June 27th, 2009

Why liberals support cap and trade

If I were to ask most of my friends about cap and trade, my guess is that many of them would draw a blank or be only vaguely familiar with it. It’s too detailed and too technical, and at any rate it’s being passed by the Democratic Congress and it means to help our environment, so what’s not to like?

But if I were to try and explain the bill and its probable negative effects, I think they still would be heartily in favor of it. Here’s a summary of the reasons why:

(1) Complete and total belief in not only the possibility, but the certainty of human-caused global warming, as well as its enormous danger and imminence. Also a belief that we know the science that can fix it. All these things are in the nature of revealed truth in the liberal/Left mindset, and anyone who questions them is a fool or a maniac or perhaps both—case closed.

(2) The idea that doing something about it is always better than doing nothing.

(3) That our Democratic (large “D”) representatives in Congress have the brains, information, and the will to pass a bill to tackle it.

(4) The the economic arguments against that bill are not only probably incorrect, but even if correct would be an example of unacceptable selfishness. We are a piggish nation and deserve to suffer.

(5) It would be good if we all simplified our lives and did with less. And we need to be forced into this, because people can’t and won’t do it voluntarily.

It all follows quite logically. If one accepts the first premise, no cost is too great, no sacrifice too large, in order to avoid it. That is why it has been so very necessary for the Left to make human-caused global warming a given rather than a hypothesis that can be tested and found wanting—and is doubted by a growing list of reputable scientists.

72 Responses to “Why liberals support cap and trade”

  1. Oblio Says:

    If liberals understood the reality of how the world works, particularly the pervasiveness of unintended consequences and the interplay between technology and economics, they wouldn’t be liberal.

    There is unexamined arrogance in the belief that a vast complex adaptive system can be characterized with precision by the models we have, as well as the belief that the physical world will somehow yield wishful thinking and good intentions.

    But without their religious belief in Climate Change, where would they be? Faith in Environmentalism would be damaged. The credibility of the priestly class of scientists as Owners of the Truth would be impaired.

    Doubts cannot be entertained. Who knows where heretical thinking might lead?

  2. The Count Says:

    If one accepts the first premise, no cost is too great, no sacrifice too large, in order to avoid it.

    Did you intend to echo JFK?

  3. Tim P Says:

    Oblio,

    “The credibility of the priestly class of scientists as Owners of the Truth would be impaired.”

    I don’t think that the left considers anyone but themselves as the priestly holders of truth. Some scientist, maybe, but only when they echo the narrative.
    Those who do not agree are cranks, skeptics and in the pocket of the oil companies, etc.

  4. Saturday morning Linkgasms for everyone! EXCEPT sell-out RINOS! They can go “F” themselves! « The Daley Gator Says:

    [...] Why do Libs supportcap and trade? Well, folks, read and learn! [...]

  5. vanderleun Says:

    I know where heretical thinking leads. It leads to the block.

  6. Paul Gordon Says:

    I’ve said this before (including on this blog) about the idea of global warming science being settled…

    Let’s try for some perspective, time-wise.

    For those comfortable with the metric (S.I.) system, imagine a line about 4.6 kilometers

    long (a bit under 3 miles). That would represent the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth

    at 1,000,000 years/meter; 1 mm (about the thickness of a paper clip) would represent a THOUSAND years.

    That line would span the downtown area of quite a few large cities, with some to spare.

    Here in Houston, the downtown streets are 16 to the mile, making their spacing about 100 meters. Thus, that line would be about 46 blocks.

    The reign of the dinosaurs ended around 65 million years ago (65 meters, about 2/3 of a city block down that line from today).

    The first of our ancestors verging on intelligence may have emerged from 2 to 4 million years ago (2 to 4 meters, say 6.5 to 13 feet; your living room could be around 4 meters in one of its’ dimensions).

    What we call “modern” man may go back 40,000 years or so (40 mm, TWO finger-widths on that line).

    Written history goes back 6000 years (six millimeters, 1/4 inch on that line).

    Fahrenheit’s thermometer is around 300 years old ( 0.3 mm, you’re approaching the thickness of a business card now, or the diameter of a grain of salt).

    The portion of that time-line during which precise temperature measurements were recorded would be literally microscopic.

    And from that portion, we dare to make really long range climate predictions, and mandate actions based on them?!!!

    I live about three miles west of some of Houston’s major downtown buildings, so I can easily visualize that line.

    Looking at that time-line of Earth’s history (the universe’s may be four times that), and the flyspeck of our own existence upon it, the notion of asserting that ANY science has been “settled” strikes me as arrogance beyond comprehension (as in “only a politician could possibly believe that”).

    -

  7. Hattip Says:

    I am sorry, but 3 through 5 do not logically follow, in any strict sense, from point 1, though there is no doubt that you are correct that you liberal friends would hold all of these points to be true

    This brings up several implication.

    1) All of these claims are on the face of them preposterous. To hold them is irrational.

    2) They have not thought through the repercussions in terms of even their own lives. This is particularly true of the economic and moral arguments in these points.

    and related to the above,

    3. They seem to imagine that the cost will be borne by someone else. Moreover, they seem to feel that those people deserve to suffer, but they do not.

    So not only is it a loony thing to believe such things, it is morally and intellectually irresponsible.

    What is noteworthy here those liberals who would beieve all this and who are not among the elite but merely ape them and seek their approval. These people neither have the safety of a trust fund or the assurance of employment in the Government or “Nomenklatur” . If cap and trade is implemented there livelihood is profoundly at risk.

    What truely befuddles is that so many of these people live in states were the socialist policy of the last 40 years have caused much harm.

    Considering all of this, it is difficult to believe that we are dealing with sane, rational and competent adults.

  8. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Keep in mind that Cap and Trade, along with its numerous precursors, allows for an infinity of exceptions–for a price paid to the regulators. Or extortion can be avoided–shame if that house you’e living in got certified as a wetland–for a price.
    The bigs expect to make huge amounts off this. Regulators, lobbyists, politicians, bureaucrats, and they will have the power to shut up or shut down any who object (too bad about that easement that went through your shop).
    The rich, of course, expect to buy their way free.

  9. OlderandWheezier Says:

    According to statistics by the National Mining Assocation, consumers in 10 states may actually save on utility costs if the bill becomes law (this doesn’t include the middle-of-the-night 300 pages of amendments in order to buy the support of certain fence-sitters). Six of the eight Republicans who voted in favor of passage are from those states (Washington, California, New York, New Jersey).

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023883.php

    Whether Democratic senators in politically-contested states will be willing to sacrifice their careers in order to pass the legislation remains to be seen. In any event, the bill apparently doesn’t really begin to put the screws to us until 2012. I think either our elected “representatives” figure that the masses of sheeple will have forgotten what really caused the potentially crippling hike in consumer energy (not to mention all other) costs and blame the big bad oil companies again, OR that many of those presently on Capitol Hill plan on retiring in the next year – or three.

  10. Occam's Beard Says:

    Good analogy, Paul.

    I’ve used one here for global warming, by likening the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere to the population of the U.S. (300 million).

    In that case, total CO2 would amount to 150,000 (0.05%). And anthropogenic CO2 would correspond to 3% of that, or 4500 people.

    Just on its face, it’s awfully hard to believe that the addition of 4500 people – and not 4500 terrorists, or billionaires, or whatever, but people are absolutely identical in every respect with 150,000 who are already here – to the population of the U.S. would have any effect, much less a catastrophic one.

  11. galensmark Says:

    The only solution to this stupidity is to take the percentage of decreased GDP attributable to C&T x2 and deduct that % from the dumbasse’s who voted for it’s after tax income. Redistribute the money to people aren’t sorely in need of mental health care.

  12. jon baker Says:

    People, they are buying support for the thing. Even the yahoo article I saw today hinted that (some) people would receive payments.

    “Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account.”

    From this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_climate_bill_69

  13. jon baker Says:

    Wealth redistrubution! Somewhere earlier this month I saw/heard a discussion that this bill was actually a form of redistrubution of wealth, among other things.

  14. jon baker Says:

    What I am , in my fumbling way, trying to say is that many of the Dems supporters will not care about bad effects because they personnally will be recieving a check that names this bill as the reason they are receiving a check!!!!

