Think European, Act Locally?
Posted by
Kevin
California seems to be:
The European Union’s environment chief reports the E-U is working closely with California to bring it into the 27-nation bloc’s trading scheme for greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas reported today that members of his staff met with California officials last week and discussed how to make the state’s planned program fit with a European one that has been operating for two years.He added that that such a connection likely will take at least two years.
While I have my qualms about trading programs, I still think this is a good move. It demonstrates that local governments can take steps to work around the impediment of the Administration and take active steps to help reign in the global warming problem. With Bush in the White House, nothing will get done nationally on global warming. Bush’s backers have spent too much time and money denying the obvious problem to back down now. Besides, if the United states ever got serious about global warming, those business executives would have to adjust to a changing economic situation, and there is nothing CEOs of major companies hate more than having to actually react to real change. Right now, those companies are the economic “winners”. If the regulatory environment changed, they would have to work harder to maintain that status, and CEOs hate that.
But this shows that the individual states can work with the global community on this problem even if the national government refuses to do so. I suspect that if this comes to pass, the Bush Administration will go to court and argue that this is infringing on the foreign policy of the United States and thus cannot be done. Logically, the argument makes no sense. This is a purely economic move with a group that the United states already enjoys robust trading contacts. It is akin to California deciding to buy its airplanes (if, in fact, the state of California has its own airplanes) from partially state-owned Airbus. The Court should be no impediment to this kind of creative thinking. As long as the White House is controlled by the GOP, the states are where the most good can be done environmentally. California is paving the way and, if successful, I suspect that we will see other large states soon follow.
It is great that California forges ahead with envirnmental programs that far surpass Federal standards. Then, in a couple of years, when the Californian economy is showing no ill effects, the rest of the country might follow along.
I’m not certain, but I seem to recall hearing something about a GOP administration being in power in CA these days. Must have been a dream.
Comment 1/31/2007
You forget that when Arnie acted like a Republican, his numbers went in the tank. Wanting to be re-elected, he started governing as a Democrat
And the dems control the Legislature 
Comment 1/31/2007
I hate to come over here and bug you but would you tell us what should be done about Global Warming? Other than blogging of course.
I understand we only have 10 years left.
Comment 1/31/2007
Number9:
You know, we could throw the same question right back at you. And I suspect your answer to that question would give us tremendous insight into why you have such a vested interest in denying that the earth orbits around the sun, err, that human activity exacerbates global warming.
But to answer your question, there’s no one silver bullet. It would take a lot of things, all of which you’d find incredibly offensive (what with them being inconvenient and involving government action — both of these like Kryptonite to Libertarians). The short, simple answer is that you’d have to make a concerted effort to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels. How you achieve that is more complicated. (And “the market,” left on its own, cannot achieve that, given the ready availability of cheap fossil fuels.)
Any solution would probably have to involve some sort of punitive carbon tax, the proceeds from which are funneled into renewable energy infrastructure (wind, solar, hydroelectric, and wave power would all have to play in), and efficiency improvements. Speaking of that, you’d have to mandate improved efficiency (in appliances, in vehicles, etc.) while you’re at it. I suspect progressive pricing on energy usage would help, too, such that the more you use, the more you pay, on a curve. And more agressive tax credits for people and companies who invest in wind/solar power generation.
In other words, a comprehensive, across-the-board energy policy focused on moving away from fossil fuels as much as possible. Some would argue that this is too expensive and isn’t feasible. I think they underestimate American wealth and ingenuity. Yes, such changes would hurt certain market sectors, but they’d create whole new markets. Think of it as a Manhattan Project for the 21st century.
Comment 1/31/2007
Tgirsch says what I said on Uncle’s blog in a different way; technology is the answer.
I’m generally quite sympathetic to Libertarian ideas on most every social issue. I support individual choice on guns, self defense, abortion, drugs, alcohol, marriage, sex, flag burning, the price of tea in China, you name it.
But I have to part ways with Libertarians on environmental issues. Climate and things like clean air, water, and food are simply macro issues that have global ramifications, and require us to act in some sort of uniform, cohesive manner that the market simply doesn’t encourage right now.
Comment 2/1/2007
#9 — and, btw, is that a Prisoner reference? — pretty much what tgirsch and Sebastion said. We have to move away from a carbon-fule based economy. I would put more money into subsidizing things like rail transportation, purchases of efficient appliances, hybrid vehilces, etc than I think Tgirsch might. I would also be leery of a gasoline tax until late rin the process - -too much of the country just needs their cars. But those are policy details. In the large: have the government create incentives - -some positive, some negative — for a rapid transition away from carbon-based fuels and towards more mass commuting and efficient buildings.
