail, the costs of any proposed government action must be considered against the costs of the alternatives. Moreover, the burden of proof is on those who wish to use government, since their plan involves using the violence of the state to carry out their proposed mandates.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that global climate change is occurring and that the sea level is rising. This still leaves several unanswered questions for the global warming enthusiasts:
- What is the cost of your plan to various populations in terms of the standard of living and human lives?
- Is the cost of your plan greater than or less than the cost of other solutions, such as the gradual relocation populations from coastal areas.
- Can you show that your plan has a very high probability of working, and if not, why should we implement it when we could spend those same resources on other more practical solutions and more immediate needs such as clean water, food, and basic necessities?
All too often, the response to questions such as these are angry diatribes about how we must act now. But of course, such a position is similar to that of a person who, upon seeing that winter is approaching demands that everyone build the winter shelter his way immediately. “Can’t you people see it’s getting colder?” he says. “If we don’t build the shelter my way, we’ll all freeze.” When faced with questions of whether or not his shelter plan is really the best way to proceed, or if a different type of shelter might be more cost effective, or if others would rather build their own shelter, he angrily declares “you winter deniers don’t care if we all die.”
Naturally, if the group then goes ahead with their belligerent companion’s shelter plan, they may find in the end that the shelter fails to keep out the cold or is structurally unsound. In that case, the group is actually much worse off because it expended large amounts of valuable resources that should have been applied elsewhere.
The True Costs of Global Climate Regulation
Here’s a representative paragraph from a publication that claims it disproves the “myth” that economic controls will have a negative impact on the economy:
In the long term, unless we drastically reduce the rate at which we are still emitting greenhouse gases, we are very likely to incur huge costs as a result of climate change. Part of these costs will be in adaptation, and the inevitable disruption. In part costs will escalate due to turmoil and uncertainty throughout the economic world. There will also be costs that cannot be quantified, particularly when we try to value a human life and its loss.
What are these “huge costs”? How many of them will come from “disruption” and how many will come from “adaptation.” If we look more deeply into the proposed plans, we find the attempts at estimating such costs are based on wildly speculative computer models. There is nothing more than the assumption that their course of action is superior to the course of action preferred by others. But again, the burden of proof is on those who wish to use government coercion against others.
Moreover, even the mainstream research recognizes that the proposed cuts in carbon emissions, such as cutting “CO2 emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels,” are purely arbitrary. Indeed, they must be arbitrary because the people who advocate for such measures have no idea how much carbon emissions should be cut to accomplish their goals, or indeed, if any level of cuts would accomplish their goals, ever.
What we do know, on the other hand, is that fossil fuel energies are behind most of the enormous progress made in the developing world. They make mechanization, transportation, and industrial economies possible. It is the rise of factories and other industrial operations that have pulled countless millions of Chinese (to name one example) out of the drudgery of low-productivity agricultural work and into factories where they can earn more than ten times as much. These workers send money back to elderly family members and they make possible the enormous savings rates that are driving the Chinese economy.
This work is safer, more productive, and provides access to more and better food, better medical care, and better housing, than does agricultural work.
Fossil fuel energy is a key factor in all of this, and to propose that the rug now be pulled out from under these people displays a callousness toward humanity that is truly unnerving.
But, the global warming lobby may say, “the effects of global warming will hurt them.” Perhaps. And if so, they need to prove to us that the costs of global warming will be greater than the costs of making these people less productive, poorer, and possibly destitute.
Less Energy Use Means Less Clean Water
A second major factor here in the necessity of energy is fresh water. The California drought has reminded us that fresh water is a scarce resource, even if the government likes to treat it as if it were not. But even as larger populations demand more water, fresh water can be produced through the use of energy via desalinization and pump-based aqueducts.
Today, most such schemes are still uneconomical because the problem of water scarcity can usually be solved through cheaper means such as importing food from wetter climates and through cheaper aqueduct systems that are primarily gravity-based.
In the future, however, as water does become more and more scarce as populations grow, the most practical answer will indeed become more energy-intensive solutions.
By centrally planning and artificially limiting energy usage, however, what the global warming lobby wants to do is raise the price of water processing, and by limiting the use of such methods, also inhibit technological progress by preventing practical experience in the use of water processing and fresh water production.
Bizarrely, many of these same people claim that government regulation of water is necessary because “rich people” will hoard all the water, but by raising the cost of water processing, the global warming lobby is ensuring more monopolistic control over water and higher prices for everyone.
“But global warming is causing droughts!” some will say. Perhaps. But those people still have yet to prove that their plan will end droughts and produce sufficient water for everyone. They still can’t even prove that droughts like the California drought are due to global warming. And, needless to say, the proposition that global controls on energy will make water flow from the hillsides in some distant future is pure speculation. But, in the meantime, we know the effect on the cost of living for ordinary people will be enormous. In other words, the global warming lobby wants humanity to abandon a real bird in the hand — developing technology in water production — for two very theoretical birds — a future without droughts — in the bush.
An Experiment Built on the Backs of the Most At-Risk Populations
Thus, a world of carbon controls and other central plans designed to prevent global warming, is a world of greater expense for everyone when it comes to food, water, and any basic necessity that involves the expenditure of energy. Which is to say, most everything. Naturally, the people in the least industrialized and poorest parts of the world will suffer the most. The global warming lobby likes to point out that their global warming policies are primarily directed at the richest countries. But if they think that will spare the developing world, they’ve only made clear that they don’t understand how global economies work. Crushing economic activity and consumption in the developed world only serves to lower wages and economic growth in the developing world.
Like the man who hysterically demands that everyone build a winter shelter his way or die, the global warming lobby thinks that its highly speculative, unproven, massively expensive, and poverty-producing plan is the prima facie solution to everything. Naturally, they want to use the coercive power of the state to force everyone to conform to their plans as well, and if a billion poor people have to pay a steep price, well, that’s a price that wealthy and upper middle-class academics and activists are willing to have the poor pay.
- 10587 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


the problem is centralization
the solution is decentralization
Speaking of Central Planners…
Does Yellen wear boxers or briefs? ;-)
Looney
Neither... DEPENDS!
A control freak will use any excuse to gain control.
Of course it's really for the benefit of the controller.
Problem, reaction, solution, and then profit.....
This may explain some of it better.. http://galeinnes.blogspot.com/2015/05/engineered-dependencies.html
The author of the (( 1993 )) stanford study: https://emf.stanford.edu/people/john-weyant
Prof. Weyant earned a B.S./M.S. in Aeronautical Engineering and Astronautics, M.S. degrees in Engineering Management and in Operations Research and Statistics all from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and a Ph.D. in Management Science with minors in Economics, Operations Research, and Organization Theory from University of California at Berkeley. He also was also a National Science Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2117684?uid=3739400&uid=2&uid=3737...
