The great global warming swindle

[sonorakitch]

Finally a reasonable, concise and credible affirmation of my understanding that the global warming bandwagon is the biggest boondoggle of our time.

Thank you Ainwood.

~Chris

 

[theimmortal1]

Great video.

And the socialists have tons to gain. Basically GW gives them the perfect opportunity to push their socialist agenda on the general public. Its a quite simple concept, when humans are scared they band together. When they are confident they like to be independent and free. So the socialists figure they will tell us the world is going to end and bingo they think we all want universal healthcare.

 

[Leonel]

Oh TONNES of people stand to gain! Stylejl pretty much listed the ones that I can think of right off the top of my head but also aging and/or mediocre actors and musicians that want to get back into the lime light and get the chance of landing lucrative sponser deals from companies or get more publicity for their movies.

I mean look at Bono's recent campaign to raise money to eradicate AIDS. Out of the 100 million dollars spent on the whole campaign, only 18 million has been raised to actually combat AIDS. Why couldn't that 100 million have just gone straight into combatting AIDS instead of it all going into marketing it? (source:http://adage.com/article?article_id=115287&rf=23m)

 

[El_Machinae]

How does asking people to fix a free market problem equate to socialism?

If anything, global warming concerns are part of the libertarian agenda.

 

[Gothmog]

Heh, more news at 11...

You know it kind of ticks me off the way people criticize AGW doom-sayers (of which I am not one) and then do not apply the same criteria to skeptics. I mean why not look at the science and ignore the rhetoric?

I have to say, all of you 'what a great video' types are nothing but fanboys.

I had a feeling this was coming, what with the recent work by Svensmark and the IPCC report.

If anyone really wants to discuss the science (which I doubt) here's a link.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208566

@Serutan - AFAIK there are no reports that the sun is heating up, I have posted the relevant data in the above link (there is no trend). I would be very interested in any scientific publication making that claim though.

@Mercenary82 - Ah, the time honored common sense claim. Screw the scientific method, my common sense tell me that the sun rotates around the earth.

As I understand it this video makes a few points...

CO2 and surface temperature are not 100% correlated over the last 120 years.

This is just stupid, first of all they use some unreferenced plot that emphasises cooling between 1940 and 1975. Why not use reputable data? There was some cooling in that period, and we know why - sulphate aerosols. Second, there are more factors in temperature than CO2, again sulphate aerosols are a good example.

They get back to the satellite ground based discrepancy again. The person they got to talk in their show (Christy) had this to say in a scientific report. I'm not sure how he forgot about this...

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

linky: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Any review of the literature would have turned up this debate and where we currently stand on it (I hate to say it but the review done by the IPCC is great).

Then they mention the temp/CO2 timing issue in the ice cores. Well not really relevant to current climate models, but even so there's lots of relevant publications on this issue. The upshot is that there is a temperature - CO2 feedback, in fact this is one of the only ways that variations in solar flux can possibly affect climate (because they are so small).

They give out other misinformation such as:

Medieval English vineyards - in fact wine is produced in england today at a much wider range of latitudes... so what?

Volcanoes as a source of CO2, gah, this is just bad science. Why are there no spikes in the CO2 measurements? Or just look at data from the USGS or any other reputable scientific organization that studies volcanoes.

Humans can't change the atmosphere because its so large. Again, gah. Was I transported back to a time where looking up at the sky was enough proof that the sun rotates around the earth? I mean really, take a measurement, do a little research, maybe write down an observation or two. Crikes.

Finally the cosmic ray issue comes up again. Well, there is no trend in cosmic rays or solar irradiance in the last 50 years!. Other than that I did an analysis of current hypotheses in the thread linked to in the beginning of this post. If anyone wants to talk science, I'm all ears (or eyes).

The political stuff I wont comment on here. That has nothing to do with the science.

 

[sonorakitch]

How does asking people to fix a free market problem equate to socialism?

If anything, global warming concerns are part of the libertarian agenda.

The global warming argument is designed for ultimate mass distribution of wealth. The socialist agenda fits perfectly with global warming; fixing this "free market program" includes significant backsteps in comfort and productivity. It is a lot more than just turning off the lights.

~Chris

 

[El_Machinae]

Chris, you're pretty good at explaining things, so maybe you can 'babystep' me through your thinking. I don't see how getting polluters to pay others to not pollute (in order to maintain a sustainable level of pollution) is socialist. Given that there's only so much sequestering biomass available (at any given time, like any other resource, it should grow with the market), it makes sense (to me) to make it into a market.

fixing this "free market program" includes significant backsteps in comfort and productivity.

See, so does any other attempt to capture an externality. I just don't get it. While curbing CO2 will obviously hinder short-term economic growth, it certainly won't stop it. I mean, can you compare this CO2 issue to the acid rain issue, and explain to me how efforts to curb acid rain was (by its nature) socialist?

 

[Gothmog]

sonorakitch, some people do want to shut down our current industrially based society, though I wouldn't say all socialists want to do this.

Of course that has nothing to do with science.

 

[sonorakitch]

Gothmog,

While I am no scientific expert, I do think you will have to do better than that to refute this BBC picture (for me anyways).

My limited scientific knowledge does include the understanding that volcanoes do emit CO2.

To a scientific laymen, it makes much more sense that the sun would affect global temperatures much more than humans, as there is evidence that you cannot refute that temperatures have varied quite a lot in the past thousands of years.

~Chris

 

[Gothmog]

I am saying that humans emit about 150x as much CO2 as volcanoes. I am saying that smart people study such things and you must review their arguments and evidence before spouting nonsense.

Again, we measure solar output and cosmic rays. There is not trend in the last 50 years.

I agree that the sun should affect global temperatures. It does, it must. But that does not mean that greenhouse gasses cannot also affect global temperatures, or sulphate aerosols, or cloud properties, or oceanic circulation, etc. etc.

Temperatures have varied on geologic timescales, it just happens that the last 5000 years or so have been as, if not more, stable than any other period. Hmm, what happened in the last 5000 years that is important to humans?

And again, so what? So temperatures were different a million years ago. What does that prove?

 

[sonorakitch]

Chris, you're pretty good at explaining things, so maybe you can 'babystep' me through your thinking. I don't see how getting polluters to pay others to not pollute (in order to maintain a sustainable level of pollution) is socialist. Given that there's only so much sequestering biomass available (at any given time, like any other resource, it should grow with the market), it makes sense (to me) to make it into a market.



See, so does any other attempt to capture an externality. I just don't get it. While curbing CO2 will obviously hinder short-term economic growth, it certainly won't stop it. I mean, can you compare this CO2 issue to the acid rain issue, and explain to me how efforts to curb acid rain was (by its nature) socialist?

Well, I am certainly no expert on the science of global warming; I am like most everyone else that is inundated daily with stories of wasp creatures invading France because of global warming. So I am skeptical of the whole notion, and feel this is certain success for a movement that began in the socialist corner of the spectrum.

As Gothmog stated above, the response to global warming advocated by the activists would reduce our ability to operate the industrial society we take for granted today. I think it really boils down to control. Toronto has just banned the incadecent light bulb for example. This is where I disagree that global warming is a libertarian issue.

Now you speak of the credits and such which does allow for the free market system to address global warming. I don't personally subscribe to this as being a cure, but I encourage the idea as something that should be available anyways. If your premise is right, and the challenge of climate change can be managed in the free market, then great. But I believe more that the income redistribution advocates are winning the PR war right now.

I think acid rain was dealt with rather differently than todays issue. There were always alternatives to the gas pollutants causing this acid rain. There isn't much alternative to CO2 emissions, at least presently. Incidentally, there was a trading type program for acid rain too, although I seem to remember it didn't gain much traction.

I still settle on my belief that manmade global warming is a farce. It is my gut...it makes more sense that way for me.

~Chris

 

[El_Machinae]

WI think it really boils down to control. Toronto has just banned the incadecent light bulb for example. This is where I disagree that global warming is a libertarian issue.

I can see your point here. I would counter by saying that the issues of global warming prevention is something being dealt with at the governmental level, not the individual level (of course individuals will be involved). This means that for Canada to meet its treaty obligations with other countries, the country will have to make changes internally so that our externalities are being reduced or paid for. Clearly banning the incandecest bulb is a 'reduction' type move.

However, merely banning behaviour does not preclude the idea that it's a libertarian issue. Ideally, we'd charge people for the damages they do when they punch each other (for example), but there is no really good system to set up such a payback (we can agree that the civil assault lawsuit is an attempt, but it is lacking). For this reason we have also banned the activity of 'punching each other without consent'. Is this anti-libertarian? Kinda. But not fully.

So, banning the bulb (which, actually, I think is merely being discussed in Toronto, and maybe Austrailia) restricts personal freedoms, but it also brings the country in line with the country restricting its externalities.

And, without a doubt, factoring in externalities is a very, very imporant part of the libertarian mindset.

 

[Gothmog]

My gut tells me that the sun rotates around the earth, I've learned to discount my gut on some topics though it pains me. As Nitsche said (paraphrasing) in all desire to know there is a bit of pain.

Also if we take the IPCC report as an example (in their mittigation section) not all AGW (anthropogenic greenhouse warming) types want to shut down industrial society. As I understand it AGW was a main topic in a recent economic forum by the EU, again they certainly don't want to shut down industrial society.

Edit: Oh and most economists have heard of the 'tragedy of the commons'

 

[sonorakitch]

I can see your point here. I would counter by saying that the issues of global warming prevention is something being dealt with at the governmental level, not the individual level (of course individuals will be involved). This means that for Canada to meet its treaty obligations with other countries, the country will have to make changes internally so that our externalities are being reduced or paid for. Clearly banning the incandecest bulb is a 'reduction' type move.

However, merely banning behaviour does not preclude the idea that it's a libertarian issue. Ideally, we'd charge people for the damages they do when they punch each other (for example), but there is no really good system to set up such a payback (we can agree that the civil assault lawsuit is an attempt, but it is lacking). For this reason we have also banned the activity of 'punching each other without consent'. Is this anti-libertarian? Kinda. But not fully.

So, banning the bulb (which, actually, I think is merely being discussed in Toronto, and maybe Austrailia) restricts personal freedoms, but it also brings the country in line with the country restricting its externalities.

And, without a doubt, factoring in externalities is a very, very imporant part of the libertarian mindset.

You must be a libertarian!

You also make good points, but I fear more the coming "reduction type moves". I venture that in coming years if this global warming train continues there will be more to go: big cars, coal fired power plants, green grass golf courses here in Arizona, synthetic rubber tires (or tyres, whatever)...this list can and will grow. While responses to solid scientific evidence is fine and would be considered a libertarian thing to do, man-made global warming, in my mind, is hardly solid just yet.

~Chris

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess you're answering for immortal1: I was mostly wondering how wanting to factor in the damages (economically) was 'socialist'.

I can't really argue that the science is not 'in'. I think it's been in for quite awhile. To me, the science part of the debate is reminiscent of the evolution debate.

You also make good points, but I fear more the coming "reduction type moves". I venture that in coming years if this global warming train continues there will be more to go: big cars, coal fired power plants, green grass golf courses here in Arizona, synthetic rubber tires (or tyres, whatever)...this list can and will grow.

We'll have a choice to either ban them, or get people to pay a fair (not subsidised) value for these products. Personally, I'd choose the second option.

 

[sonorakitch]

My gut tells me that the sun rotates around the earth, I've learned to discount my gut on some topics though it pains me. As Nitsche said (paraphrasing) in all desire to know there is a bit of pain.

Also if we take the IPCC report as an example (in their mittigation section) not all AGW (anthropogenic greenhouse warming) types want to shut down industrial society. As I understand it AGW was a main topic in a recent economic forum by the EU, again they certainly don't want to shut down industrial society.

Edit: Oh and most economists have heard of the 'tragedy of the commons'

I have been engrossed in the recent news regarding global warming. I have been inundated by the media with the stories of polar bears floating on ice islands, locusts invading France, and even cattle emissions in Oklahoma. The consensus seems to be that global warming is here, it is rather sudden, and if we humans don't combat it we are finished.

I am typically a skeptic with these things. There is one occasion where I was not and I regret it: Iraq. In 2002, the media and political machines began, rather suddenly, to indicate Iraq posed a serious threat with hordes of WMD's and if we humans didn't combat it, we were finished.

Needless to say, to me there are extreme parallels. Most intelligence agencies confirmed the WMD facts, most governments lambasted Saddam for renewing a weapons program, and even the IAEA verified that Iraq had some kind of active weapons program. The credible and respected sources advocated action, and even some of our most respected politicians here in America supported some kind of response (enter Colin Powell).

My question: why are so many on here so willing to jump on the global warming bandwagon, one that is obviously a good deal of media hub-bub, but were so unwilling (at the time) to jump on the Iraq one? How can you recognize a difference? I think most would agree that the speed in which global warming has entered into our lives as the "greatest challenge" is akin to the speed in which Iraq entered our lives as the "greatest challenge". Five years ago, global warming was a little blip on the screen with the mainstream media. Does this new urgency not seem a bit manufactured? Or is it simply that "new sh!t has some to light" to quote the Dude.

There is a good number of skeptics today regarding global warming, as there was for Iraq years ago.

The media is the most powerful creator of movement in public awareness and opinion. They certainly had much to gain from Iraq, and they have much to gain now. Certain industries have much to gain also. The social movements have much to gain.

I am not quick to claim fraud; most who believe and barter this theory are simply doing so because they feel it is the right thing to do...much evidence is physical and evidenciary in man's disturbance of the earth (clear-cutting for ex.). But don't you think it is wise to step back and review the science and allow it to bear more concrete evidence before we so drastically change mankinds' lifestyle?

By no means do I want to turn this into another Iraq thing. I am ashamed of my full blown support of the war in the beginning, and I don't want to make the same mistake with this. So in terms of my gut, I find it very hard to support the idea of man-made global warming; at least until further evidence is presented that is a "slam dunk".

~Chris

P.S.--I am a political whore, not a scientific one. It is difficult for me to debate the science...

 

[sonorakitch]

I guess you're answering for immortal1: I was mostly wondering how wanting to factor in the damages (economically) was 'socialist'.

I can't really argue that the science is not 'in'. I think it's been in for quite awhile. To me, the science part of the debate is reminiscent of the evolution debate.



We'll have a choice to either ban them, or get people to pay a fair (not subsidised) value for these products. Personally, I'd choose the second option.

Again, I don't think factoring in the damages is socialist, I think responding to a threat that may or may not exist by banning things and turning back the clock on industrial development is.

We all know that universal acceptance of global warming as being man made is a socialists wet dream. Environmentalism has always been a lynch pin for the modern socialist movement.

~Chris

 

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind that industry/progress/wealth has outpaced CO2 consumption for a long time. I don't think that reducing CO2 output will 'turn the clock back' on our economy; only slow it down.

I think that not preventing damages will turn our economies back, since forced migrations and infrastructure rebuilding can be expensive and does not pay returns on investment if the damages weren't necessary.

We all know that universal acceptance of global warming as being man made is a socialists wet dream. Environmentalism has always been a lynch pin for the modern socialist movement.

Here's the circle we're going to go around. Since neither you nor I are socialist (I assume), I cannot really see how it is socialist to take steps to preserve the environment and I don't know if a non-socialist can explain it to me. I guess I might be defensive that my views have been lumped in with the commies.

 

[sonorakitch]

Here's the circle we're going to go around. Since neither you nor I are socialist (I assume), I cannot really see how it is socialist to take steps to preserve the environment and I don't know if a non-socialist can explain it to me. I guess I might be defensive that my views have been lumped in with the commies.

Here is an article written by Lawrie McFarlane of the Canadian Times Colonist. He draws the parallels far better than I can:

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=b58a489b-5cc4-4167-9c8c-670e39ae1a12

It makes for an interesting and enlightening illustration of my perception of climate change response advocacy and the socialist agenda.

Of course you don't have to be a socialist to want to protect the environment; heck, I am an environmentalist of sorts. I cringe to see satellite photos of the rainforest disappearing; I despise clear cutting; I mourn when a new species is deemed extinct. But I won't buy into the idea of carbon emissions curtailment...just yet.

~Chris

 

[Jawz II]

Yeah, think it, be it. right?
Something that bad cant happen to us? surely not to us?

Goddamn we deserve it.