  15. jon baker Says:

    If my internet speed was not so slow, I would probably watch this.

    “In what some referred to as a filibuster, Boehner took more than sixty minutes methodically analyzing sections of the midnight hour additions as members of his Party and folks in the gallery cheered him on.”

    The quote above is from a Newsbusters.org article that contains a link to a video of the speech:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/27/boehners-amazing-dissection-cap-trade-bill

  16. galensmark Says:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm2504_table1.pdf

  17. Mr. Frank Says:

    Neo,

    Those liberal friends of yours, how big are their houses and how much money do they make? I guess the rest of us will just have to eat cake.

  18. jon baker Says:

    Mr. Frank,

    I have thought about getting a group of people together and marching down to the local Democratic Party headquarters and ask to see the solar panels on their roof…..

  19. dane Says:

    Any thinking person knows this isn’t about saving the planet or reducing carbon emissions (even if that were necessary). Instead it is about a bunch of people making a bunch of money.

    I’m sure all here have noticed in the last 9-12 months the term “global warming” has given way to things like “climate change” and “climate chaos”. This gives the proponents the ability to “bob and weave” more than Walter Peyton in heyday. So it won’t matter that more scientists reject the theory of man-made global warming – the proponents will still be able to alter the course of their argument to fit current circumstances. They will always be able to point to some “problem of the moment” and say “hat is what we are aiming to fix.”

    Some big corps like GE and some big banks like Goldman Sachs are poised to make hundreds of millions trading carbon credits. And like Al Gore they can claim, “Well the program is necessary for the planet but we wouldn’t be responsible to our shareholders if we didn’t take advantage of the business opportunity because if we didn’t do it someone else would. Even republicans can’t argue with free enterprise.” Oddly enough there are a lot of people who spent (or are still spending) many years in prison for doing the same thing with stocks – creating markets.

    It’s all a sham wrapped up in political correctness.

    And isn’t it interesting that, just like GM and Chrysler, AIG seems headed for bankruptcy. The initial reason given for bailing these companies out was so they wouldn’t “have” to go into bankruptcy. Too funny, because by now it should be obvious to anyone with a brain the size of a brontosaurus the whole thing was an ingenious manipulation – obtain a huge stake in the companies with taxpayer money and once that is accomplished force them into bankruptcy so this administration can structure that bankruptcy to be profitable to their friends and political supporters – like the unions. And they can do this while all the while saying they are looking out for the interests of the American taxpayers.

    As a note to end on – down here in Florida it has been pretty hot for the last week or so – two to five degrees above what they say is “normal” for this time of year. A lot of people I know were saying they didn’t remember it being this warm this early. But I went back and looked at the records and surprise, surprise no new records were set. In fact one day when it got to 97 degrees the record high of 98 was set in 1997 and the record low of 68 was set in 2004.

    I wish people would take the little time it actually requires to research the facts. But they won’t. So from now on I will refer to the great masses who vote with their “feelings” instead of their brains as “fuzidiots” (pronounced fuh-zid-ee-uts) – people who are more interested in feeling warm and fuzzy than doing something logical or rational.

  20. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    I have perhaps already posted about my very Liberal in-laws, heavy Democratic contributors and supporters, very active in Democratic politics, who believe just as you have stated Neo, and any attempt by me to introduce even the smallest contradicting fact is met with scorn and almost instant rage–they have drunk the Kool Aid, indeed; in the interest of some sort of comity, I have quit trying to inject some doubt and sanity.

    What is also extremely alarming here is the Democrat’s in your face and thorough contempt for Congressional procedures, the democratic process, our citizenry and debate; it might as well be—and soon will be—Venezuela or the old Soviet Union. They have made an utter mockery of “the greatest deliberative body in the world,” first with the huge “stimulus package” that nobody could get a copy of or read before the vote—some members even bragged about not having read these bills–now with the 3 AM, 300 page amendment to another very long 1,000 age bill, a bill of which only one copy was available on the floor of Congress before the hurried vote.

    Finally, I must say that I am amazed and appalled at the total lack of any strong response by Republicans to the destruction of the democratic process they are witnessing and are, by their apparent acquiescence, a part of.

    If Obama’s program is a train that is starting to leave the station, I would have expected Republicans to have done every conceivable thing—fair or foul—they could do to stop the train; sabotage the engine, tear up the tracks, disable the signals, lie down on the tracks in front of the train if that was all they could do, but so far there has apparently been not a peep that I can see from these Republicans. At the least I would have thought that a mass walkout of all or almost all the Republicans and a news conference on the steps of the Capitol might have served to draw attention to the Democrat’s destruction of our democratic process.

    The only explanations that I can come up with are that either Republicans basically agree with Obama and the Democrat’s coup d’etat, feel that they still need to be polite and gentlemanly after the Democrats have repeatedly spit in their faces and in the face of the Republic and just want to “go along to get along,” have just flat out given up, or they have been so totally compromised, one way or the other–bribed, intimidated, blackmailed–whatever, that they are useless.

    I look forward to a thorough housecleaning come the 2010 and 2012 elections, if we ever do have reasonably honest and free elections again, especially ones that are not Tehran or North Korea type elections. However, with the Obama White House and ACORN directly involved in the Census—and the Census directed apportioning of congressional districts and federal aid—that may be a forlorn hope.

  21. dane Says:

    Oh and one other thing I have mentioned here before – when even the possibility of the concept of a higher power is taken out of the equation you are at the point where every problem is man made and man is responsible for (if not capable of) fixing it. That is very dangerous. I can just see it now – instead of global warming these braniacs decide the earth is cooling do they go out to the pacific and drop an A-bomb down a volcano instigate an eruption in order to spew more CO2 into the atmosphere trying to warm the planet up.

    Get ready boys and girls.

  22. jon baker Says:

    Walla Dalbo,

    While I have been disapointed in the Republicans also, note the link I posted at 2:28 PM which contains a video of Boehner’s 60 min Speech on the House floor. another blog I read said he had been only granted 2 minutes to speak but held his ground.

  23. Dennis Says:

    If in fact we are capable of creating global warming then are we not capable of producing global cooling through the same misguided ways. Maybe even causing a disaster of epic proportions through constant manipulation of a system that we possess little real knowledge. The facts are that we do not know enough to actually know whether we are capable of correcting, if indeed that needs to be done, that which we are supposed to be responsible. Would it not be better to not go off on some crusades for which we do not have the weapons, so to speak, to fight, if indeed that is necessary.
    There are far more real scientists who challenge global warming than there are that agree. Computer model suffer the same GIGO that always attend these things. They are biased by the ideas of those who set them up. Someone has to determine the variables, weight those variables, et al. All along the process there are inherent biases. For the most part computer models have failed to predict the past and can never be relied upon to predict the future. One of the reason statistics are generally not allowed in a courtroom is because of how the data was collected, et al.
    Then one needs to be concerned with whether one has enough raw computing power to effectively handle all the required variables and all of their permutations. And finally the biases of those who interpret the output raises another question.
    When one says that the science is settled then either one is unfamiliar with the meaning of science, is dissembling, playing politics, et al. Science is never settled to a true scientist!

  24. jon baker Says:

    Well, the next big Bill on the agenda is probably the “hate crimes” bill aka speech laws which in its current form could make speech against pedophiles potentially illegal. Attempts by Republicans in the House to remove pedophiles from the list of protected groups has been defeated. It is already in the Senate and I have read there are reports the Dems plan on attatching it to another “must move” type bill.

  25. rickl Says:

    I haven’t read this comment thread yet. I don’t need to.

    I’ve been saying for YEARS that “global warming/climate change” is a total crock. It has nothing to do with climate. It has nothing to do with science.

    The sole purpose is to destroy capitalism and institute one-world government; i.e. international socialism.

    That sounded tinfoil-hattish ten years ago, but we are seeing it enacted live, in real time, before our very eyes today.

  26. huxley Says:

    Well, I’ll be a bit of the Devil’s Advocate.

    Global Warming is not that outlandish a proposition. Carbon dioxide really is a greenhouse gas responsible to some extent for warming the planet. Humanity really is doubling the amount of CO2, admittedly a small percentage, in the atmosphere. There really is a majority of climate scientists and scientists in general who have concluded that Global Warming is real and will cause substantial damage in the coming century. The earth really has gotten warmer in the past century with a rather steep run-up of temperature from 1970 to 1998.