The mises guy: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanmcmaken
University of Colorado at Boulder, B.A., Economics
University of Colorado at Denver, M.A., Political Science, Public Affairs
Can't mises hire people other than PR lackeys (who know zero science) to write this stuff?
Was the California drought geoengineered to pass future ‘climate change’ legislation?
I noticed you didn't bold "He also was also a National Science Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government."
Statist much? ;-)
Speaking of Harvard nmewn, why just two weeks ago there was a little get together at Harvard, moderated by Charlie Rose. Amongst the guest speakers was Chris Field, lead author of IPCC AR5 Working Group 2. You remember WG2 where Michelle Jarraud said "there is no pause" and Chris Field said the data isn't showing anything like a pause RIGHT? He was the one given the hot-potato of the California draught. Here's what he said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pDb0mPyedk&feature=player_detailpage#t=...
Meanwhile at the Vatican last week...
"The world should take note that the climate summit in Paris later this year (COP21) may be the last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human- 2 induced warming below 2-degrees C, and aim to stay well below 2-degree C for safety, yet the current trajectory may well reach a devastating 4-degrees C or higher;"
and the pope is speaking to congress this September on the heels of his encyclical on AGW this summer. Enough to make the anti-statist head explode I knOw right?
ALL roads lead to Paris
I noticed you didn't bold "He also was also a National Science Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government."
Statist much? ;-)
But you did notice that I specifically quoted that part as well?
Depends on what? she's got no balls.
Mr Yellen only wears a jock strap.
What does Yellen have in common with M. Obama?
The problem is there is no problem so they have to create one to get their way. The climate hasn't changed. Not since the end of the little ice age 140 years ago.
There is none so blind as he who will not see. Yours is the stupidest post on a thread full of stupid denialist assertions. Even denialists admit climate change is happening.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... www.jobs-review.com
The US being flush with coal and not allowed to use it will prove to be financially devastating. Dirty or not coal is cheap and therefor, it is the people's fuel. Not to mention the fact that there has to be a way (scrubbers etc) to make the coal fire power process cleaner.
We are getting screwed... again.
Bingo.
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/5/editorial-the-high-price-...
One thing he didn't lie about.
Geeze louise, that's two things , out of what, half a million talking points that Mr Jarrett gives him to choose from.
The HIV positive thing , he has been very quiet on , though.
Those treatments are rigorous, I can see how he might not have much energy left.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
- Terry Pratchett
I prefer that society be organized assortatively and not inclusively as a way to solve problems, but still, I do harbor a great desire for the global warmers to be warm for the rest of their lives.
+1
Terry's brain, RIP.
Send us a sign though, maybe just a club in the head. No Dragons Please.
Global Warming is simply another new-age millenial cult religion. It has all the standard tropes - and angry mother gaia punishing a sinful mankind for wastefulness. If we are not to suffer judgement from the gods, we must put on our economic hair shirts, follow the high priests of AGW and build windmills like great cathedrals.
#MOAR Migratory bird guillotines!
Not bad, right direction, needs a bit more work to be marketable.
Your grant will be for 18 months, 1.5 million, possibly renewable if your gorgeous grad assistants sleep with the directors.
Mix together some different interpretations of our moral intuitions, and voila: a new religion.
Reading that last paragraph tells me that u ain't seen nada yet!
Like down the endless echoing hole to hell by mocking gnashing teethers and lover pâténted and the warlord passion assassins in ur bedroom for decades upon decades for the tornado spin of those pretending to mandate ur eyeballs for clothes of naked rulers preparing for hypocritical judgement day. Where truths r too evil to be spoken by those who prescribe deciet as a normal bent over mankind by those with God complexes for greed against the competition held slave between their bedsheets where privacy is but a device of torture.
Follow those who fight climate change or die is more serious than this BS libertarian spiel that looks at life through the wrong end of the binoculars.
Mises is to ecological truth what spies is to reality. They are totally ideological in their denial of reality.
A travesty of copy replacing the original.
Economics is the fake shamanic facade of the physical world which is more cousin to obscurantism than empirical truth.
Mises is a Savonarole of this age.
I'll put you down as a "maybe" then.
you must be Havana
Disparaging Mises won't make you popular here. You'll be big in Seattle though Dude!
And this is true ! Mises had a lot of interesting things to say, just like Keynes. That all were abbused ad fundum afterwards !
Economics is the study of human interactions in markets. That is literally all it is. You can't blame a branch of study for all of the world's woes mate. It's just irrational and borderline delusional.
Ha ha, that's funny coming from you.
You despise Keynes as the devil himself and worship Hayek like he were the Savior.
Now for a worshipper of Icons, you've diluted your angle of attack to say : its JUST a study of human interactions in markets (faked, baked, HFT controlled or free invisible handed you don't say and you don't say to what extent these Markets RUN the world)...
So thats a double faux pas on your part : for "loving a student of human interactions" like he were God all the while vehemently despising his opposite (why all this hatred if its "just a study" ?) ; all the while now pretending that those who study the most momentous mechanism controlling the economic world --gone bat shit crazy in our age-- are just students of a "branch of study"...
More false nosed practician of logic you cannot be.
"I find it’s a very bad idea to leave the science of economics and political economy up to climate scientists and their friends in politics who tend to be woefully deficient in their knowledge of how economies work or how scarce goods and amenities can be preserved, obtained, or manufactured."
LOL! As opposed to leaving the science of climate and pollution up to energy companies and their friends in politics who tend to be woefully deficient in their knowledge of how the global climate works or how man-made activities might be impacting it? [And have every incentive to not understand it.]
All that corruption . . .
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=E
http://maplight.org/content/oil-and-gas-industry-gave-13-times-more-mone...
http://maplight.org/content/oil-and-gas-industry-gave-10-times-more-mone...
Cherry picking links doesn't prove shit.
Do you suppose the central planners will do as well managing the climate as they do EVERY FUCKING OTHER THING THEY ASSUME CONTROL OF?
One - the facts are the facts. No cherrypicking involved. So STFU.
Two - who said I for "central planning?" I'm advocating that we need to deal with reality. And not the conjured obfuscation paid for by the energy industry and swallowed whole by mindless fools like you.
I remember when it all started. But I later realized that gore had been talking nonsense since the old days when he said w would go to an ice age.
It all started when long ago I was in my bed w my x husband saying nothing but having my long term relationship with the weather as I had had since I was young and told no one. Well that morning they saw me have that relationship in my bed and gore got that one for the mocking shit if insanity make it up science.
That was a long time ago..... But lover and moved in between my sheets still long before that in my bedroom gore thing.... But compared to now that was only the begginning... Though by then it had been going on a long time ...
I had many different types of relationships with the weather... And lots of things.
I had to leave a beautiful life behind left in the trails of blood...... Now grown to lakes and oceans etc of blood by those who hold all one loves hostage by lies.
Though Kiki has been in my bedroom since middle school back when I dated a guy who lived next to her.
which is more fundamental -- the natural world or the economic practices of humans ?
