Archive for the ‘climate change’ tag
The mythic ideal of Cincinnatus, the selfless citizen-legislator who reluctantly leaves his farm to serve the Republic, is incompatible with the combination of endless incumbency and gigantic amounts of government power. We are foolish to place our trust in a system that requires an impossible level of virtue from politicians to function as designed. A limited government can better protect the economic health of its citizens by policing corruption from the private sector, under the direction of term-limited representatives who will never become worth the risk of buying off.
Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.
Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.
H/T Mike B.
Al Gore is just another product. Except this product insists that it be exempt from competition or critical evaluation.
From Holman Jenkins at the WSJ:
But from our first column on this subject, we have been convinced that the scientific questions are interesting and irrelevant, since it was never in the cards that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) would sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change. Unable to do anything meaningful about climate change, policy would therefore default to satisfying the demand of organized interests for climate pork.
Isn’t that, however much he may be distracted by feelings of sincerity, exactly the economic function of Mr. Gore today?
AL GORE: No, Diane Sawyer, I will not conform my diet to my value system
NY TIMES: Al Gore is amazingly awesome, not at all benefitting personally from his good works
The unsettling nature of an unsettled debate
The new business model: government connections
Global cooling, in the 1970’s.Â Global warming, in the 1990’s.Â Today environmental alarmists have finally settled upon language that allows no room for debate:Â “climate change”.Â If we have an especially warm summer or cool winter, an especially scary tornado or hurricane season, earthquakes, dry spells, floods or fires, then the debate is won and all nations must bow to the will of the environmental alarmists (to be imposed upon us by the Intergovernmental PanelÂ on Climate Change,Â the environmentalÂ cudgel wielded by the United Nations).
Now any distemper of Mother Nature provides proof of the evils of modern society, and portends disaster in theÂ immediate future for mankind…unless! we listen to Al Gore and the gang.Â What does he have to say?
The planet has a fever.Â If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science-fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem.’
I wasn’t aware that science-fiction novels were the only remaining voice of dissent in the global warming – sorry, “climate change” – debate.Â More Gore:
This is not a partisan issue, this is a moral issue, and our children are going to be demanding this.
Most parents don’t allow the demands of children toÂ determine their grocery store purchases, much less international government policy.Â And really, isn’t it a science issue?Â “Do it for the angry children” is not a convincing scientific argument.Â Then again, “the science is settled”, right?Â From The Deniers, a book written by a Canadian environmentalist and author:
In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere.Â ‘The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium,’ explains Prof. Segalstad.Â ‘This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon – it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.’
When the facts don’t fit theÂ agenda-driven presentation of the IPCC, they decide to change them.Â Approximately three dozen studies from fifty years of scientific work concerning the nature of CO2 determined that it persists in the atmosphere for somewhere between 5-10 years.Â The IPCC, in order to conform carbon dioxide to their alarmist models, decided that CO2 must persist in the atmosphere for 50-200 years.Â
Does fundamentally changing the nature of carbon dioxide “settle” the scientific debate?Â Actually, it does not.Â Freeman Dyson, for example,Â disputes the effectiveness of the very computer models used to portray mankind’s impending doom (you know, the ones that say Miami will be underwater inÂ five yearsÂ if you keep driving your SUV?).Â Dyson says of the models, “they do not begin to describe the world that we live in”.Â As long as one credible scientist exists who will stand up against the thuggish, agenda-driven actions of the UN-IPCC, the science is not “settled”.Â Consensus is not a scientific method.Â The very nature of the advancement of science has been listening to voices of dissent from scientists making intellectual leaps beyond currently accepted knowledge.Â Where would we be if Newton or Einstein were worried about “consensus”?Â What if Al Gore were around to lock them away inÂ a scientificÂ dissentor “lockbox”?
It seems to me that humanity hasÂ been fairly conscientious aboutÂ accepting the advances of science and listening to the voice of reason ever since the Enlightenment.Â Are we going to trade that for the dictates of a global government, guilting Western society into obeidiance?
It is certainly true that ‘fewer people equals a greener planet’ is simplistic. In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.
This is from Alex Renton, a British…journalist?Â I’m not sure what to call someone who calls for the “culling” of Western civilization.Â Totalitarian mass-murdering wannabe?Â Maybe he’s angling for the job of gate guard at the prison where the totalitarian one-world government will definitely have to send people like me.Â Because I certainly wont take a “culling” lying down.
So is the science “settled”?Â Far from it.Â Nonetheless, climate change isÂ already being usedÂ as an excuse to to put limits on individual freedom.Â For now they’re still testing the waters, but clearly the concept of climate change and “environmental justice” will be a useful tool for fledgling totalitarian governments looking to infringe upon the rights of the individual.
“Don’t drive that car, its carbon footprint is too large.Â Downsize your pet from a dog to a cat, large pets are destroying the planet.”Â
“Abort that second child, we need to cull the population a bit“.
With cold weather across the country setting new records for lowÂ temperatures and early snowfall, believers in human-caused global warming are the object of increased criticism that their ideas constitute patently false pseudo-science.
In an effort to refute these claims, the de facto leader of the movement– Vice President Al Gore– has adopted a bold new strategy for changing minds about global warming. Gore claims to have jettisoned traditional science in favor of the poorly-understood, avant-garde critical theory of postmodernism:
The advantage that postmodernism has is that almost nobody knows what that word means, let alone what ideas it encompasses. I think it has something to do with rejecting conventional narratives or worldviews, or something.
So now that the climate isn’t cooperating with our vision of the future, it only makes sense to reject the very notion that climate is a knowable, measurable thing. It is, after all, just part of a patriarchal, heterocentric, constructed reality. Or something.
Obama doesn’t lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health-care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things — energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel’s Law — a crisis is a terrible thing to waste — failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.
Nor has anybody adequately explained what the crash had to do with education or energy. OK, maybe the price of fuel? ButÂ why is theÂ solution to make fuel and energy even more expensive as part of a climate bill that is nothing short of job-assasinating national self-flagellation?