    And yes, I know the skeptic side, as do most of the posters here, so I won’t go over that.

    Frankly I don’t understand the rock-hard certainty either side has on the issue. There are a great many unknowns, gray areas, and trade-offs here.

  27. huxley Says:

    However, as I said before, I see no excuse for ramming through a huge expensive bill that no one has read in full, much less had time to digest and think through.

    Even if one believed chapter and verse of Global Warming, this does not make sense. It is a reckless perversion of our system and the biggest flashing neon-sign inviting Unintended Consequences in my memory.

  28. Occam's Beard Says:

    Huxley, couple points.

    First, water is by far the most significant greenhouse gase.

    Second, as I’ve said many times before, scientific issues are not decided by consensus, but by dispositive data. The number for/against is completely irrelevant.

    Third, the burden of proof lies upon he who makes the assertion, not upon those who doubt it. That burden has not been carried.

  29. Artfldgr Says:

    “Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” — Mikhail Gorbachev
    .

    .
    “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind”, by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5

  30. Oblio Says:

    huxley, I think you perhaps give mankind too much credit for increasing CO2.

    I saw a presentation recently from a Copenhagen attendee that tracked seasonal CO2 levels in Hawaii as basically a function of ocean temperature. As the oceans warm, they release more CO2. As they cool, CO2 levels go down, or so I recall. Furthermore, his analysis of the global carbon cycle pointed out the unrecognized role of the oceans in sequestering CO2, which is an order of magnitude larger than I had imagined. From that, I had the thought that the atmospheric analysis of the carbon cycle should really be thought of as an oceanic/atmospheric phenomenon.

    From this perspective (and from many others), we should consider the atmosphere to be a derivative of the oceans, which are the dominant feature on the surface of the earth. Even the water vapor that makes up the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is just the faintest shadow of the heat that is stored in the oceans.

    So the really interesting question is, Why are (or were) the oceans getting warmer? I have seen theories that the answer lies in astrophysics and not anywhere on earth.

    I have not seen those theories rebutted. I have seen attempts, but they seemed to have trouble with the basic statistical issues associated with the uncertainties associated with the critical measurements. I would be open if anyone has a strong proof that variations in solar radiation cannot explain the larger part of increasing temperatures in the 1990′s.

  31. Gringo Says:

    The tendency of our legislators to ram through bills in the hundreds of pages without any reading of them is alarming. I would love to see constituents confront their legislators over this.

    The ability of well-intentioned, ignorant legislators to do harm is incalculable.

    [edited by neo-neocon]

  32. Promethea Says:

    Underwater volcanoes anyone?

  33. Promethea Says:

    I thinks it’s time for us neo-cons to say out loud what we really think, i.e. most of our American governmental bodies–national, state, and maybe even local–are now under the control of clowns.

    I would have said “evil clowns” but I realized that that’s probably giving too many of these clowns credit for evil.

    No, most of them are just clowns.

    If I were a writer of fiction, I would write a science-fiction novel set 50 years in the future of the results of clown government.

  34. huxley Says:

    Oblio — OK. Amend what I said to “Humanity really is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide significantly.”

    My point here is that Global Warming advocates are not necessarily stupid, ill-informed, evil or whatever insult comes to mind.

    Some skeptics are more than skeptical, they make claims such as “Any thinking person knows this isn’t about saving the planet or reducing carbon emissions…” which I consider as little more than a variant of “Any thinking person agrees with me.”

    I agree that GW advocates have not made their case, but quite a lot of them in good conscience believe they have.

    In answer to Neo’s topic question, I think people, including scientists, have become predisposed to the conventional wisdom that humanity is doing terrible damage to the planet.

    Their concern is not without merit. It is true that we are affecting the planet. Of course that doesn’t make every apocalyptic vision true. Far from it.

    This will make a very interesting chapter in science a few decades on.

  35. OsoPardo Says:

    Huxley, you’ve made some pretty provocative statements. Please be so kind to back them up with facts.

    Thanks,

  36. huxley Says:

    OsoPardo — That’s one-line troll post.

    What facts do you want me to back up? Why do you consider what I have said “provocative.”

  37. huxley Says:

    Occam,

    (1) The amount of water vapor is not changing significantly; CO2 is. See Radiative Forcing.

    (2) Practically speaking, in the absence of strong counter-examples, consensus has a great deal to do with how science works.

    As far as I know, no one has proved that HIV causes AIDS, yet almost all AIDS researchers work with the HIV hypothesis and almost all of the AIDS research budget is devoted to HIV, and I think that’s good.

    There are still people working to disprove relativity and the Big Bang. Who knows, they may succeed eventually. Fortunately, neither are life or death issues for large numbers of people.

    When science intersects the large-scale public good, it is something of a war-time situation in which one may have to act without 100% proof. I agree with the GW folks on that score. I disagree that they have made their case strongly enough to make the gambles they promote.

    (3) Many skeptics go much farther than doubting Global Warming. They declare without reservations that they know GW is a “total crock” and has nothing to do with climate or science.

  38. Oblio Says:

    huxley, you are perfectly correct: many believers in Global Warming are only advocating what they believe is prudent and in the best interest of everyone. I grant you that many are quite sincere in their belief and they don’t bear malice toward anyone. Others are sincere in their beliefs and do bear malice toward a lot of people: capitalists, energy companies, Americans, real estate developers, the gun-clinging and Bible-thumping denizens of flyover country, etc. Others aren’t sure what they believe, but if everyone else agrees, who are they to rock the boat? Still others don’t know what to believe, but certain beliefs are more convenient than others when you want government contracts or grants.

    I wouldn’t say that any of these people are individually evil or necessarily stupid. I don’t know whether Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring. I don’t know whether Global Warming is occurring, whether man-made or not. The evidence, arguments, and behavior I have seen make me think this is more a political and ideological issue than a scientific question.

    The skeptics are much braver than the people who follow what is now the conventional wisdom, and from where I sit, they are making very strong arguments and picking up followers.

  39. Promethea Says:

    I think a lot of well-meaning people confuse “anthropogenic global warming” with two other subjects: (1) global warming, and (2) pollution control.

  40. Oblio Says:

    Promethea’s Clown Theory of Government satisfies the requirements of Occam’s Razor. Promethea, you should get that trademarked. We’re all going to be citing it.

  41. harry McHitlerburtonstein Says:

    Promethea is right. People get AGW confused with pollution. A common argument from many liberals is an accusation that if you are not for Cap & Trade, you must be for smoggy skies and chemical chocked streams. I get that often even after explaining to those same people that Cap & Trade is about carbon, not pesticides or hazzardous wastes. Carbon is not a hazzardous waste—but wait–it is now. Or at least the EPA was considering it.

    Huxley gives AGW proponents far too much credit for them just being good plain honest folks who’ve earnestly looked at the evidence and have made a conviction based on reason. This isnt. Their conviction that man made global warming (American capitalism) is a serious threat to the planet is based upon the same cloudy mists that got us saddled with Chairman Zero. Hope and change without serious examination.

    Lets not give them any more credit than that.

  42. jon baker Says:

    What I particularly find interesting is the study showing how tempurature measuring stations have been placed in highly compromised positions. One group studying this found instruments next to parking lots, near building AC exhaust, on concrete pads, etc….

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

  43. Wolla Dalbo Says:

    Jon Baker—Well, I guess if you were an incurable and naïve optimist, there could be some innocent explanation to be found for the Hate Crimes bill and particularly the indecent haste to get it passed, following behind–as it does–a whole host of other major bills, statements and actions proposed, passed or done at a breakneck speed by Obama and Co. and Congressional Democrats in these last 6 months (one could almost think they were trying to avoid the usual scrutiny and debate). But at this late date, taking all these actions together, and seeing the spectre of the increasing potential for a Fascist dictatorship, that wants to make sure it stays in power, that is slowly emerging from Obama’s deliberately created fog of misdirection, concealing lies, half-truths, Leftist boiler plate and the Democrat’s parliamentary thuggery, it is getting harder and harder to find such an innocent explanation.