Oh please I have watched the gov put old growth family lumber farmers out of biz who had had the land forever and maintained it well so it had old growth for clear cutters over a spotted owl.
What was Harry reads problem with those peeps in desert? Was nit the tortuous they happily mowed down for war against their cattle ... It's because he wanted the land for his solar farm!
Plus the question u need to ask the EPA who prefers war to economics as since war is EPA approved!
Ur question doesn't even makes since economically? But from an idiots political point of view drunk on cool aid!
What u are really asking if I think that a bunch of lying stealing robbing fools has the right as fascist to all the intellectual property rights and rights to all else as elites of hypocrisy as if they are the only ones with the rights to anything with their hypocritical deciet because the honest man is full of bullshit! As the gov can fry his brain like an egg as the biggest polluters and fucked up conquests with empty pockets to blow on the good credit of those they seek to destroy because they believe politically beyond mommy dearest daddy bigdick in little sisters bedroom as national security like it's just the family of insanity! Where would the clintons be without the poor to fill their pockets with wealth?
Command and control.
It also allows for ignoring pollution in slave labor areas (China) while taxing and stealing assets from citizens of the West.
Pollution is a problem; "global warming" is caused by solar cycles and we have no control over the Sun.
The hysteria feeds the narcissism of omniscience that worshipers of science possess, it is their mantra.
Concurrently, it inculcates fear and guilt in the populace, the dual edged sword of the kleptoligarchy.
Hey, even I would not use ' inculcates' in a sentence.
Some pretty good points though.
I agree inculcates was the high point of the post, other than that, it was a hodgepodge of nonsense...
Just goes to show that a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then...
how about ingurgitates or impregnates or vomisserates...(the last is pure expurgation of infliltrated indoctrination).
I'm running out of hyperboles of amplified mind bending of Von Misean sleight of hand.
Indoctrinate, instill, imbue, implant, promulgate, inseminate...
Uh, you might want to actually study a little science. Your opinion about solar cycles displays vast ignorance of the subject.
The Sun doesn't heat the Earth? Man, back to the textbooks with me!
That is not what he implied....
Quit playing bullshit games and show us what you really know and how you can defend it...
After all, this is Fight Club....
You of all people shouldn't be demanding anything from anyone, especially not in the context of "fight club" rules.
<\yawn>
Oh cute, of course the sun warms the earth and solar cycles affect the climate. But, the science (there's that dirty word again. How come the rest of the world envies our science and technology, but Americans seem to think its all a conspiracy) shows that the warming since the beginning of the industrial age cannot be explained by any known force (scientists really do understand the sun's contribution) but greenhouse gases. In fact, those ghg's are so powerful they have reversed what was a cooling trend leading to another ice age. IOW, we have managed to nullify the solar cycles.
Just as we expected...
<\crickets>
Government, being nothing more than a criminal racket of theft and violence, can only produce four things: poverty, misery, death, and lies.
All indication otherwise are delusion or propaganda.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission.
the easiest way to deal with a committed global warming alarmists to ask them if how many people will global warming kill and precisely by what date.
ask them for specifics. if they refuse to provide them, then ask them if they believe global warming is then more of a threat than civil war in the united states or thermonuclear ww3 in 2020.
if they give you a statistic, ask them how certain they are , and how specifically will they be held to account for their prediction, what meterics can be used to attribute 'blame'. then offer to give them oddds on a bet to put their money where their mouth is.
Nice, But rational argument with the mentally deranged is never productive.
. . . . rational argument with the mentally deranged is never productive.
Absofuckinglutely!!!
Nonsequiters - No matter what happens with climate change, our folly could result in nuclear war. Since you seem to be an authority, I'll ask you how many people will die due to our current energy system? I mean on top of the many who have already died producing fossil fuels, breathing their polluted air, drinking their polluted water and fighting over a few million square miles of sand and oil in the mideast. Our current system is massively destructive.
We are only players in reality, we can't actually effect it in any real meaningful way outside of providing greater abundance. That greater abundance comes at a cost, which means fuel. What you suggest will starve at least a billion in the first year.
Of course, you can't predict how many people civil war in the US will kill and precisely by what date.
Nor can you tell us specifically how many people nuclear war will kill and by precisely what date.
Your fail according to your own criteria.
The climate change happening now is clearly happening faster than any climate change in geologic history besides the end-Cretaceous shift. If you don't know what caused that one, then it's time to do more research before opining about climate change.
The big five mass extinctions in history did not start as fast as this climate change has started, and small wonder; never before in history has (supposedly) intelligent life transferred so much carbon from the ground to the air so quickly. There have been a lot of benefits to the fossil fuel expansion of the last 200 years, but there seem to be some very large costs associated with such a rapid and comprehensive expansion.
Unlike civil war in the US or even nuclear war, the consequences of climate change are already happening, but this is just the prologue. The long term consequences are almost certainly greater in terms of numbers of humans killed than civil war or even nuclear war. Take some time to study climate change; it's worth it.
Humans blamed for climate change ???
The basic underlying problem is that human civilizations are controlled by backing up lies with violence, because those were the most socially successful ways to operate the real death controls, that backed up the real debt controls.
IF, IF, IF one is serious about addressing how human activities fit into the general energy flows of the natural environment, then one should have monetary systems based on energy standards. However, the established systems are COVERTLY based on how human beings and human civilizations actually operate as entropic pumps of energy flows. Human civilizations DO follow the principles of general energy systems, however, that is DELIBERATELY MISUNDERSTOOD IN THE MAXIMUM BACKWARD WAYS POSSIBLE, due the history of successful warfare being based on backing up deceits with destruction, which became the foundation for political economies to become based on ENFORCED FRAUDS.
IF, IF, IF one is serious about how human systems fit inside of the infinitely bigger natural systems, then one should focus attention upon their central features, which are the death control systems. However, since the actual human death controls were developed by murder systems which were most successfully done through the maximum possible deceits and treacheries, the actually existing systems are dominated by the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. It is practically impossible to have any rational public debates about any important issues, since that would require rational debates about the death control systems, as necessarily central to everything else. While it may be theoretically possible to develop better climate science (despite how hyper-complex that is), developing better political science is way, way, more difficult.
To develop better political science would require coming to terms with the basic social facts that governments are actually the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, and moreover, that is necessarily the case, because when one examines human systems from the perspective of general energy systems one discovers both empirically, and theoretically, how and why human civilizations are controlled by the people who are the best at being dishonest and backing that up with violence, and so, civilizations' paths of least resistance are their paths of least morality.
The magnitude of profound paradigm shifts which would be needed in order for human civilizations to more effectively respond to the real ways that human activities are changing the climate goes utterly off the scale of what can be realistically imagined to be possible. The article above touches upon some of those difficulties. However, the core question is how can human beings operate their murder systems after the development of weapons of mass destruction? Without any effective resolutions of those issues, then it is plainly obvious that there are no other possible solutions to the rest of the related problems. The ONLY things that are really happening now are that the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites are promoting their versions of the threat of climate change, in order to promote their sorts of "solutions" to those problems, all of which are based on evil ulterior agendas.