Comment 2/1/2007
#9 could possibly be a Beatles reference…
Comment 2/1/2007
Neither, it is a reference to the Federalist Papers. Oh, and I am not a Libertarian either.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_09.html
Comment 2/1/2007
I would put more money into subsidizing things like rail transportation, purchases of efficient appliances, hybrid vehilces, etc than I think Tgirsch might.
Are you kidding? That’s exactly the kind of thing I think we ought to be doing. Also subsidizing (through tax breaks or directly) thinks like photovoltaics and wind turbines in private developments, too.
Comment 2/2/2007
This week on three different blogs I have asked a simple question, what should be done about Global Warming?
For months on KnoxViews I have written about coal gasification, solar panels, electric cars, and compact fluorescent bulbs. Ironic since I am also accused of being an AGW (Anthropogenic — human caused — Global Warming) denier.
So far I have gotten two responses. One from Lean Left suggesting a punitive tax on carbon use. Another at Say Uncle saying we need to get away from a carbon based energy economy.
No offense, but that is pretty weak. How in any way can a tax based on carbon use make any difference?
How can any economy just up and change to a non-carbon based energy economy? Nuclear is not an option because too many people will never accept it. It also has a very long build cycle. It takes many years to bring a new nuclear power plant on line. Then of course terrorists will blow it up and some people say disposing of the nuclear waste will kill all mankind. I support nuclear but I do not see how it can be cost effective compared to other technologies.
I wrote last week that Global Warming has become a religion. This week the major conservative radio pundits hammered that theme into the ground. I guess that idea got more popular. At least in some quarters.
Tonight on ABC Television News Charlie Gibson said we have ten years to solve Global Warming but that nothing we do will matter in the next fifty years. Can anyone make sense out of that? A cry to arms but a recognition that it is hopeless in our lifetime.
I ask again, what can reasonably be done about Global Warming that will not be worse than the cure? Will anyone be willing to wreck the economy knowing that nothing we do will matter in our lifetime?
Comment 2/2/2007
#9
The “not in our life times” is really immoral. I have children, and it pisses me off to know end that you are willing to throw away their futures for what amounts to either laziness or selfishness.
Comment 2/2/2007
The “not in our life times” is really immoral. I have children, and it pisses me off to know end that you are willing to throw away their futures for what amounts to either laziness or selfishness.
Grow up. If it doesn’t happen in our lifetime it is a con job. How immature can you be? That is a rhetorical question as the answer is plainly clear.
You know what pisses me off Kevin? That people like you don’t have enough maturity to see through an obvious con job and want to require a new punitive carbon tax on people that can see what a con job this really is.
What proof do you have this is real other than consensus of “scientist” of the liberal persuasion? Can Global Warming be expressed in a formula? No.
The utter conceit involved to think any one on this planet understands climate science is unbelievable. I think the tax should be voluntary. A penalty of sorts for those with low self image and poor reasoning skills.
If you have an open mind you can learn more here:
Myths/ Facts about global warming http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4
Scientific references and Technical articles http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=7
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD
*Dr. Tim Ball, Retired Professor of Climatology Ph.D, (Doctor of Science), University of London, England.
*Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Research scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts
*Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
*Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist retired B.Sc. in Mathematics and Physics, a M.Sc. in Statistics from India (Pune University) as well as both M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from Florida State University
*Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology, Carleton University
Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFXM0claHq4 (4:34)
Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO928uEJV1w (6:21)
Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM_JlhKGbEc (3:26)
Part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoFET3OhWco (5:10)
Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQzXRzXpWMg(5:02)
Comment 2/3/2007
Number 9
Ahh, a con job. As the civil rights movement was a con job (The NAACP took more than 50 years to achieve its goal), for example. Because, of course, no one lives past fifty and nothing will change in the least in all that fifty years until the moment when everything is better! Life is like a computer, everything is either on or off!
Of course, you do know that your fifty years link doesn’t say anything at all like what you claim it says. Instead, if one actually reads the report, one sees this:
So produce the quote.
And since we are on the subject of whats in your head, who do imagine is leading this con job to deny you your precious gasoline? And for what purpose? The entire scientific establishment is conspiring for the last twenty years to do what? And if you say “get grants” I am going to laugh at you, because thats stupid. You know how to make money? Accept the money certain companies like Exxon Mobile will pay you to say what they want to hear. Much, much easier and lucrative than begging for money from governments.