    If this Hate Speech bill is the one I am familiar with, it defines hate speech so broadly—i.e. if someone is “emotionally distressed” by speech, it can create the legal presumption that such speech is hate speech, and carries a penalty of two years in jail; it will effectively shut down most debate and criticism of the Obama administration and much else besides.

    Let’s look at the elements that tell us that the score so far is Obama 10 or so and U.S. citizens and Democracy 0. To date, Obama & Co. and Congressional Democrats, working at a furious pace, have succeeded in nationalizing or taking over control of a large chunk of the banking sector, most of the auto industry, and the financial industry, and are currently moving against the energy and health care sectors, with the education sector next in line and, to enable them to do so, they have, in less than 6 short months, obligated the U.S. and it’s tax paying citizens and their children and, probably, their children’s children, to paying off something like $9 trillion dollars of new debt (some economic analysts say that it is actually $11 or $12 trillion dollars or more), plus interest; spending more money than the combined total of money spent by all past Administrations from President Washington through George W. Bush.

    The vast majority of all that stimulus money that was given to banks has been sitting in interest bearing accounts in the Federal Reserve, and our money supply has been increased many fold—some say 12 or 15 fold—by the Fed to create the liquidity required by this gargantuan stimulus, and when that tsunami of money hits our economy, hello inflation, and likely hyperinflation of the kind the crippled Germany’s pre-WWII Weimar Republic; and we all know how well that turned out. Hyperinflation unless, of course, Bernanke and the Fed really, really know what they are doing. From his performance so far, do you have a lot of confidence in Bernanke?

    In addition, the massive borrowing that such deficit spending necessitates is starting to worry those countries—like China, Japan and Russia–that hold the majority of our debt, and they are starting to worry that we won’t be able to or just won’t pay it back—defaulting on their national debt is, after all, what Banana Republics do; this borrowing also has the collateral effect of decreasing confidence in the dollar, and driving up interest rates.

    Obama & Co and the Democrats in Congress have recently created and generously funded a number of massive new “people’s organizations” and introduced the idea of “mandatory public service”–personal power centers of the type so beloved by dictators of various stripes–and also funded the corrupt ACORN to the tune of some $8 plus billion dollars. Moreover, their tax policies are designed to inflate the dependent welfare class by expanding the percentage of citizens who pay no federal taxes from the current extremely high 38% up to close to 50%; I guess I know who all these new welfare recipients are going to vote for. Meanwhile, in their curious zeal for and preoccupation with the Census, Obama and the Democrats also found time to propose and vote to give ACORN a major role in the hiring of all the enumerators for the upcoming Census, a Census whose population totals determine how many congressional districts there will be, their size and boundaries, and are also used to apportion federal aid to the States—no room for manipulation and corruption of the voting process there, is there? All this, while making a mockery of the Congress’s essential role in a democracy of deliberation and debate, and of Congressional procedure; it’s full speed ahead, no matter how many citizens object, ‘cause “they won.” And now, Obama & Co. and Congressional Democrats want to ram through a hate speech bill that will stifle dissent, I guess to complement the coverage of those areas that the White House’s new Cybersecurity Czar’s control over the Internet and connections to it will soon bring within the reach of the Obama White House.

    And speaking of “Czars,” it is hard to keep track of all the Czars that Obama has created—12, 15, 20?—Czars that have been given responsibility and some control over major issues and thus over us and aspects of our country; Czars, not members of the Cabinet, Czars who report only to Obama, and for which there is no Constitutional basis or justification.

    Well, lets see. Close control over and day to day direction of the economy, and its various major sectors (i.e. economic Fascism), the financial sector and the currency—its always useful to be able to print money. Check. Ability to manipulate the voting process to stay in power; the essential capability vital to every two bit Banana Republic and it’s moth-eaten dictator. Check. Creation of “popular organizations,” civilian power centers beholden to Obama. Check. Ability to tamp down criticism and free speech. Check Gathering of more and more power to Obama and the Executive Branch. Check.

    Applying the duck test, I have a very, very bad feeling about all this.

  44. huxley Says:

    harry McHitlerburtonstein — I’m speaking of the scientists and informed laypeople who back Global Warming. Go visit RealClimate to get an idea. Better yet, debate them, and see how much of an obvious slam-dunk your position is.

    As to everyone else on either side — I’m not impressed. There’s plenty of people who oppose Global Warming who IMO have made little effort to come to their conviction based on reason, and visa-versa.

    Sure, there’s plenty of people on the left who are quite comfortable sliding into accepting Global Warming because it fits into their overall framework of the evils of capitalism and the merits of greater state control.

    Sure, there’s plenty of people on the right who are quite comfortable sliding into opposing Global Warming it fits into their overall framework of the evils of statism and the merits of lesser state control.

  45. OsoPardo Says:

    Huxley, you seemed to be a thoughtful poster however your statement “Humanity really is doubling the amount of CO2″ is very, very wrong.

    Many of us have learned that AGW has become a religion as it left the realm of science a long time ago.

    Here are some facts for you:
    1) As of March 2009[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm
    2) 387ppm = 0.00387% of the total atmosphere.
    3) the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased only by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.
    4) Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today.
    5) It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

    The facts above can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

    bottom line: Humanity is not doubling the amount of CO2. A simple Goolge search yields actual information.

    Many of us have actual science backgrounds and are very frustrated that otherwise intelligent people are swallowing this nonsense hook, line and sinker.

  46. Oblio Says:

    huxley, thanks for the link to RealClimate. I read with some interest (and dismay) the May post on solar forcing, leading to the abstracts of two recently conflicting studies. A 2007 European study discounted variation in Total Solar Irradiance, if I read the abstracts correctly, and a 2009 American study found material differences. The heat sink property of the oceans comes up in the comments, without adding a great deal of clarity to the conclusions.

    A few things are clear. The math and physics are complicated. The data record is extremely messy. It is unclear how significant solar forcing might be in explaining the temperature record of the late 1990′s and early 2000′s. There doesn’t seem to be an observational basis for the consensus that solar forcing is much less important than greenhouse gases, as reflected in the IPCC chart from 2005 reproduced in your original Wiki link.

    A lot more work needs to be done on this point.

  47. huxley Says:

    OsoPardo — Presumably you noticed that I amended that statement in response to Oblio.

    Agreed, we have not doubled the amount of CO2 … yet. But at the present rate we will within a century, an eyeblink in geological time. That’s how the present progressive aspect (“are doubling”) works in English grammar. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_aspect.

    Presumably you are aware that you cited me for multiple “provocative statements”. You have cited only one. I will be surprised if you can double that.

    I”m aware that CO2 levels have been quite higher in the past.

    Spare me the “actual science backgrounds” jazz. I have a science background too. Deal with me as an equal or buzz off. I’m very frustrated with people like you too.

  48. Darrell Says:

    Of course the thread wont be complete without the story of the EPA guy that got shitcanned for disagreeing with the “science”:
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html

  49. rickl Says:

    It’s been a while since I saw this thread last, and there has been some good debate.

    I’d just like to say that if indeed human civilization is altering the atmosphere and climate, then our best hope for mitigating it is to give free rein to human ingenuity. This is best done through the free market. Smart people will come up with new ideas to make machines and industrial processes more efficient, and also develop new forms of energy and applications.

    But putting the economy under centralized government control is exactly the wrong way to go about it. That guarantees stasis and the strangling of innovation.

  50. Wandriaan Says:

    There are manmade global disasters. The DDT-scam was one. As a result of a pseudoscientific belief MILLIONS of African children died a needless, horrible death of malaria.
    But, as Prager says, being on the Left means never have to say you are sorry.
    The early retreat from Vietnam was one. As a result MILLIONS died in Vietnam and Cambodja a needless and horrible death. But being on the Left means…
    Now the ridiculous manmade global warming scam. It will again lead to MILLIONS die a horrible and needless death. But being on the Left means…
    Contrast these Leftists dangerous superstitions with the belief of fundamentalist Christians in the creation of the universe in six days. This belief is false (Creation does not exclude evolution, and evolution is as big a mystery as creation), but this belief is completely harmless, because it does not cause these people to enact all kind of horrificly dangerous policies.
    In this day and age the Left is far more dangerous than the Right. I am completely sure that all decent and ‘normal’ people of the Left from the pre-sixty era, both in the US and Europe, would be scared as Hell of the present Left.