IF, IF, IF one is serious about how human beings are going to survive inside of the context of natural selection pressures, THEN, the central issues are how are human beings going to operate cultural systems of artificial selection, in which the human death control systems are crucial to everything else. IF, IF, IF one is serious about how to resolve the threats of climate change (to whatever degree those may be driven by human activities) THEN one should describe the kinds of death control systems that one proposes.
However, since real human history has created social pyramid systems which are operated through the maximum possible deceits and frauds about themselves, because those used to be the most socially successful strategies, there is practically zero chance of changing the established systems in any coherent ways. There is almost nothing but organized crime, surrounded by layers of controlled opposition groups, both of which are based on bullshit backed by bullies. Working through "solutions" to climate change problems inside of that context is extremely problematic, to the point of being politically impossible.
Yeps, Global warming is as human caused as bad policies by bad political systems. That is what both sides refuse to accept. But I would say, those who recognize the first half of the equation are half way, those who deny are on the opposite way.
Ludwig, I agree with your last sentence's summary of the paradoxes presented!
As far as climate change science goes, my current opinion is that the greenhouse gas mechanisms actually exist, but human beings do NOT sufficiently understand the Sun, and so, changes in more cosmic factors have NOT been properly included into the current climate models, which have been quite wrong for quite a while now with respect to their predictions.
We appear to currently be getting a "lucky break" that the more cosmic factors are mitigating the greenhouse gas mechanisms. However, nobody that I am aware of has provided any convincing proof that those greenhouse gas mechanisms are not real, and so, not a significant threat with respect to those driving climate change. Rather, to me, it looks like the mainstream climate models were deliberately too myopic regarding what they were based upon presuming. The longer term threats are STILL THERE, and could return with a vengeance!
The FUNDING of science distorts its findings in quite hyper-complicated ways. However, I find that most people over-generalize that, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, jumping from the conclusions that since there was some fraud, it is all fraud. In my opinion, a lot of comments posted on these topics on Zero Hedge push cynicism through to the point of stupidity. There IS science. However, when that operates as a social institution inside of Neolithic Civilizations' pyramid systems, everything ends up channeled through the ways that society is controlled by backing up lies with violence.
Since almost nobody in any profession will publicly admit that they are profoundly hypocritical, and must necessarily be so, the different sides to different aspects of the debates about to what degree human activities have climate changing impacts, and what human beings could do about that, suffer from the same basic paradoxes which I outline above, and which you, Ludwig, summarized in your last sentence.
Ironically Gore's L1 Trianna idea would be a gold-mine of sun related data today but alas we're down to a mere month from beginning collection. Oh well, at least it's gonna have the latest suite of instrumentation! Poetic justice.
Humans blamed for climate change ???
On its face this premise is total bullshit! One major volcanic eruption emits more CO2 and other "greenhouse" gasses than 100 years of human activity. If you look at the rules set up for the past IPCC reports on "global warming" they conveniently left out ALL causes of GW OTHER THAN human activity. Very convenient to bolster their claims of human related GW, no???? Don't believe me? Look it up!
Hah, as a troll, you certainly do suit the name and photo that you have choosen to present yourself, Dickweed.
The thread I linked above is a collection of my efforts since 2007 to address that issue ...
Making shit up is never a good strategy in a debate...
Seriously, your ignorance is fucking epic....
yes, we can tell by the amount of evidence you are sharing with us...
Are you that intellectually lazy that you cannot take literally 15 seconds to come up with this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_vs_Volcano.gif
Then again you are the idiot that tried to argue that Propane C3H8 was the same thing as liquified CH4....
Go away, you are a clown...
Atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii . . .
Maybe you have a hard time with the English language or maybe you just have a hard time understanding simple sentences but I stated that CO2 emitted from MAJOR volcanic eruptions exceed human CO2 emissions. Mauna Loa, even at its most active state does not qualify as a MAJOR eruption. Mount St. Helens in the 1980's fits into this category. Again, do the research next time, not just a Google search . . . . . also, name calling does nothing to support your views or position.
My fuck, you can be a stupid shit when you want to be...
Why don't you learn about how C02 levels are measured and the history before exposing your complete and utter ignorance...
Start here and follow the primary sources/references (assuming that you even know what that means)..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
Simply STFU and spare us your fact free prattle....
Making shit up is never a good strategy in a debate...
Seriously, your ignorance is fucking epic....
Do the research yourself before you open your pie-hole next time . . .
You have repeatedly spewed nothing but made up shit in this thread...
Can you provide anything to back up anything you claim from a remotely credible source??
The British Guardian is going totally emotional about this sheit. No holding back.
The Guardian is a well known biased and propagandising socialist toilet sheet. Its the Greens propaganda rag. Pure green bullshit.
Behind all of the "climate change/global warming" BS is money - i.e. carbon tax credits or whatever scheme is popular this month/year. Until the link between money and "global warming" is dropped I won't believe a word the GW advocates say . . . . .
I think I just grab a bucket of popcorn and take it from there...
The Looney Tunes Crew, aka "The Gang that likes to make shit up" will be out in full force for this one...
Edit: Actually I am going to uncork one of my finest, a 1990 Pavillon Rouge from Ch. Margaux in partial honor of my son nailing a scholarship for Engineering at a prestigious foreign school... Call me a very proud poppa....
Edit2: A truly remarkable wine from a remarkable vintage. Quality of the capsule is key when aging a wine this long as the cork was fully wet. From my notes, I bought this bottle in 1996 on another continent, no less...
Yes, send the young chap to one of those fine zio-feminist dominated institutions. He'll turn out just like you did. Convinced of his own expertise. Solipsism at it's finest.
Still 18 years, and no statistical evidence of global warming. So your son has never seen any in his life!!!
It will be a proud moment when dad gets an anonymous photograph of his son getting hazed.
Oh my, a clever one in the peanut gallery...
Just think of the day when your daughter is gonna suck her first cock....
Oh, and you know she will...
Speaking of which, crewman Tall Tom must have gone overboard recently/finally ; )
-----------------
Congrats Poppa!
Thanks...
As Mr. McMaken forthrightly admits, he doesn't know squat about climate change or the mitigations recommended by those who do know something about the subject.
"Since I’m not a person who follows the climate-change debate or climate science in detail, I don’t get involved in discussions over temperature readings or climate trends."
Then he goes on to claim that economics is a science. As some great sage asked: What do we know about economists' predictions? They are wrong. That's not science, its more akin to shooting craps.
Despite disavowing any knowledge on the subject, he then goes on to opine magestically that the "warming lobby" wants central government control. And again, of course, he is wrong.