“What proof do you have this is real other than consensus of “scientist” of the liberal persuasion? ”
Ohh, I forgot, your a conservative - - facts are biased against you! You even link to to articles telling you about the consensous! You are ignoring the overwhelming and clear evidence because you don’t like it. You are doing the equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and yelling “lalalalalalalalalalala I can’t hear you!”
I bow to your stupendous maturity.
As for your “friends of science”, my God, that was lame. A few minutes with gogle would have told you that, but you didn’t care, did you? All you want is to be told what you want to hear. Its pathetic. So let’s look at their claims:
“MYTH 2: The “hockey stick”, a poster boy of both the UN’s IPCC and Canada’s Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well.”
This is a lie:
Oh, and the data? Confirmed.
Myth 3: What are they saying? That C02 increases are not caused at all by human activity? Wrong and the comment is out of space ..
Comment 2/3/2007
.. anyway, Myth 3: wrong
(this last link also deals with the ice core “evidence”. More on that nonsense here.
Myth 4: Weird — he sorta makes the point against himself. Becasue of the minor gases are more effective, by his own admission, that they make up 40% of global warming, by his own admission, while being less than 3% of the greenhouse gases, that pretty clearly implies that adding more C02 will have a disproportionate effect. Did you even read this? And, btw, someone needs to explain the difference between feedback and forcing to these people …
Myth 5: Again, hard to tell what his point is. He starts off scoffing at computer models (as the computer model work isn’t backed up by empirical evidence) and the devolves into the sun spot theory. Both are bullshit.
Myth 6: even if true, which given the record here I doubt, it is superseded by the 2007 report that you yourself link to. BTW, I cannot find a date — I hope to heck that you weren’t relying on an 11 year old paper to make your point.
Myth 7: Again, can someone explain to him some simple concepts: like just because something is useful in moderation does not mean it is good in excess? Again, did you read this?
Myth 8: Umm, putting aside the idea that media coverage drives up the costs of storm damage (wtf???) this is, again, wrong. Yes, population density and unrestrained costal grwoth does make the dammage worse, but so does increasing strength of storms, which is apparently made worse by global warming. This, by the way, is one area still uncertain: the effect appears to be real, but its power is not yet settled, not among hurricanes at any rate.
Myth 9: Again, huh? The question is not whether or not glacier retreat or advance, the question is whether or not global warming is making them retreat more or advance less than they normally would. He is building arguments out of straw.
Myth 10: Here he lies by implication “Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.” The question of this is still unsettled (certian kinds of storm damage can mimic sea level rise in localized areas) but the seal level worldwide is rising:
In short, his entire list consists of bad logic, lies, mistakes, and incorrect assertions. I did this comment in the time it took me to make breakfast for my kids and for them to eat it. That you didn’t bother to do this tells me all I need to know about your level of intellectual honesty. Global warming is real, it is happening, and it is going to have bad consequences. Spinning ridiculous tales of conspiracy theories and covering your ears so you cannot hear it are both useless and immoral.
The only con job here is the one people like Friends of Science are pulling on people like you.
Comment 2/3/2007
Kevin, let me get this straight. There is only one answer? If anyone asks any question that does not align with the Church of Global warming they are branded a denier and excommunicated?
Did you watch any of the videos? Or is this like your review of Orson Scott Card’s book “Empire” where you just read the first five chapters?
There is no hockey stick. Which in this case is the Holy Grail of your religion.
If we could affect Global Warming, why can we not see the effects for fifty years?
Comment 2/3/2007
Number 9
Oh, I love it. Presented with evidence that your linked to assertions are in fact wrong, you fall back on the pretending that science is a repeating and repeating a lie. Wonderful. Such elevated, mature discourse. What next, “Global warming is a hoax and I say no take backs to infinity so I win!”? Ooh, ooh, I know — Al Gore is really Al Bore so global warming cannot be real!
And, as I said at the time you numbskull, I didn’t review Empire. I used the free chapters of Empire and Enders Game to discuss certain aspects of Card’s writing. That was clear to everyone honest at the time.
“If we could affect Global Warming, why can we not see the effects for fifty years”
First, the only one saying this is you. Produce the quote. Second, there is this thing called feedback. Study its meaning in scientific terms and then get back to me. Third, we can and will see the affect of changing our behavior: the pace of tings getting worse will change, and eventually switch to things getting better.