  51. br549 Says:

    Hate speech, then guns. 1st and 2nd finally out of the way. Bye-bye constitution. They aren’t the first and second amendments for nothing.

    Cap and trade is highway robbery. It’ll get you even if you only ride a bicycle and heat with wood cut from your own property. Not just redistribution of wealth, but full government control of just who gets that confiscated and redistributed money. Personal property won’t be far behind. We’ll all owe our souls to the government store.

    Vote them all out. The ones who are power hungry, and the chickens too scared to stand against them.
    Term limits, for all. Including supreme court appointees. The way the bailout was passed, as well as cap and trade, should be against the law. The private sector would not be allowed to pull off something like that. The bailout has done nothing to turn this around. Individual wealth, life savings and investments continue to disappear. Cap and trade will guarantee it never returns.

  52. SteveH Says:

    In a nutshell, global warmist are people who have been taught that Man is not part of the natural world. Therefore he alone does not possess the right to alter the environment.

    Everything about this beautiful planet we call home came to be precisely because of calamities and disasters that men who think themselves prescient and all knowing would have never given their tacit approval of.

    See Michael Crichton’s speech on

  53. SteveH Says:

    sorry… See Micheal Crichton’s speech on “Complexity Theory” to get the real gist of just how arrogant liberals are in their mission to fix the world.

  54. OsoPardo Says:

    Huxley, I am trying to deal with you as an equal. I also hope that I’m educating some of the people that are reading this blog.

    AG, in his award winning movie, used a graph known as the Keeling Curve: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

    AG used the Keeling Curve to support his thesis that CO2 was rising very quickly. AG also chose to use the chart without labels.

    Here is how AG manipulated Keelings work to support his theory.

    Please see the chart I’ve linked to above, note that the chart label in the upper left hand corner of the graph indicates that the data is for a single point on the earth, Mauna Loa. Isn’t Mauna Loa a Volcano? We already know that volcano’s spew great volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Note also the right side of the chart. The chart shows a rise of ~87PPM of CO2 over the past 50 years. You’re right, this is alarming.

    AG’s manipulation is that he takes a single point of data extrapolates it across the entire globe doesn’t tell the audience that the sample site is at a volcano.

    I hope that you’ll agree with me that AG’s willfull manipulation and subsequent proclamations that “the science is over” are hyper inflated fabrications.

    So, the earth may indeed be warming. But, why lie. If there is actually a problem, lay out the problem with some facts. let honest science debate the issue.

    And you wonder why I’m a septic. Personally, I’m glad that you have a problem with people like me

  55. Artfldgr Says:

    would you belive that the marquis de sade was really interested and changed his goals if he said he was for medicine? then why belive global warming when the biggest pushers of it are ex soviets, communists, far left socialists?

    the environmental damage in china and russia and other such states is incredible, and they are the biggest pushers of this.

    basically these idiots are going to lead us to one world slavery… and they are going to do it screaming how equally smart they are. as if 1 million wrong people make it right.

    they are the same kinds of peopl that made things happen in germany and other states, and sicne their history is all screwed, their operative premises of the world are screwed, they are helpless withouth their masters.

    this minority of morons with the selve confidence to believe they are wise for following very smart and very sociopathic manipulators will think that things will improve.

    things are about to get so bad that these same people will beg for slavery just to get some air.

    and thats how it has happened in other states for 100 years…. crush them between taxation and inflation… and when they squeel, take everything they own

  56. Pragmatist Says:

    1) Man made Global Warming does not and never has existed.

    2) CO2 is NOT a pollutant it is a vital part of the cycle of life and feeds plants , trees and sealife.

    3) There has not been any NOT ONE scientific paper PROVING any connection at all between CO2 emissions and global warming.

    4) In the long history of the NATURAL phenomenon of Climate Change Global Warming has ALWAYS pre-dated higher CO2 levels NOT vice versa. If you want to know about Climate Change talk to a GEOLOGIST not a Meteorologist

    5) Its the SUN and sunspots which controls the earths climate

    6) The earth has been cooling for the past 10 YEARS an INCONVENIENT TRUTH I know so either they have been emitting time sensitive CO2 for the past 10 years or we need to massively INCREASE or CO2 emissions to stop an Ice Age. Or alternatively you can conclude that the Green NAZIS just want power

    7) the Green NAZIS just want power

    8) Obambi is a Green NAZI amongst many other things he is including a extreme left wing socialist Mohammedan

  57. Pragmatist Says:

    Anyone with at least 1/4 of a brain who lived thru the brief “global freezing” scare of the early ’70s which quietly flubbed as all its predictions were far more than just wrong, knows that the current global warming scare — originally justified by models created BY THE SAME GLOBAL FREEZING CHARLATANS — is just as much hooey as the first attempt of these 4th rate scientists to achieve name recognition and income from engagements to speak to crowds of ignoramuses and retards. All the data shows — repeat ALL the available historic data, bar none — that although CO2 and atmospheric temperature are correlated, it is WITHOUT EXCEPTION the case that atmospheric temperature changes first, THEN much later the co2 level rises. It rises because of evaporation of co2 dissolved in the sea, more of which enters the atmosphere when surface sea temperatures are warmed. This is true for the data Gore shows in his famous “documendacity,” which he intentionally squeezes into a long time scale over a small chart so that the detail is obscured, since it shows the precise opposite cause & effect that he knows is the correct one in reality. The atmosphere has been far warmer in the past than now, and it has had at times at least 20 times the co2 concentration as at present. And… those times were wonderful times when plant and animal “biodiversity” flourished, as any botanist would tell you is the natural consequence of a little warming. That’s why life is easier in the warmer latitudes and terribly harsh in the northerly ones. We should PRAY (if religious) for global warming because it would go a long way toward ending world hunger, expanding the rain forests, increasing biodiversity and making this planet more of a heaven on earth than it already has the capacity to be. But the advocates of the global warming hoax are just SO incredibly uninformed (or such liars) that they are either unaware of (or hiding) their hypocrisy in advocating a war on non-existent man-caused warming that would, even if correct, accomplish all the other goals they claim to worship. It would be a colossal joke if these neanderthal numbskulls weren’t so populous and endowed with the voting power to destroy the lives of their betters along with their own suicides.

    Solar activity, as mentioned in other posts, is also highly correlated with atmospheric temperature, something that ought to appear very common-sensical to anyone with 1/10th of a brain, and something which has been demonstrated to be EXTREMELY reliably correlated for much of earth’s history. So we have 3 correlated variables of concern(there are of course many others too, but they are not of concern here because we are addressing only the claims of a mass of mindless idiots parroting the propaganda of a few shrewd charlatan, so we can limit ourselves to examining only their stupid, worthless, and totally groundless claims). These are solar activity, atmospheric warming and co2 concentration in the atmosphere. And indeed the order I’ve mentioned them is the order of their causality. Solar activity increases, THEN the atmosphere warms as a result, and FINALLY, the co2 content of the atmosphere rises. Anyone who understands the basic laws of equilibrium states from physical chemistry knows that man’s contributions of co2 into the atmosphere CANNOT have an effect on its concentration, any more than you can increase the salt content of a glass of water after it’s become fully saturated at the prevailing conditions of temperature and pressure. You just precipitate out all the salt you add and the water remains at its equilibrium salt concentration no matter how much more salt you add.

    Two final points of the 500 I might make if space permitted:
    1. Al Gore’s net worth was public knowledge during the political campaign of 2000 — it was approximately $2 million. He is no longer a public servant so his financial affairs are his own private business. However, from investments in public concerns, it is known that he has to have at a minimum a figure upwards of $100 million now. At least a 50-fold increase in 9 years. What has he been doing full time for the past 9 years? Pushing the scam of global warming that’s making him rich. If cap & trade is passed in the US, Gore stands to become a multi-billionaire. He is the indirectly paid propagandist for the eco groups and the corporations who will benefit from that particular means of thieving on the grand scale from the average citizen. Which, I might add, will undoubtedly cause the deaths of at least thousands of elderly from freezing for lack of heat in winter, and of the poor whose diets will be pushed over the line into malnutrition that lowers their immune systems and causes them to succumb to diseases they otherwise would have recovered from (as food prices soar and as disposable incomes of the poor are especially hard hit).