Although governments around the world have a critical role to play, the actual mitigations are far more decentralized than our current electric grid system. Individuals, businesses and communities will have more to do with the actual hard work, investing and building of renewable energy systems than central governments.
Another bone head statement: "The costs of such a venture, whether in money or in human lives and human comfort, need never be considered, because, we are told, the only alternative is the total destruction of planet earth."
If he actually paid attention to the science and development of renewable energy systems, he would know that the cost of solar is now competitive with fossil fuels and one of the key links in developing clean efficient affordable batteries. Elon Musk just announced his development and production of the "power wall" and "power pack" that will do exactly that. This is not imaginary stuff, it is actually happening, and it is scalable.
http://climatecrocks.com/2015/05/01/teslas-power-wall-is-the-imac-of-the...
Besides, there is one truism that has now been absolutely consistent for 50 years or so. Every time a new environmental law is passed people like Mr. McMaken scream to the heavens that we are about to destroy the economy. Well, we never do and we won't this time either. In all likelihood clean renewable energy will be far more efficient and cost effective than our current top down system.
To be fair, he is right about one thing: "...but in real life, where more rational heads — on occasion — prevail, the costs of any proposed government action must be considered against the costs of the alternatives."
Of course costs should be considered, but not in the absence of all other values. Costs of mitigation are being considered, but so are the costs of doing nothing. Those costs are commonly known as externalities for which major corporations have gotten a free ride over the years with predictable results, increasing trashing of the "commons", those parts of the atmosphere, land and waters that belong to all of us and on which we are dependent for everything.
He is so big on costs, let's ask him what the costs are of increasing sea levels. He claims that we should just move those threatened by sea levels to higher places.
"Climate Central just completed a novel analysis of worldwide exposure to sea level rise and coastal flooding. We found that 147 to 216 million people live on land that will be below sea level or regular flood levels by the end of the century, assuming emissions of heat-trapping gases continue on their current trend."
Good luck with your plan Mr. McMaken. Seems really expensive.
http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/20-countries-most-risk-s...
Also, how about increasing acidification of the oceans that is also being caused by atmospheric CO2? Fisheries are being destroyed as the base of the ocean food chain, phytoplankton, are being destroyed by acidification.
What are the costs of increasing incidence and violence of storms? What about increased desertification? Ask the American southwest how that's working for them. How much is it going to cost when much of the water supply for Asia, home to a couple billion people, disappears with the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. Or how about, again, the American midwest and southwest that is heavily dependent on aquifers that are rapidly depleting and mountain snows in the Rockies and Sierras that aren't coming in at previous rates.
I don't think Mr. McMaken really wants to enter those waters, so to speak. The fact is that the cost of doing nothing is far far greater than sensible mitigation that must be begun asap. Even the Pope gets it.
Deep over the wall in left, it's outta here!
\hattip
Just more utter nonsense. There is no solution viable anylonger in this political and intellectual climate. The Atmosphere is already choked with CO2 and Methane is now spiking. We are aboout to pass a 1C warming, with the next degree to come very quickly. The arctic and Greenland are in terminal melt stage, with Antarctica starting to go in some places with more to follow. The world is in a cooling cycle, i.e. natural processes would cause a slow cooling as we enter a new return of the glacial ice sheets, but this will not happen now, as warming will overpower the natural climate cycles.
It is a clever mental trick to equate Government planned actions or solution with science. Science is what it is, government management plans are beside the reality.
This year we will break all sorts of records. The Jet Stream is now unstuck and meandering all over the northerm hemesphere. Meaning strange weather. The rate of CO2 increase is rising as natural C02 sinks are losing their ability to soak up CO2, the big looming disaster is the massive new methane releases all across the nothern latitudes, and polar seas.
It is game over. No solution is possible. The reality of changing the atmosphere towards a high C02 and Methane state is written in the equations. More warming, faster warming, no end in sight. By 2100 a peak of 4-9C warming is in the cards. You don't want to be around to see what 2C will bring, anything above that level and we have a whole new world to play with.
The ability to stare a proven reality in the face and deny it is not unique. In fact it is a natural human reaction to facing an uncertain and unhappy future. Either undo reality, which you can not do, or learn to live with it. Doing denial says nothing of value, it only confirms human weakness.
The next ice advance of the 1.5 million year Ice Age is now several thousand years overdue, coinciding with the development of large Human settlements. If it does eventually occur civilisation in the Northern Hemisphere will be wiped out.
The amount of C02 in the now in the atmosphere guarentees no Ice Age for at least 500,000 years....
You are a day late and a dollar short...
Lovelock; in his Gaia theory postulates life on the planet as a self regulating system mantaining the improbable fragility of life throughout eons despite the vast apparent chaos of forces all around. So what is really going on here?
Maybe Lovelock was full of shit on this?
After all, it was nothing more than a hypotheis to be tested...
Yes, Jack Burton, that is what I also believe is the present situation:
"The world is in a cooling cycle, i.e. natural processes would cause a slow cooling as we enter a new return of the glacial ice sheets, but this will not happen now, as warming will overpower the natural climate cycles."
I also believe that WE WHO ARE ALIVE TODAY, are getting a "lucky break" that "natural processes would cause a slow cooling ... but ... warming will overpower the natural climate cycles." HOWEVER, that means that some future generations will suffer even worse ...
Once again, the arrogant assholes that have been primarily responsible for making that happen will personally escape the consequences from having done so, since they will likely die of natural causes, because the full effects of what they participated in causing to happen will be postponed ... It continues to be those who are young, poor, or not yet born, who will suffer the consequences of having turned the world's natural resources into garbage and pollution as fast as possible, while those who actually did that continued to be able to indulge in their bullshit that doing that was a "good thing."
The fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems that control us now are due to the triumphs of organized crime controlling civilization, which means that society ends up being controlled by huge lies, backed up by lots of violence. In the short-term, that is fantastically successful for those who were able to do that, however, in the longer term that may well have caused the extinction of the human species. Too bad, so sad!
There were never any practical ways to prevent the human beings who were the best at being dishonest, and backing that up with violence, from actually controlling what civilization did. The social successfulness of those systems have developed attitudes of the maximum evil deliberate ignorance in most people. In order to be socially successful, one had to be the best at being dishonest and backing that up with violence, or else one had to agree with the bullshit promoted by the bullies who did that.
The ways that we regard our economic activities could not have become more BACKWARDS. Making "money" out of nothing as debts, to "pay" for strip-mining the planet, was the runaway triumph of organized crime controlling how Neolithic Civilization developed. That is still automatically getting worse, faster ... Governments continue to be the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals. THEY DO NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE ... THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT CONTINUING TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THEIR FRAUDS, BECAUSE THAT IS THE "FUTURE" FOR THEM!