Comment 2/3/2007
Here is your European logic. End result, lost America jobs from the lowest paid American workers. Will France carbon tax China or India? Well Kevin?
This religion seems anti-American.
New York Times
February 1, 2007
France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax
By KATRIN BENNHOLD
PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.
He said that he welcomed last week’s State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a “serious challenge” and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.
But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.
“A carbon tax is inevitable,” Mr. Chirac said. “If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay.”
Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union,” he said.
Mr. Chirac spoke as scientists from around the world gathered in Paris to discuss an authoritative international report on climate change, portions of which will be released on Friday.
Comment 2/3/2007
I am not sure we are done with Global Warming. You see there is more than one type of denier.
Good scientists are skeptics.
Your new religion needs some work.
Comment 2/3/2007
9
Man, you are a tool.
First, the fact you are ignoring all the links I gave you is pretty telling. Dela with the science, if you can, mate.
Second, the fact that you think the hockey stick graph is the be all end of all of global warming evidence is pretty telling. It tells me that you don’t in fact know jack about th subject. All you do is repeat the lies of deniers.
Third, that article is a lie. The hockey stick graph is not materially wrong, as I have shown several times. Go back and actually read the information provided, for a change.
Fourth, Wegman has been less than forthcoming about his work:
Again, do the research you lazy little tool. Once again, I figured this out while making my kids breakfast. You are either the most gullible person alive, the dumbest person alive, or an intellectually dishonest hack too wrapped up in your own prejudices to bother actually thinking about the isssue. Your masters in the right wing media snap their fingers and you dance, like the good little puppet you are. Doesn’t tell you anything that you haven’t been right once in this discussion? Not one single time? Don’t you ever learn? Don’t you have any pride?
Oh, and as for the French thing, what part of “imports” means “only American imports?” If China and India have not signed Kyoto Accord, they, too will be subject to the tarrifs.
Comment 2/4/2007
Once again, I figured this out while making my kids breakfast.
I believe that you believe that.
Once again:
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science
Skeptics are different from deniers. In Science there is no word for “denier”. Denier is a word used in religion.
Comment 2/4/2007
Number 9
So far far, you have linked to an article that did not say what you said it did, and refused to either take back the quote or provide it. You have linked to a discussion of “myths” that I demolished. You then ignored the links and real science I brought up to imply that the French want to punish America. When I pointed out that, too, was wrong, you fell back on the lie that the hockey stick graph was the bedrock of global warming evidence. When I pointed out that was wrong, you switched to the hockey graph was wrong. When I pointed out that work that showed the hockey graph to be wrong was itself flawed, you ignored that and pretended that the hockey graph used bad methodology, despite the fact that links in the previous discussion show that to be
So, to be blunt, you started out with grand claims that global warming was a “con job” and have had that steadily worn down to one report was wrong, even though you don’t seem to understand that “minor mistakes in the work that did not materially effect the outcome” is not equal to “wrong method”. And, just to ensure maximum hackery, you never once either admitted you were wrong or attempted to refute the evidence showing you were wrong. Keep this up, mate, and by Wednesday you will be reduced to claiming that elves are using their magical mirrors to intensify the rays of the Sun to fake global warming, but not to worry — the elves are small and they will get tired of holding up the mirrors pretty soon so everything will be honky-dorey!
Actually, do keep this up. Anyone who stumbles across this thread and reads the links will be know two things: global warming deniers are hacks, and global warming is solid science. Good work, there, Number 9.
nd so you cannot claim that you haven’t been told — your crap about the hockey stick graph is just that, crap.
Comment 2/4/2007
Hang it there Kevin, it was said on air and I have not found it on ABC or YouTube. I will see if it is there today. Maybe Charlie Gibson misspoke. But he did say it.
There is no such thing is science as a “denier”. Your use of the word shows your prejudice towards the subject. A skeptic is not a denier. As time goes on you will see the number of skeptics soon overtake the true believers.
Comment 2/5/2007
Number 9.
Don’t shout — its not polite.
You’re original link “”
Its pretty clear form the context that the quote will be found at the link. If you didn’t mean that, in the future, you should not link in that fashion. Its also pretty clear that you cannot find any supporting evidence for this notion.
And you are not a skeptic. You haven’t engaged with a single piece of evidence that I have shown you. Not one. As I pointed out earlier, you just keep retreating further and further form your original statements, ignoring the evidence as you fall back, apparently trying to find something, anything that will validate your pre-conceived notions. You aren’t being skeptical, you are doing the internet equivalent of covering your ears and screaming “I can’t hear you!”. Denier is as good a word for that as anything else.
Comment 2/5/2007
Just search YouTube again per your request. Still no luck.
But I did find this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIPcqlMTQHs
Comment 2/5/2007
As I pointed out earlier, you just keep retreating further and further form your original statements, ignoring the evidence as you fall back, apparently trying to find something, anything that will validate your pre-conceived notions.
Can’t let that pass. My original thoughts were that Global Warming was caused by man and specifically by increased Co2. I have since begun to question my original thoughts.
The reason for my skepticism? The mindset that of all gas cycles on Earth that Co2 was dominate. After several studies gave only token awareness to first methane and then second sulfur dioxide it became clear to me this might be a case of mass experimenter bias. Which has happened before but not on a scale as large as this.
A question for skeptics and believers would be to look at the grant funding. How many grants were awarded to the AGW side and how many to the natural GW side?
That may explain the consensus factor. The debate has now shifted from whether Global Warming is caused by man to how scientific the studies are that brought the majority to the consensus position.
Comment 2/5/2007
Can’t let that pass. My original thoughts were that Global Warming was caused by man and specifically by increased Co2. I have since begun to question my original thoughts.
Not in this discussion they weren’t. And you still haven;t touched on any of the refutatiosn of the points that you were so sure proved that global warming was a con job.
A question for skeptics and believers would be to look at the grant funding. How many grants were awarded to the AGW side and how many to the natural GW side?
Seriously — you are going to argue, without a bit of evidence, mind you, that scientists bias their work in order to get government grants. First, if you are going to allege that the scientific community has been bought off, you should make some effort to provide evidence for that claim. Second, you should also make note that plenty of companies have spent plenty of money on scientists to “debunk” global warming — and that their work rarely holds up, and their efforts at critiquing the science of global warming have been generally poor failures. See, thats the thing with science — it has results and studies and experiments. So far, the science of global warming has been solid and the debunkers has been not. Third, if you find yourself arguing that an overwhelming scientific consensus is the result of a grand conspiracy to get grants, you should really,really take a step back and listen to what you are saying. Seriously man, the idea is silly. Scientists make their name, get tenure, win big money awards like the Nobel, and get girls by shaking up the status quo and making it stick. In order for grant money to have created a massive, consensus sized bias for Global Warming, those grant would have to be enormous enough to overcome scientists own desire for the truth (which is another thing - -do you have any idea how insulting this fairy tale is to actual scientists?), every other competing source of income (so that the scientist would be terrified of losing the money), and the institutional and social incentives to shaking up the established order. They would also have to be extremely widespread, touching dozens of fields and scientists in universities, private labs, corporations, and government offices in almost every country in the world. You are proposing a conspiracy with reach and financial resources that would make the black helicopter people look like grade school pikers.
“The mindset that of all gas cycles on Earth that Co2 was dominate. After several studies gave only token awareness to first methane and then second sulfur dioxide it became clear to me this might be a case of mass experimenter bias.”
This does not accurately describe the state of research, and, unless something happened in the late 70s or early 80s that I am unaware of, it never described the state of research. This is a variation of the water vapor nonsense from earlier in the thread. Studies have always dealt with all greenhouse gases. C02 became a focus because, once it became clear that something non-natural was happening, C02 levels began to stand out for various reasons.
“The debate has now shifted from whether Global Warming is caused by man to how scientific the studies are that brought the majority to the consensus position.”
Not to be rude, but only in your head is that an accurate statement of the state of the debate.
Comment 2/5/2007
Man, Kevin, I can’t believe you’re so blind. The US research-grant-issuing system is so irreparably corrupt, it has caused scientists all over the world to perpetuate the global warming myth! It’s the most pervasive urban legend since cow tipping!
And Number 9, I’m saying this honestly and without the slightest bit of snark: I’ve seen creationists attack the credibility of evolution far more effectively than you’re attacking the credibility of global warming. (And they didn’t do that good a job.) Seriously. Substitute “evolution” for “global warming” in your arguments, and Voila! You’re Kent Hovind!
Comment 2/5/2007
Refresh my memory, why is Tim Ball a heretic?
Today’s latest:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
Comment 2/5/2007
What I love is how people like Number9 dismiss the preponderance of scientific evidence on global warming — not to mention overwhelming scientific consensus — out of hand, but then view things like the “research” of John Lott as Gospel Truth. When you only listen to people who tell you what you want to hear…
As for your sparse links, there’s this thing called “cherry picking.” Look it up some time.
And your latest link is laughable.
So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens?
Because these scientists are decidedly in the minority, and they have fallen well short of providing a compelling case for their POV. In fact, the only people who take them seriously are knuckleheads like you, who are too intellectually dishonest to even acknowledge when their arguments have been refuted (or to even acknowledge that a counterpoint, irrespective of merit, was even made).
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
Lowell friggin Ponte? A funny thing happened when Lowell Ponte wrote that: he was ignored. Why? Because “global cooling” was simply never the consensus view of science. His writing was dismissed by scientists as the rubbish that it was. (He sold a lot of books, but as “popular science” — he never did any hard research that gained any modicum of acceptance, that I could find.) There was simply never any “global cooling crisis” — this is a fabrication of the deniers of global warming. What is it that Uncle likes to say all the time? You global warming deniers “have to lie to win.”
Your latest author then goes on to whine, Dinesh D’Souza style, about being called names, and then goes further to cry the Kuhnian rallying cry of “my preferred point of view is not in the mainstream, but Kuhn’s (mostly-discredited) writings makes that okay!”
Here’s an idea. Try fact checking your research before you parrot talking points like a fifth-grader doing a book report.
And, by the way, given the lack of anything other than hearsay in Dr. Ball’s editorial, did you really expect it to convince anyone who didn’t already agree? That would be like me sending you a Sierra Club propaganda brochure, and expecting it to change your mind. (With the notable exception that the Sierra Club brochure would likely have at least some foundation in truth.)
Comment 2/5/2007
What I love is how people like Number9 dismiss the preponderance of scientific evidence on global warming
There was a time when noted physicians claimed the sub 4 minute mile was impossible. That the human heart would explode.
“Experts” once said there was no need for the micro-computer.
Experts are wrong all the time.
What equal time has been given to methane, sulfur dioxide, cosmic rays, and solar cycle? The culprit we are told is Co2. Out of millions of variables the one man made variable is the cause. Yet somehow natural production of Co2 is denied ironically by those who call doubters and skeptics “deniers”.
And yet none of this seems strange to you?
Here’s a bet, that Global Warming will be forgotten after the 2008 Presidential Election. Once Al Gore rides into the sunset the rest of the science will catch up and the cover story in TIME magazine will be, “How could science have been so wrong”?
But you will have moved on to the next Liberal fools errand. I can hardly wait for the next global emergency. AIDS, Global Warming, of course the next calamity will be the Oceans are dying.
Remember who called it first.
Comment 2/5/2007
Number9:
There was a time when noted physicians claimed the sub 4 minute mile was impossible. That the human heart would explode.
Say it isn’t so! Another unsubstantiated urban-myth-like “they said” quote in defense of your “position?” No friggin’ way! I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. Tell you what: We’ll start running a tab for you on all the claims and purported quotes you owe us citations for. And a question: Have you ever met a goal post you didn’t move?
“Experts” once said there was no need for the micro-computer.
Added to your tab. And by the way, even if true, what about that claim is scientific in nature?
Experts are wrong all the time.
While true, they’re right a lot more often, especially on matters scientific. Besides, we’re not talking about [any old expert opinion, here, we’re talking about] overwhelming scientific consensus. And in your examples, even if taken at face value, they were proven wrong by people who built compelling cases to the contrary, which is a vastly different thing than just whining about the fact that the scientific consensus is decidedly not on your side.
And yet none of this seems strange to you?
What seems strange to me is the fact that you insist on repeating those talking points no matter how many times they’ve been debunked. It’s almost as if *gasp* you’re not really intellectually honest about, or interested in, the subject.
Here’s a bet, that Global Warming will be forgotten after the 2008 Presidential Election. … and the cover story in TIME magazine will be, “How could science have been so wrong”?
I’ll take that bet. Given that concerns about global warming have been around for well over a decade, and that the case for AGW has only gotten stronger in that time, I seriously doubt it’s going to magically go away after the next election. Hell, the Kyoto Protocol is almost 10 years old already.
Remember who called it first.
I’ll remember who the whiny-ass bitches were who insisted that we could have our carbon “free lunch,” and who opposed doing absolutely anything that might inconvenience their political views. And I’ll remember who’s so shallow that they only accept science they find to be politically convenient, while ignoring and disparaging all other science.
Comment 2/5/2007
And I’ll remember who’s so shallow that they only accept science they find to be politically convenient, while ignoring and disparaging all other science.
Pot, meet kettle tgirsch. I guess it just depends on which side of politics you are referring too.
Methane, sulfur dioxide, cosmic rays, and solar cycle? tgirsch and his apprentice Kevin says disparage them all because they offend the religion of Captain Planet the all knowing all powerful leader of the eco-religion. What is this pagan Gaia worship about anyway? Is this the next Scientology? You are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.
When you “disparage” any idea that conflicts with your movement it does become a religion. When followers of AGW claim record cold weather is the result of Global Warming they prove their insincerity. When the Captain Planet team refuses to revise Kyoto to make it fair for all nations they show this is politics and not science.
Al Gore, Ted Turner, and Jane Fonda. The great scientific minds of our times. Your leadership speaks to your hysteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Planet_and_the_Planeteers
Comment 2/6/2007
Number 9
Damn, you really are nuts. Yes, right - -all of the science, all of the evidence, all of the facts and experiments and years of research and the huge, overwhelmingly scientific consensus mean nothing because it is all done by Pagan Gaia worshippers.
Just to be clear: you haven’t presented any evidence that has stood up to any level of research. You have been wrong about everything in this thread, and now you aren’t even trying. You are repeating information we have shown you to be incorrect and asserting that anyone who has the temerity to believe the science is a follower of an eco-religion and rant about Jane Fonda and Ted Turner of all people. My God, man, don’t you realize you sound just like those people who stand on street corners ranting about the CIA controlling people’s minds with brain wave machines?
I am beginning to worry about you, man.
And I would suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, the reaosn you cannot find any anti-global warming science that stands up to scrutiny is that there isn’t any. Occam’s Razor is your friend, Number 9.
Comment 2/6/2007
Methane, sulfur dioxide, cosmic rays, and solar cycle?
Well, frankly, it’s okay to ignore “science” that has been thoroughly and convincingly debunked. Which yours has been, by the way, a fact which you have conveniently and consistently ignored. Science isn’t a game of “if I repeat it enough times, it becomes true.”
And of course, if you can show me anyplace at all where I disregard the prevailing scientific opinion for political reasons, by all means, point it out to me, and I’ll accept the pot-kettle tag. Otherwise it’s more like spoon-meet-commercial kitchen.
But by all means, keep on digging. Mine will be the 34th comment in this thread, and in that span you have not addressed anything substantively. Not one thing. People like you are all the evidence I need to demonstrate that people who deny AGW generally don’t have the slightest clue what they’re talking about. I’m beginning to wonder if you could find your own ass with a compass and a map, frankly, but I digress.
Number9: Attacking established science by mocking children’s cartoons since 2007
Comment 2/6/2007
Simply not true gentlemen. I have linked more than sufficient evidence which you have ignored at every turn. Must I retype it word by word?
You stand behind the supposed “wall of consensus” and have neither an open mind nor the spirit to search for the truth.
And yet neither of you can provide a formula for climate insisting that Theory with a capital T is enough for your new religion.
Mankind knows more about physics, space, and the human genome than about either climate or weather. The number of variables are beyond the scope of human and computer technology yet you insist on a Theory with a capital T of “consensus”.
My deep sincere remorse for both of you when your religion is debunked.
Comment 2/6/2007
9
WTF? Did you not notice the numerous links and excerpts above us? Did you not read a bloddy thing we wrote? As far as I can tell, there is not a single point of yours that we haven’t shown to be garbage. If we did miss one, point it out.
And your formula thing is silly. If you actually believe that all theories can be summed up with one mathematical formula, then you don’t know squat about actual science.
Comment 2/6/2007
Number9:
What Kevin said. What little you have provided isn’t evidence. It’s a combination of talking points and thoroughly-debunked crap. It’s not enough to find some old link backs up your preferred view, especially when that link has been refuted in numerous, more-recent links. Again, you simply cherry-pick what you want to hear, and flatly ignore everything else. All the while disparaging science as a whole to try to score cheap points. That may play in your right-libertarian fantasy world, but here in the reality-based community, we ain’t buying it.
And for all your shrill whining about our “religion,” global warming is one of those things that I would absolutely love to be wrong about. I wish to hell that we could burn all the fossil fuels we want consequence-free. I’ve always been a big muscle-car fan, and I wish such gas-guzzling power rides weren’t so irresponsible, so I could have and drive one in good conscience. But wanting it to be true doesn’t make it true.
But the bottom line is that you have long since demonstrated that you have no intellectual integrity on this issue. Over the past decade, the case for AGW, and the scientific consensus surrounding it, has only gotten stronger; those who deny it keep having to obfuscate and fall back. (The goal posts moved from “it’s not happening at all” to “it’s not because of human activity,” for example.) And despite all this, you insist on rejecting it at all costs, like a fundamentalist Christian who refuses to believe in evolution no matter what the evidence says.
At this point, I’m convinced that there’s literally nothing that would convince you that AGW is real and a serious problem. As long as there’s even one holdout scientist who rejects it, you’ll choose to believe what’s politically convenient and hide behind hare-brained conspiracy theories (”scientists from all over the world perpetuate the global warming myth as a way of conning the US into funding their research!”), instead of accepting the truth that’s becoming abundantly clear.
Comment 2/7/2007
Gentlemen, AGW is a political war against choice and capitalism. Not even the Europeans can agree.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=home&sid=a46FG2hBzreg
This is a larger issue than you may believe:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/14868082-b651-11db-9eea-0000779e2340.html
Comment 2/7/2007
Number9:
As to your first link, I do not think it means what you think it means. Unless I miss something, nobody is disputing the science behind AGW — they’re merely arguing over whether mandatory emission limits are fair or necessary. That’s a practical/business concern, not a scientific one. So I fail to see how this advances the point you’re trying to make. (Which seems to dance around, by the way — first it was a hoax to garner grant funding; now it’s a hoax to attack capitalism and freedom; what’s it going to be next?)
And your second link doesn’t seem to be at all relevant, unless you’re just trying to point out that people argue about the scope of government power. Well, duh.
Finally, if AGW “is a political war against choice and capitalism,” it seems odd that the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists align on one side of that war. I didn’t realize that scientists were overwhelmingly authoritarian commies. I’m glad I have you here to point that out for me.
Comment 2/7/2007
Also, notice that in every case you cite where people complain about anti-global warming regulation or other environmental regulation, they’re primarily motivated not by doubts about the validity of the science, but by potential financial loss. Their motives are fiscal in nature, not scientific.
Comment 2/7/2007
http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/18153/
Researchers aim to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by shedding light on the nanostructure of cement.
Concrete is the most widely used man-made material, and the manufacture of cement–the main ingredient of concrete–accounts for 5 to 10 percent of all anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas involved in global warming. But now, researchers at MIT studying the nanostructure of concrete have made a discovery that could lead to lower carbon-dioxide emissions during cement production.
Comment 2/8/2007
[…] It shouldn’t, not if you have been paying attention to global warming “skeptics” Recently, I went round and round on this topic with Number 9, from Say Uncle’s place, about global warming. The discussion thread is interesting for two things: how quickly number 9 backed off his initial claims and eventually fell into blaming — and I am not making this up — Jane Fonda and just how disingenuous much of the material he linked to was. I don’t blame Number 9 for that; the fault belongs to those who wrote what he linked. But if you follow all the links, you can see that in many cases, the global warming skeptics did shoddy work, cherry picked their data, or ignored contrary data. They lied, in other words, to make their case. […]
Pingback 2/13/2007
I see you still do not understand the Global Warming issue. I will be glad to continue the discussion. But first let’s examine why you see things the way you do. In separate posts I will share some new information for you to digest.
Kevin, this may explain why you see the world the way you do.
Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD is the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army.
Comment 2/14/2007
Let’s discuss the call to arms from Pulitzer Prize winning author Ellen Goodman. In typical hippie dipstick thinking Goodman writes, “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . “.
WOW. This is stunning. How far gone is this poor woman?
Dennis Prager has a good dissection of this very far left extreme viewpoint.
Comment 2/14/2007
In the past two weeks the skepticism of man made Global Warming has leaked out into the mass media. The skepticism was always there but somehow it has now broken through the sound barrier for all to see. Clearly the wicked Winter experienced in the Global Warming capital of the World has many people wondering how solid the science is. People in the North Eastern United States are praying for some Global Warming to relieve them from one of the worst Winters in recent memory.
Welcome to the Skeptics corner:
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
Study: Glacier melting can be variable
Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday.
War Crimes trial for Global Warming Skeptics
Experts question theory on global warming
And of course the ideas of those who are so much smarter than everyone else:
No change in political climate
Again, in science there are no deniers. There are however skeptics. Skeptics in science are not criminals.
Carry on.
Comment 2/14/2007
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/02/14/are_global_warming_skeptics_criminals/
You do believe in the First Amendment, don’t you?
Comment 2/14/2007