    2. For all the untold $billions of taxpayer monies wasted on global warming research, and all the zillions of published papers on the topic, ask the next advocate of this pure junk science that you meet to refer you to a bona fide, peer-reviewed scientific paper in any reputable journal anywhere on earth which has provided evidence of a link between any of man’s activities and atmospheric temperature changes or climate change. That’s not asking for proof, just one tiny but definite piece of evidence. And that’s regarding ANY of man’s myriad activities being damned by the pea-brained warming advocates. And…the evidence can be linked to either climate change of any type or atmospheric temperature change in either direction. He will not be able to offer you even one such paper, because despite the many, many billions wasted on this hoax, NOT ONE paper in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in any nation on earth, NOT ONE, exists or ever has existed which shows even EVIDENCE of a link between ANY of man’s supposedly nefarious activities and climate change. NOT ONE. NOT ANYWHERE. If you don’t believe me, try and find one. You warmers out there reading this, ask the gurus whose received wisdom you place your mindless faith in to provide you with the name and title and publication of such a paper ANYWHERE ON EARTH, and then post it here. And the rest of you, watch this space, because hell will freeze over before you see it. There is no such paper in existence for one reason only: there exists no line (that means NONE) whatsoever between man’s activities and global warming.

    The Algorites are the 21st century’s version of the old gloom and doom religious zealots who walked around with signs urging everyone to repent because the world was coming to an end tomorrow. IE, they are lunatics one and all, with mental deficiencies or, in the case of their leaders, character deficiencies (or more accurately, lack of character). This is not a controversial statement. It may be debated by the lunatics themselves, but they won’t do a very good job of it, since they are after all very unintelligent sub-normal humans by definition, being lunatic fringe fanatic religious believers in the global warming religion. Their parents were probably zealots for global freezing in the 1970s, and they have inherited the genes. It is an absolute, inescapable requirement that to believe in a human contribution to global warming in the absence of any shred of evidence for any aspect of it whatsoever other than the arbitrary claim of charlatans that “We have a HYPOTHESIS, and it is confirmed by the computerized models WE put the garbage into, models which you must believe are TRUTH AND WISDOM even though they disagree with each other and continue to produce forecasts that prove wrong, one after the other” — yes you have to be, if you actually choose to believe this, you MUST ABSOLUTELY AND LOGICALLY be either (a) unfortunately quite ignorant of the topic OR (b) an unusually stupid person OR (c) suffering from a severe mental/emotional/psychological problem. These 3 together make up the all-encompassing, exhaustive list of possibilities. There is no 4th option.

    I have read many of the posts supporting global warming and if there were time I could demolish every argument in each one. With ease. And with irrefutable fact and/or logic. I have already abused the generosity of this site by writing more than most, however, and it would take 10 times what I’ve written to dispense with all the lame-brained rationalizations the Algorites keep coming up with as each previous one is refuted. I have heard them all and there is not one with an iota of validity. They are arguments designed to sound reasonable to the unintelligent, and conclusive to those ignorant of the topic.
    Not one is correct, or even partially correct.

    Man-caused global warming a hoax and a fraud and complete garbage. There is no scientific dispute about this, only a political one which has enlisted a few scientists and many pseudo-scientists to join with the politicians and share the same agenda. This is a fraud on a global scale, and those who swallow it will deserve the truly horrible consequences for humanity, dwarfing the largest wars in history, DWARFING THEM, in the horrors of its consequences. Should the lemmings succeed in implementing the politics of the global warmers, unfortunately many of their betters — ie, those with actual HUMAN brains — will also perish, and the culmination of thousands of years of advancing human civilization will be destroyed for absolutely no reason.

    You who advocate global warming, do you have any idea what awful harm you will be doing to humanity and life on this planet? How dare you, ignorant as you are, spout off like a scientist when you can’t possibly have any idea of the topic, given the side you take. Look into yourselves. I think if you are capable of being honest with yourself you will find someone who needs something to crusade for so badly in order to shore up his self-esteem, or something to draw away the focus of the hate he has for himself, and for that reason has an EMOTIONAL NEED to believe in this hoax and to have someone to condemn as evil. If you are man enough to admit it, welcome to the club of human beings. If not, you consign yourself to membership amongst the worst enemies of humankind, human life, human civilization: you are a crusading ignoramus, about to add your own 2 cents to the savagery and barbarism recorded history’s litany of human disasters.

    Morry Markovitz
    on June 16, 2009
    at 06:41 AM
    Daily Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html

    THE SUN IS BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING

    The consensus view is that man-made CO2 is causing the lion’s share of global warming. But natural changes in the Sun’s power may be as much to blame.

    There is good evidence that the cause of at least some of global warming is an increase in the intensity of the Sun’s heat. Indeed, global temperatures appear to be more closely related to solar activity, which is constantly changing, than to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    After all, the Earth warmed up more during medieval times than during the 20th century, and it cooled down considerably during the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries – without any manmade event that would have affected CO2 output.

    Temperatures also dipped between 1940 and 1975 – a period of intense industrial activity.

    Meanwhile, data from between 1880 and 2000 shows a close correlation between increased solar activity and higher average temperatures on Earth. So couldn’t it be that the Sun is responsible for heating us up after all?

    THE MALDIVES AREN’T SINKING

    It has become a key part of the climate change mantra that some of the world’s most beautiful islands are at risk of sinking below the waves, thanks to sea level rises caused by global warming.

    But so confident are property owners in the Maldives that the sea is receding, they are building a flurry of lavish seafront hotels. Meanwhile, Tuvalu in the Pacific – also cited as being most at risk – has actually seen a fall in sea levels.
    Maldives

    The Maldives aren’t sinking: Property owners continue to build lavish hotels

    CO2 LEVELS ARE NOT AT UNPRECEDENTED HIGHS

    Today, about 0.038 per cent of the atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide, the main man-made climate change gas. This figure has certainly risen over the past 200 years or so – the ‘pre-industrial’ level of CO2 was closer to 0.02 per cent.

    But what is often ignored is that in the Earth’s past, carbon dioxide levels have often been as much as ten times higher than they are today.

    For example, during the Cretaceous era, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, CO2 levels were five to ten times what they are today. The planet was certainly warmer then, but life thrived and there was no runaway greenhouse catastrophe of the sort that the doom-mongers insist we face if we let levels rise further. They also, it should be noted, came down again naturally.

    POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DYING OUT…

    The doom-mongers love showing us images of polar bears in peril, floating on isolated ice rafts. But most populations are doing very well, thank you. Despite the (limited) melting seen in the Arctic ice cap over the past 50 years, polar bear numbers have more than doubled since 1950 – and that’s despite the fact that 50 to 100 bears are now shot every year.

    Indeed, polar bears aren’t bothered by the odd stretch of open water – they are very capable swimmers.

    In fact, it is not even clear that the Arctic ice is melting. The summer of 2008 was the coldest in Anchorage, Alaska, for 40 years.

    …NOR ARE THE PENGUINS

    And it’s a similar story at the South Pole. Although some Antarctic penguin colonies, especially those near human bases, have decreased in size, overall, penguin numbers are steady or increasing.
    Gentoo penguins

    Penguins are not dying out: Overall numbers are steady or increasing

    THE GULF STREAM IS NOT UNDER THREAT

    Some scientists have warned that if the Arctic ice cap melts, the resulting flood of cold water in the Atlantic could push the Gulf Stream – the warm current which keeps Britain relatively balmy – further south. If this happens, they have made dire predictions that northern Europe could become a frozen wasteland.

    Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence to support this view. In fact, the Gulf Stream is as strong as ever – and is getting warmer, not colder. Nor is it changing direction.

    GLOBAL WARMING MIGHT EVEN BE GOOD FOR US

    A warmer climate and an increase in CO2 will be a boon for farming and agriculture in general. One can even envisage returning to the warmer landscape of Roman times, when vineyards were common in England.

    With less severe winters, it will also be possible to grow many crops that, because they are susceptible to the occasional frost, cannot be grown at present.