The only theoretically better resolutions to the real problems would require better human ecology, which means better death control systems. However, that is NOT possible, since human history has been about the actual death controls being most socially successful by being the most deceitful, and those established social systems have almost nothing against their triumphant organized crime than controlled opposition, that agrees to stay within the same bullshit frame of reference as originally promoted by the biggest bullies.
There are some famous quotes about how individually human beings may be relatively sane, but collectively they are quite insane. The series of short-term imperatives to win conflicts by being the best at backing up deceits with destruction, so that one could continue to benefit from enforcing frauds, has dominated everything that civilization has done, as it was able to plunder and rape a fresh planet. Those doing that were always able to present themselves as the "good guys" because they were the "best" at being professional liars and immaculate hypocrites.
The great paradoxes are that "making a killing" became bigger and BIGGER, towards causing mass extinctions of life on the planet as a whole. Despite getting an apparent "lucky break" at the present time, which is mitigating and postponing the greenhouse gas mechanisms doing their things, those are still on a tragic trajectory towards triggering sufficient positive feedbacks of natural processes that will release even more greenhouse gas mechanisms to become active, and then, those will have gone way beyond any human ability to fix that. The climate is an angry beast, which is being poked with sticks by human beings who are deliberately ignorant, since deliberate ignorance is the flip side of social successes based on being able to enforce frauds.
As above, so below. As within, so without. The ways that the political economy is controlled by systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, have resulted in the overall problems being driven beyond human control. The debt slavery systems have driven themselves towards debt insanities, and those are going to provoke death insanities. In that context, the destruction of the natural world is going to trump the social polarization.
The almost totally inability to fix the problems within the political economy, as the debt slavery systems run by the banksters, automatically get worse, faster, while the vast majority of people act like Zombie Sheeple, or incompetent political idiots towards those social facts, IS EVEN MORE THE CASE regarding how the vast majority of human beings are responding to the threats of human activities eventually triggering out of control positive feedback climate change.
The "lucky break" that we appear to be getting now is once again enabling those who were the most criminally insane to defer the consequences of what they were really doing onto future generations, and other life forms. In the same ways that "money" was made out of nothing as debts, to "pay" for strip-mining the planet, inside of social systems which were deferring those debts to have to be paid back by future generations, so too, the matching consequences of garbage and pollution are also going to impact upon future generations.
Meanwhile, those who are alive now, and especially those who are already rich and old, will continue to be able to indulge in strip-mining the planet, while doing that pollutes it in ways whose final consequences are beyond our ability to fully imagine. The entire history of human beings, developing globalized systems of electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat the force of apes with atomic bombs, has been all about the short-term successfulness of being able to back up lies with violence, becoming too successful, for too long ...
The essential problem is that the real human ecology operated through death controls done best by backing up deceits with destruction. That is what controlled what civilization actually did, while those who were able to do that the best were the biggest bullies, whose bullshit totally dominated civilization, to make it appear to be a "good thing" to "make such a killing" as to finally cause mass extinctions of life forms on this planet.
Everyone who is making "money" today is doing so within fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems. The more "money" they make, to "pay" for strip-mining the planet, the worse the real future becomes for the poor people who are not yet born. However, it continues to be the case that nothing practically possible can be done about that. There are no politically possible ways to prevent that from happening. Furthermore, when one seriously considers the magnitude of what the positive feedbacks of runaway climate change could eventually become, there are no effective ways to prepare for that either.
The society that we were born into is terminally sick and insane. It is NOT possible to change the political processes whose funding operates through the vicious spirals of enforcing frauds, whereby those who benefit from that become even more able to invest the profits from those frauds in more frauds. It is NOT possible to develop any better overall integration of human, industrial and natural ecologies, because of the degree to which the currently established systems are so totally based on integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which are able to continue benefit in the short-term from their attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance.
For several decades I have been worrying about that, and endeavouring to do everything that I could to try to mitigate those problems. However, I always have found that the more that I learned, the worse it got. From my own personal point of view, as an older guy, it may well be the case that I too will continue to be able to count on the political economy around me being able to strip-mine the planet, resulting in ever worse levels of pollution, during the rest of my natural life span. Perhaps nothing about the threat of global warming will actually impact upon me personally, in any significant way.
But nevertheless, I find that tragic trajectory sad to contemplate. I WISH that the human species would not commit collective suicide. However, because civilization is actually controlled by systems based on enforcing frauds (such as how the monetary systems are based on deliberately ignoring the basic laws of nature, when "money" is made out of nothing as debts, and can disappear back to nothing, when those debts disappear), everything that civilization actually does is based upon the triumphs of runaway criminal insanities.
Every time that the international banksters are able to create another trillion dollars out of nothing, to pump into the global economy, that kind of fraud actually financializes the human species committing collective suicide, as well as mass murdering other forms of life that we shared this planet with. To the same degree that we can not stop the banksters from being the best organized gangs of criminals that are controlling what our governments actually do, as the biggest forms of organized crime, we also can not do anything constructive to sufficient prevent nor prepare for the consequences of continuing to operate through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems. Instead of the powers of governments protecting the commonwealth for the future, the actual governments become the worse agents of destroying the commonwealth for the future.
The essential issues are that because the real death controls ARE being done through the maximum deceits, while the only publicly significant opposition to that stays inside of the frame of reference of those deceits, we are NOT ABLE to develop any better death control systems, which would necessarily be central to any better human ecologies, which would be the core to developing any industrial ecologies that could coexist with natural ecologies. The ACTUAL human ecologies are based on operating through the maximum possible deceits, to a degree that makes resolving any of our problems politically impossible.
Relatively speaking, the content on a Web site like Zero Hedge is far superior to that found in the mass media. However, overall the content on Zero Hedge also tends to reinforce the overall dismal cubed conclusions. (Economics has rightly be described as the "dismal science." In my view, ecology is doubly dismal, and when one combines economics with ecology, the results are dismal cubed.)
Virtually everyone has developed ways to live inside of fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, based on the history of organized crime capturing more and more total control over the public powers of governments. Those human beings who become the most wealthy and powerful were able to participate inside of those systems of enforced frauds to the maximum degree possible, thereby becoming the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. While all human being had to kill to live to some degree, the established systems have been able to develop the rationalization and justifications that making the maximum killing possible was a "good thing."
Instead, of being able to develop some kind of better balanced rates of robberies and killings, we are looking at the established civilizations being based on believing that the maximum robberies and killings possible are great. Those who were the most successful at being dishonest and backing that up with violence have been able to almost totally dominate and control what civilization actually did. Everyone is trapped inside of the established monetary systems, based upon enforcing frauds, in ways which deliberately ignore the basic laws of nature as much as possible, while that is presented as a "good thing" by those who are doing that!
It is impossible to exaggerate the degree to which Neolithic Civilization has become runway systems of criminal insanities, due to being based on being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more and more sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, whose flip sides were attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance towards all other relatively rational evidence and logical arguments which would have otherwise restrained doing things like making the most "money" possible by cutting down all the trees, and catching all the fish, regardless of any sort of ecological equilibria, because of the ways that that "money" in the bank could reproduce and grow faster than the trees or the fish.
The degree to which civilization is controlled by enforced frauds is the degree to which that civilization has become criminally insane, and is committing collective suicide. However, at the present time, virtually everyone continues to think that is a "good thing," as they are making more "money," and thereby able to enjoy participating more in strip-mining the planet, while the resulting garbage and pollution problems continue to be discounted, and deferred on to future generations, the same as the debts accumulated while "paying" to do that are also deferred onto future generations.
From a sublime point of view, it makes "sense" that civilization necessarily had to develop along the path of least resistance, which was the human path of least morality. However, I WISH that we would be able to survive long enough to adapt to develop better systems, which were more survivable and sustainable. However, it is obvious to any regular reader of Zero Hedge that the financial world based on debt slavery is constantly actually headed more and more towards debt insanities, which then will provoke death insanities.
However, most people who recognize that still tend to only look at those social facts, from the perspective of the runaway social polarization getting worse, faster. Meanwhile, in my view the natural facts, and the runaway destruction of the natural world, is much, much worse, and even more deliberately ignored. It is such an intense paradox that the human death control systems are what created the problems we really face, and that therefore nothing else than better death control systems could resolve those problems better.
The tragic trajectory that we are on is for that to not happen, but rather, for the problems to be resolved by death insanities overwhelming us, amongst which would be the results of runaway climate changes, originally triggered by human beings, but then overwhelmingly everything with their own feedback loops going beyond human control ... We may have already reached that point, I am not sure ... However, I am sure that there are no indications whatsoever that the human political economy will not continue to be controlled by enforced frauds, which automatically become more criminally insane, due to the problems that those who make the most "money" inside of fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems do NOT want to admit that those systems are fundamentally fraudulent.
The degree to which the established monetary system gets away with deliberately ignoring the basic laws of nature, such as the conservation of energy, is awesome. The ability to make the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts is obviously a FRAUD by privately controlled banks, which is ENFORCED by governments. However, it is politically impossible to change that, and therefore, it is politically impossible to develop any different kind of civilization which was able to integrate human ecologies with the industrial and natural ecologies. As long as the dominating systems are able to get away with being blatantly fraudulent, while those frauds continue to be enforced, such as that no real goods, and no real services, are able to be created out of nothing, but all the "money" used to "pay" for those is being created out of nothing, then it is totally impossible for that fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting system to be reconciled with the industrial and natural systems, where energy can not be created out of nothing, nor sent to nothing.
The established human systems are almost totally based upon being able to back up lies with violence, which goes along with developing attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance regarding doing that. The intense paradoxes continue to be that human ecologies must necessarily have some death control systems at their center ... AROUND AND AROUND AND AROUND that human history went, to develop the sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence that exist today.
The public "money" supply is an enforced fraud which enables and facilitates everyone necessarily using it to participate in operating through those profoundly fraudulent attitudes towards everything controlled by that monetary system. Although it is NOT possible to make anything out of nothing, nor to send anything to nothing, the public "money" supply is made out of nothing, and disappears back to nothing. Therefore, that public "money" supply "pays" for strip-mining the planet, in ways whereby garbage and pollution accumulate, AS IF there are NO limits ...
The ways that human behaviors are controlled by fundamentally fraudulent accounting systems are actually due to money is measurement backed by murder, where the production of destruction controls production. However, all of that is as deliberately ignored by mainstream economics as much as possible. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile mainstream economics with ecology, because of the ways that the public "money" supply is apparently able to be created out of nothing, as disappear back to nothing, which flagrantly violates the basic laws of nature. However, that fraud continues to be enforced, and everyone who is relatively successful inside of that accounting system has a vested interest in that system continuing.
Human beings necessarily live as entropic pumps of energy flows. However, they have deliberately developed the most backward ways possible to think about that, due to the ways that the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories dominated everything almost totally. That is the context in which the banksters get away with pretending that they are the "good guys," when they are actually utterly out of control gangs of criminals, whose behavior is criminally insane.
The entire civilization that we are living inside is controlled by enforced frauds which are based on most people agreeing to deliberately ignore the blatant absurdity of making "money" out of nothing, when nothing else can be made out of nothing, as well as the flip side of that, which is to deliberately ignore that nothing disappears back to nothing, but rather all production results in garbage and pollution. Inside accounting systems where "money" can disappear back to nothing, when debts disappear, it is also possible to deliberately ignore the problems of garbage and pollution, because mainstream economics is overall able to operate in ways which have nothing to systematically connect it to the natural environment.
The disconnection between economics and ecology, due to fundamentally fraudulent accounting systems, is blatantly obvious to anyone who thinks about that. However, thinking through how and why that social situation developed returns us to the central issue that the debt controls were backed up by the death controls. Therefore, the ONLY genuine resolutions to the real problems must be to develop better death controls. However, almost nobody is able and willing to do that, and so, we continue to be headed towards developing out of control death insanities as the consequences.
Those out of control death insanity situations will partially be due to runaway irreconcilable social polarization, however, those death insanities will eventually much more be due to irreparable destruction of the natural world. Human activities destroying the natural ecology are due to the ways that the political economy is based on systems of enforced frauds. Exactly to the degree that we can not resolve those problems any better, we also could not resolve the related environmental problems any better.
That human beings are headed in a direction that could trigger out of control climate change, while we collectively do nothing sufficient to prevent not prepare for that, are expressions of the systematic political problems that civilization is almost totally controlled by entrenched systems of backing up deceits with destruction, and enforcing frauds, where those benefiting from doing that in the short-term can not be stopped from continuing to get away with doing that, despite what the longer term consequences could become ...
It really isn't about the Climate...
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years…”
– UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres
Oops,
Like looters...
You're not supposed to notice.
And not a minute too soon.
Always the point of the global warming scam imo - scare people into Big Brother.
Fails to ask the FIRST Question. How much Climate Change is natural? Answer. Pretty much all of it. Climate has changed for millions of years and will continue to change naturally for millions of years (astronomy teaches this). There is still no proof that man (or CO2) has changed or can change the climate!! I keep asking and looking for evidence of the religious hysterics theories and so far they have produced zilch. Climate change is as natural as continental drift and you have as much chance of changing it as you have of stopping volcanoes. Live with it! Read Prof Bob Carter's books and lectures for the evidence.
Do you simply parrot any convienient bullshit or do you actually understand how wrong you are and intentionally lie?
In other words, do you prefer to be called a fool or a liar?
Either choice is fine with me...
Complete and utter BS. There is overwhelming evidence of the damage being done by ghgs. You just aren't looking.
Why don't we get the people who ran Obamacare, everyone knows what a big success that was?
Nobody listens to these climate assholes anymore.
In 1848, after "winning" the (euro fake) Mexican American War, congress spent 2 years arguing whether or not to absorb Mexico into the united States. The whigs killed it. But its been happening since (fake) WW2.
Do you get the feeling that there is a playbook you have never heard about, from which these cads select their positions, and if you saw it, you could position yourself like a god, if you were the right sort of punkass sellout whore?
What's it like, you many cowards who would have done a damn sight better if you had honor, to find that your insecurities were just noise?
Cockroaches can be made to appear bigger in the mind's eye. Cockroaches like it this way...
I started looking into the global warming/climate change scam when I retired, & found it was just that, a scam.
The IPCC is mandated, in its Charter foundation documents to ONLY look into (prove) man made CO2 as the primary driver of climate change. Blinkers much? A political con job much?
IPCC will NOT look at the sun's variable output, earth's variable orbit, earth's variable tilt, earth's variable tectonic plate movement, leading to variable earthquake & volcanic activity & variable oceanic current cycles, to name just some factors more potent than man made CO2 levels.
This Mises chap has done a fair job evaluating the scam, leaving aside the science, & that's fair enough, because it's all a political ploy. The 'science' presented is perverted & swamped by PR in the bankster/corporate controlled mass media.
The sun drives our climate, along with a host of other factors. We see this proven daily: the sun goes down, the earth cools; the sun rises, earth heats up. Because heat takes time to travel & accumulate, the hottest time of day is mid-afternoon, not 12 noon.
One needs no science, just some history: The Medieval Warm Period was both global, warmer than now, & pre man made CO2. Similarly the Roman & Minoan warm periods. The Little Ice Age is well documented, with many paintings showing folk skating on the Thames, for example. Natural variability, nowt to do with man made CO2.
CO2 levels rise AFTER warming: as the oceans warm, they outgas their dissolved CO2.
Rising CO2 levels are therefore an EFFECT, not cause of warming. It's all BS.
The reasons? 1, money: politicians always thirst for more taxes to fulfill their stupid promises, & put in their back pockets.
2, power: set up the perception of a global problem which needs a global govt to sort it.
I see the whole thing as a consiracy designed & funded by the globalist financiers & their tame politicians & bureaucrats & media to destroy all nations, effect a vast depopulation agenda & set up a vicious totalitarian world govt. The UN & the EU are steps on the road toward this end.
My predictions? None, my crystal ball's all murky.
My hopes? That Russia & China can stop the mad barsteward globalists.
My recommendations? John L. Casey's book: Dark Winter, predicting a 20-30 year cold period which the barstewards hope will kill millions. Cold kills, heat, not so much.
wattsupwiththat.com
& Lord Christopher Monckton. Youtube his UN Globalist Death Plan for Humanity.
Wow, you've done your research alright. You have amassed quite a collection of the denialist memes and nonsense that have been soundly and repeatedly disproved over the years. I suggest visiting skepticalscience.com and search any of the scientific pointers made in this screed. The political crap is pure conspiracy theory.
Sean is quite a cheerleader for the fossil fuel industry.
dougie, skepticalscience is the only site classed as "unreliable" on www.wattsupwiththat.com basically for altering both their articles & readers comments. This dishonest site is the source of the 97% scientific consensus fraud. Put 97% consensus in the search box at wattsup & take your pick.
wattsup...encourages open debate on a wide variety of topics, from warmists, likewarmists, etc etc. & often the comments on articles are more interesting & informative than the articles themselves, & thoroughly deserves to be "The Most Watched Climate Site" with over 22 million views.
www.green-agenda.com
A list of quotes from the main protagonists driving the "Green" Agenda.
& yes, I am a fan of cheap & abundant energy, as the main driver of progress in the post agricultural society the warmist bedwetters want to abolish.
Well, you have clearly made your choice. A former TV weatherman over the well documented scientific site. Watts relies on a small number of scientists who cling to a denialist theme (the 3%) despite overwhelming evidence of their shoddy science; and a collection of crackpots like Lord Christopher Monckton who has no scientific credentials, but does have a list of false claims like his cures for HIV and MS, a Nobel prize and membership of the House of Lords.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Christopher_Monckton
Your claim that Watts' site is the most viewed may be correct. That tells me he is more an entertainer than a legitimate scientific source. Perfect credentials for the denialist meme. Be honest with yourself, you have a very poor understanding of the science. Science actually works.
I have spent over a decade studying climate change and the evidence is overwhelming. Take the time and effort to study the actual science. Peer reviewed research is the gold standard, not the claims of a soundly discredited blog.
Also, if you aren't willing to acknowledge the downside of fossil fuel use (I acknowledge it has fueled extraordinary technological progress) then you are living in denial. Look at objective reality. Anthony Watts is a very poor source of that commodity. We can no longer continue to add ghgs to the atmosphere. The results are potentially catastrophic, like it or not. Our children and grandchildren will live with the consequences for our actions or lack thereof.
Edit: Here's a vid by an actual climate scientist who discusses in some detail the misinformation being handed out by WUWT and others who only want to "obstruct, delay and destroy." Listen to the whole 35 minute vid. Very worthwhile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOrUYQhGzT8&list=PL-Xgw8LFaM3D8sZf9Z7H7E...
Too funny, you lost any crdedibility you might have when you mention WUWT....
The place where moderators and sockpuppets are usually one and the same....
\facepalm...
His arguments are as loosely articulated as the arguments he attacks.
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas....
...a giant nuclear furnace...
AGW is just SJW dressed up as "science."
And you are just a moron posing as a ZH poster...
Like the man says, more proggie delusions of grandeur. Yup, this looks like a job that only more of their enlightened control can fix...hip, hip hooray for the prog's superhero-action.guv!
The author is not debating that climate change is real. He's just saying that the government should not be in charge of addressing it.
Simple question, how should climate change be addressed in the absence of any laws passed by government? How can Adam Smith's idea of each individual working for his own individual profit also benefitting the whole society be applied to climate change?
This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like to hear from libertarians who are not in denial. It's easy to throw rocks at one proposal for a response; it's much harder to suggest an appropriate response.
"... Fossil fuel energy is a key factor in all of this, and to propose that the rug now be pulled out from under these people displays a callousness toward humanity that is truly unnerving.
But, the global warming lobby may say, “the effects of global warming will hurt them.” Perhaps. And if so, they need to prove to us that the costs of global warming will be greater than the costs of making these people less productive, poorer, and possibly destitute."
=> the author is saying the economic impact on parts, even large parts, of the population may be too onerous to address the root problem -- i.e. that current human economic arrangements trump resolving a situation in the physical world that could extinguish most life on earth. Here, the author is not talking about which entity should have authority to respond to the problem.
Correct, the author is not denying there's a problem, but the author is denying the magnitude of the problem. There is not scientific doubt about this. This kind of rhetoric encourages the view that that the economy is more fundamental than the physical world on which it depends, and does not hold water ...