    THERE ARE FEW ‘BAD’ FOODS
    Young woman eating hamburger

    No ‘bad’ foods: Hamburgers provide good nutritional value

    Received wisdom, repeated by many doctors and public health professionals, says we can remain fit and avoid disease by cutting out certain ‘bad foods’ from our diets.

    Indeed, it is variously claimed that 35-50 per cent of all cancers are caused by the food we eat.

    But while they are despised by the culinary elite, readily available hamburgers, sausages and pizzas have provided good nutritional value for many low-income families, who in previous days could afford only low-protein, high-carbohydrate, high-fat meals such as bread and dripping, and chip butties.

    In fact, fears about hamburgers and sausages in Britain are especially irrational. Most countries have a national dish based on minced or processed meat – and none is suffering from an epidemic of junk food-inspired illness.

    For example, meatballs are used in many guises in the Middle East, chopped meat on a bed of onions is a national dish in the Balkans, and mince is also used in countless Italian sauces.

    The terrines and pâtés of France and Belgium also contain processed chopped meat. Obesity is not caused by these foods, but by those who choose to gorge on them.

    Studies claiming to show the negative impact of a ‘junk food’ diet usually have little scientific validity.

    ORGANIC FOOD IS NO BETTER FOR YOU

    A widespread belief has emerged that organic foods are better for you than others because they do not contain ‘chemicals’ used in large- scale conventional farming.

    This dogma is wrong. All plant nutriment comes from the air, in the form of CO2, and from water-soluble chemicals in the soil.

    The composition of these chemicals is the same, whether they come from a plastic bag or from ‘natural’ manure or compost. They are certainly the same by the time they are on your plate.

    THERE’S NO NEED TO CUT BACK ON SALT

    Salt is an essential food. Without it, we would die. Land-based mammals-such as humans control their body temperature by sweating and panting.

    Sweating is impossible without sufficient salt. In fact, strenuous exercise in a person depleted of salt causes overheating and death.

    The Government has caved in to the anti-salt zealots in its advice to reduce salt intake. However, there is, in fact, very little, if any, truly scientific evidence that cutting back on it will do you any good.

    TURKEY TWIZZLERS ARE FINE

    The much-disparaged Turkey Twizzler, bugbear of TV chef Jamie Oliver, is made of recovered turkey meat and provides the same amino acids as normal turkey breast.

    Corned beef, now an unfashionable meat product, is also no less nutritious than any other beef, although, like Turkey Twizzlers, it is also a reclaimed meat product.
    Bernard Matthews’ Turkey Twizzlers frozen foods.

    Turkey Twizzlers are fine: The recovered meat provides the same amino acids as regular turkey breast meat

    WE DON’T KNOW WHAT CAUSES HEART DISEASE

    The medical (and social) consensus is that cardiovascular disease is caused by being overweight, by having a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet and by unhealthy activities such as smoking.

    While being morbidly obese, eating nothing but lard and smoking 60 a day will probably lead to an early grave, there is nevertheless a lot of confusion about the precise link between lifestyle and this, the biggest killer of all.

    Many people with high cholesterol levels in their blood do not get heart disease. Many people with very low levels do.

    The very low levels of heart disease recorded in some populations, notably the Japanese, may have more to do with cultural variation and prejudice than with medical reality (in many societies, what are, in fact, heart attacks are often listed on death certificates as ‘strokes’).

    Furthermore, some of the lowest levels of cholesterol and arterial sclerosis are to be found in populations such as the Inuit and Siberian hunter-gatherers, who live on a diet which is incredibly high in saturated fat.

    TAKE HEALTH ADVICE WITH A PINCH OF SALT

    Everything seems to be bad for you these days, but there is also plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary.

    Eggs seldom contain salmonella, even if some chickens do. Cholesterol in the diet does not cause fatty deposits in your arteries. There is probably little difference between the effect of saturated and unsaturated fats.

    In those with normal kidney function, salt does not cause high blood pressure. Those with a body-mass index of between 25 and 32 live as long as or longer than those with a lower BMI. And avoiding the sun causes vitamin D deficiency; a suntan is nature’s natural sun block, although sunburn is to be avoided.

    MERCURY FILLINGS ARE PROBABLY HARMLESS

    Anti-mercury campaigners believe that the mercury used in dental fillings will make you ill (mercury is a potent poison).

    But a single amalgam filling provides just 0.03 micrograms/day of mercury, which is almost 3,000 times less than the safety level permitted for persons with occupational exposure to mercury, and is too small to be responsible for any symptoms.

    Extracted from Global Warming And Other Bollocks: The Truth About All Those Science Scare Stories by Professor Stanley Feldman and Professor Vincent Marks, to be published by Metro on July 8 at £9.99 © 2009 Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks. To order a copy (p&p free) call 0845 155 0720.

    Science and ideology don’t mix. They never have and they never will. The house of cards that is the science behind “climate change” is collapsing at exactly the same time it is being imposed by the Obama administration and Congress as an ideological “truth.” America is facing the perfect storm of an imploding scientific theory that will be enforced by the rule of law.

    Make no mistake: the big bad wolf of truth is about to blow the straw house of global warming to bits. This is why there was a sudden shift, in the last nine months, from the use of “man made global warming” to “climate change” by the proponents of the theory.

    The scientific tug of war over whether or not the planet is heating or cooling has been going on for over 100 years. The difference between the past and our current situation is that governments around the world are passing (or attempting to pass) draconian laws and enforcing (or attempting to enforce) authoritarian treaties in order to “regulate” the planet’s temperature.

    The predictions of impending doom are nothing new. Business and Media Institute published an article titled “Fire and Ice” that details the media’s historical treatment of the debate. The article includes these two charts of historical time lines that say it all:

    time line

    time line

    I predicted months ago (in a couple of different places), “Man made global warming” would be replaced with the new term “climate change.” The reason for this shift: the proponents of man made global warming are having a tough time with the evidence.

    The original hypothesis foretold, and the computer models affirmed, an exponential increase in temperatures was being caused by the exponential increase in man made green house gases. The exponential increase in CO2 is, apparently, occurring; but the exponential increase in temperature (predicted as a result of the increase in CO2) is not.

    The earth’s overall temperature in the last several years has either remained steady or slightly decreased — depending on which side of the issue is interpreting the data. No one is maintaining that the world is getting warmer and warmer every single year, which was the initial prediction.[i]

    Nevertheless, the current administration is risking America’s economic future on “green” energy in an effort to solve an unproven crisis. The cap and trade legislation is moving ahead in spite of the fact that the United States is already one of the leading nations in curtailing CO2 output.

    Other countries, which are rapidly expanding their manufacturing base, are doing exactly the opposite. China, for example, now uses more coal for producing power than the US, Europe, and Japan combined. President Obama, on the other hand, has openly called for the destruction of the coal industry in the United States.

    Obama wants to build windmills instead:

    We’re going to have to, I think, invest heavily in clean energy. And if we have a cap and trade system, we can generate $150 billion over ten years to invest in solar and wind and biodiesel and train people to build windmills and build solar panels and make buildings more energy efficient. And make alternative fuels.

    There are two problems with the President’s approach. Windmills don’t reduce the amount of CO2 (if that is really the issue) and windmills don’t provide nearly the amount of energy promised.

    The President has promised to pump billions of dollars into new “green” energy systems. Hundreds of companies will lay claim to the federal dollars and America will soon have a new Silicon Valley that produces windmills and solar panels. The problem with this strategy is that, absent subsidies and regulations, there is no real market anywhere in the world for these products.

    So while America fails to provide inexpensive and reliable energy sources that would attract and hold real manufacturing in the United States, countries like, China, Japan, India (and even most countries in Europe) will move, full steam ahead, with fuels including nuclear, coal, and natural gas. These are far more efficient forms of energy production than wind or solar.

    Look down the road America. In ten years, energy prices in the United States are going to go through the roof. China, by comparison, will have less expensive (and more abundant) energy, cheaper labor, and fewer regulations. Who, in his or her right mind, would start a new manufacturing company in the US when faced with such obstacles?

    How much will this new cleaner energy cost the average citizen? CNN recently reported:

    The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under a hypothetical cap and trade law, this would cost a household an average of $1,600 a year for the first ten years…

    This means that every family in America will be paying more money for less reliable energy.

    Obama’s proposal is based on environmental ideology — not on science. He has proposed a system that is guaranteed, in the long run, to provide fewer jobs and more expensive energy for all Americans.

    That is a lot of change … and no hope.

    Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. He is the author of The Order of the Beloved , and the new memoir , Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.
    [i] “Exponentially warmer” means that the earth will warm faster every year — each year being warmer, and warming faster, than the one before. Remember Al Gore’s “hockey stick” graph?

  58. armchair pessimist Says:

    It’s possible to believe in the fact of man-caused global warming and yet cynically use it to achieve very worldly ends. Never waste a crisis, etc.

    My own theory is what this is really about is the establishment of a global oligarchy of bureaucrats and wonks. The EU raised to the ultimate power. Ambitious politicians and greedy international corporations like this prospect just fine. And reducing that long-time pain in the neck–the USA–to a 3rd world shithole is delicious icing on a delicious cake.

    As for 2010 & 12…. dream on. It’s over.

  59. dewey from detroit Says:

    First you create something from nothing – “carbon credits”. Second, you create value for them by requiring people to have them. Third, you establish a market for them by making them fungible. That’s the formula in a nutshell: take something with no intrinsic value, have the government give them value, thereby creating a market for them. So simple a moron can do it…

  60. waltj Says:

    “…but people are absolutely identical in every respect with 150,000 who are already here…”

    To put it yet another way, your analogy adds just enough people (CO2) to fill two good-sized football stadiums to the total population of the U.S. To say it’s a “drop in the bucket” is being generous. Carbon dioxide itself is also not a pollutant per se, especially if you happen to be a plant. While animals (including us) cannot inhale CO2, we exhale it with every breath, so it’s a natural byproduct of respiration. Are we to expect a “breathing tax” next?

    “…then why belive global warming when the biggest pushers of it are ex soviets, communists, far left socialists?”

    Why indeed, Art? It’s what a European acquaintance of mine, from the Christian Democrat (center-right) persuasion, once told me: “Walt, we say over here that the ‘green tree has red roots’”. He said to look into the backgrounds of the major political supporters of environmentalist causes, and you’d find that the whole lot of them got their starts in extreme left-wing organizations, or on the outer fringes of center-left ones. They used to agitate for more state controls on businesses, more “worker’s rights”, friendly relations with Moscow, and an end to U.S. and Western “imperialism”. Now they agitate for the “environment”. I seriously doubt this has changed much in the 20 years since he mentioned it to me.

  61. dane Says:

    Huxley,

    I noticed you quoted me in saying, “Any thinking person knows this isn’t about saving the planet or reducing carbon emissions…”

    and then went to say what you “thought” I meant. Well, I said, exactly what I meant – not what you “thought” I meant. The ramming through of this bill has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions or saving the planet. People who are concerned and caring don’t strong-arm rather they convince and if there are actually politicians out there who truly believe the claptrap of the likes of Jim (the president only has four years to save the planet) Hansen – then they should be in remedial classes instead of in congress. But, again, fear mongering seems to be the weapon continually used by this administration.

    Oh, and by the way, Huxley, data and statistics can be made to support almost any position if you twist them enough or isolate just the parts you want.

  62. Perfected democrat Says:

    Pragmatist Says:

    June 28th, 2009 at 9:55 am

    Thank-you sir, superb contribution!

  63. harry McHitlerburtonstein Says:

    huxley:
    “harry McHitlerburtonstein — I’m speaking of the scientists and informed laypeople who back Global Warming. Go visit RealClimate to get an idea. Better yet, debate them, and see how much of an obvious slam-dunk your position is.”

    Been there, done that. They arenrt known for being debate freindly. Try Climateaudit.com instead. Where they not only welcome debate, they link back to “Real Climate” while RC will not even mention the name Climate Audit nor Steve McIntyre.

  64. harry McHitlerburtonstein Says:

    I’m sorry. Make that Climateaudit.org. My bad.

  65. Occam's Beard Says:

    (1) The amount of water vapor is not changing significantly; CO2 is. See Radiative Forcing.

    I’m familiar with radiative forcing, but note the qualifier above –significantly. Even a trivial variation in water vapor partial pressure swamps the warming contribution from CO2, since there is ca. 100 X more water vapor than CO2 (from all sources) in the atmosphere, and almost 1000 X times more water vapor than all anthropenic CO2.

    So a 0.1% variation in the partial pressure of water vapor would equal the partial pressure of all anthropogenic CO2.

    Further to that, the IR spectrum of water consists of two whacking great potatoes at around 3000 and 1600 cm-1, leading to a massive oscillator strength (absorption per mole integrated over frequency). That of CO2 consists of two narrow spikes at around 2300 and 1500 cm-1 (IIRC). If you run an IR spectrometer in single beam mode (i.e., so you see the atmospheric absorption), with the attentuation set to keep the water absorption onscale, that of CO2 is a merest blip. Hard to believe that that blip is changing the earth.

    (2) Practically speaking, in the absence of strong counter-examples, consensus has a great deal to do with how science works.

    Science is a social enterprise, as leftists never tire of telling us, so yes, social factors come into it. The point is that people agreeing with each other that something is true doesn’t have the slightest effect on is actually true.

    For a recent example (there are loads of historical ones – see Lord Kelvin’s estimate of the earth’s age, on the possibility of radio communication and heavier than air flight), Google Helicobacter pylorii, for example. Scientific consensus ridiculed Robin Warren and Barry Marshall for asserting that peptic ulcers resulted from bacterial infection. Two MDs from Australia? Please. A couple of cranks. The science was “settled” – peptic ulcers were caused by sstress. Everyone knew that. The experts shook their heads in amusement. Where did these bumpkins come off, anyway?

    Warren and Marshall won the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 2005.

    Oops. Warren and Marshall isolated H. pylorii from peptic ulcers and established its role in causing them by generating dispositive data. No computer models, or any of that crap. Their falsifiable hypothesis was borne out by hard experimental results. Now scientific consensus supports H. pylorii as a cause of peptic ulcers. No more milk, antacids, and stress-reduction. Anti-bacterial drugs are the treatment of the day.

    That’s where AGW falls down. No dispositive data, no falsifiable hypotheses, just clapped-up secret computer models. (Jurassic Park was made through us of computer models, after all; the output of a computer model depends on the input. Significantly, Hansen & Co. have refused to publish the details of their model. Too busy giving press conferences.) This is not how science works.

  66. jon baker Says:

    Here is a good article about the depths to which the “warmers” will go to suppress that which does not fit their agenda “Polar Bear Testimony Suppressed Due to ‘Inconvenient’ Truths”:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/06/28/polar-bear-testimony-suppressed-due-inconvenient-truths

  67. Tatterdemalian Says:

    Damn, there’s a lot of trolls hitting conservative blogs lately. Generally this only happens when something is going very badly for them… maybe “The REAL Father of Our Country” is in even bigger trouble than we thought.

  68. Oblio Says:

    Correcting my post @ 6.47 pm yesterday. The seasonality of the Hawaiian data makes a different point about Northern Hemisphere summertime photosynthesis. I misremembered and confused two different effects. Apologies.

  69. Oblio Says:

    pramatist, you mean this site:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/

  70. Occam's Beard Says:

    Tatterdemalian, so now Obama is “Father of the Country?” What the hell was Jennifer Weiss talking about? What about Bush? Was he “Father of the Country” too? Somehow I doubt it.

    These lefties are getting beyond creepy.

  71. Vieux Charles Says:

    “(4) The the economic arguments against that bill are not only probably incorrect, but even if correct would be an example of unacceptable selfishness. We are a piggish nation and deserve to suffer.”

    That would be the same thought process that caused Obama to infamously suggest that the U.S. in someway brought 9/11 upon itself because of its history of colonialism in the Mideast.

    ???

    We are so screwed.

  72. Cylar Says:

    That would be the same thought process that caused Obama to infamously suggest that the U.S. in someway brought 9/11 upon itself because of its history of colonialism in the Mideast.

    What the hell…?

    That was the United Kingdom and France, not the USA.

    The only “colony” that America has ever had was the Filipino island chain (which we released willingly some years after liberating it from the Japanese), and I don’t recall any of its citizens flying airliners into our buildings.

    Does Obama even realize that?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge