This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
TonyB
Thanks for link to Ljungqvist paper (2650). This is a very comprehensive study (makes Mann’s hockey stick look like a 12-year old’s failed science paper).
Ljungqvist’s data series is literally from all over the world (not just a handful of cherry-picked North American and Siberian bristlecone pine trees).
The conclusion is quite clear:
BTW, the conclusion is the same as that reached by a totally independent summary by Craig Loehle, based on several peer-reviewed and published studies (which you have probably seen, but I’ll link, anyway).
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
But, Tony, don’t expect IPCC to take note of all this work. They’ll most likely stick with the Mann stuff (even though it’s been comprehensively discredited and scientifically refuted by peer-reviewed studies from all over the world) and continue to parrot the same old party line:
Looks like this should read:
Max
Max
Its an interesting and comprehensive article which warrants closer examination to see if it checks out. No doubt Peter will want to do so.
In the meantime I was sent this which arose as a result of a series of exchanges between a blogger and a govt adviser. You have posted something very similar yourself.
Is yours from the same source? If not it would be interesting if you could repeat yours here so we can compare them.
“But the real argument is as follows. (These numbers are accepted by a renowned UK government advisor).
The FUTILITY of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg
On average world temperature is ~+15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect ~33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at ~-18 deg C.
Running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than ~93%
• Total World Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
• UK’s contribution to World CO2 emissions is ~1.8% = 1.6 thousandths deg C
So closing all the carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than 0.09 deg C. In that case how can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions and draconian taxes are able to limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?”
Can you confirm those figures?
tonyb
TonyB
You asked for my comments (2652).
Bouncing figures around on “man’s ability to change our planet’s climate” is a bit of a game.
But, like with all games, it depends very much on the “rules” or the key criteria.
The most important of these key criteria is also the most “uncertain” (as Dr. Judith Curry has lamented): the GH impact of human CO2 emissions on our climate, or the “2xCO2 climate sensitivity”.
IPCC (Myhre et al.) has estimated that a doubling of CO2 would increase temperature by just under 1°C. This value, itself is already disputed, with estimates ranging from 0.6° (Lindzen) to 0.9°C (Kondratjew + Moskalenko) to 1.5°C (Charnock + Shine), in other words, a pretty wide range of “uncertainty”.
IPCC then uses model simulations on various theoretically assumed “feedbacks” to arrive at a high climate sensitivity of 2.0 to 4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C (or over 3 times the sensitivity without the assumed net positive “feedbacks”).
IPCC has then used these already uncertain estimates to arrive at model-based projections of temperature to the year 2100, with a myopic fixation on CO2 alone and the additional assumption that there would be no impact of natural climate forcing factors over the 21st century (which has already been proven false in the first decade of the 21st century).
Other climate scientists, such as Spencer and Lindzen, have used satellite observations to arrive at a 2xzCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.6°C and even lower.
There is obviously a major range of “uncertainty” between 0.6°C and 4.5°C.
So much for the uncertainty of the IPCC assumptions on 2xCO2 climate sensitivity plus natural climate forcing factors – but there is yet another set of assumptions made by IPCC, namely the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 over the next century and the resulting level reached by year 2100.
Since Mauna Loa measurements started in 1958, atmospheric CO2 has risen at a fairly constant compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 0.42% per year. The CAGR over the past 5 years was also around 0.42% per year, so there has been no acceleration.
Over essentially the same period (1960-2010) human population has grown from around 3 billion to around 7 billion. This is a CAGR of 1.7% or four times the growth rate of atmospheric CO2.
Wiki tells us that the UN has made three projections of population growth from today to 2100: a reduction to 5.5 billion, a modest growth to 9 billion or a strong growth to 14 billion. These estimates represent CAGR of roughly –0.3%, +0.3% and +0.8%, respectively (so even the highest growth case is at around half of the actual 1960-2010 rate).
Despite this marked slowdown in human population growth, IPCC assumes that the rate of CO2 growth from human emissions will accelerate!
At the most recent CAGR (0.42%), the 2100 level would be 560 ppmv.
The IPCC “scenario” (B1) with the lowest projected CO2 growth and temperature increase is slightly higher (0.48%), resulting in a year 2100 CO2 level of 600 ppmv and a temperature increase (2100 versus 2010) of 0.8 to 2.6°C (with a “best estimate” of 1.5°C).
OK, this exaggeration is not too bad, but let’s look at the other IPCC “scenarios”:
A1T: CAGR = 0.65%, CO2 in 2100 = 700 ppmv
B2: CAGR = 0.80%, CO2 in 2100 = 800 ppmv
A1B: CAGR = 0.86%, CO2 in 2100 = 850 ppmv
A2: CAGR = 1.29%, CO2 in 2100 = 1,280 ppmv
A1F1: CAGR = 1.52%, CO2 in 2100 = 1,590 ppmv
The last two “scenarios” have CO2 rising to a level which exceeds all the carbon contained in all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves of our planet, so can be rejected outright as absurd (how IPCC could make such a silly mistake is hard to imagine).
But wait! These are the “scenarios” with the most alarming warming projections, ranging from 2 to over 6°C – the “horror scenarios” we read daily in media releases, etc.
So we can ignore these outright.
But it is also not reasonable to assume that CO2 growth rates from human emissions will increase significantly when population growth rates slow down to less than half of what they were before, especially with all the emphasis being put on energy conservation, switching from expensive fossil fuels to less expensive alternates, etc.
So even “scenario” B1 is stretching credibility a bit, and we can reasonably assume that CO2 will grow at the rate of the past (or less) and that the CO2 level in 2100 will be around 560 ppmv or less.
OK. So we have some reasonable assumptions. Let’s run some calculations.
CO2 level 2010: 390 ppmv
CO2 level 2100: 560 ppmv
Three cases for 2xCO2 impact:
3.2°C IPCC (strong positive feedback)
1.0°C (no net feedback)
0.6°C Spencer (net negative feedback)
C1 = 390 ppmv
C2 = 560 ppmv
C2/C1 = 1.436
ln(C2/C1) = 0.362
ln (2) = 0.693
Using IPCC 2xCO2 estimate:
dT (2xCO2) (IPCC) = 3.2°C
dT (2010 to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.362 / 0.693 = 1.7°C
Using “no net feedback” 2xCO2 estimate
dT (2xCO2) (no feedback) = 1.0°C
dT (2010 to 2100) = 1.0 * 0.362 / 0.693 = 0.5°C
Using Spencer 2xCO2 estimate
dT (2xCO2) (Spencer) = 0.6°C
dT (2010 to 2100) = 0.6 * 0.362 / 0.693 = 0.3°C
ALL of the above estimates assume that (as IPCC states) all other “anthropogenic forcing factors” cancel one another out and that there is no significant climate forcing from “natural factors” (an erroneous assumption, as we have seen in the first decade of the 21st century, where these overwhelmed record CO2 increase to result in net cooling).
So even using the exaggerated IPCC estimate on 2xCO2 CS, we arrive at less than 2°C temperature increase from today until 2100, and a more likely figure of somewhere between 0.3 and 0.5°C.
So the politicians’ vows to “limit temperature increase by year 2100 to less than 2°C are a lot of political “hot air” with no substance.
Your study states:
Let’s do a check on that. We can run that same calculation backward
CO2 level 1750: 280 ppmv (IPCC estimate, based on ice core data)
CO2 level 2010: 390 ppmv
Three cases for 2xCO2 impact:
3.2°C IPCC (strong positive feedback)
1.0°C (no net feedback)
0.6°C Spencer (net negative feedback)
C1 = 280 ppmv
C2 = 390 ppmv
C2/C1 = 1.393
ln(C2/C1) = 0.331
ln (2) = 0.693
Using IPCC 2xCO2 estimate:
dT (2xCO2) (IPCC) = 3.2°C
dT (1750 to 2010) = 3.2 * 0.331 / 0.693 = 1.5°C
Using “no net feedback” 2xCO2 estimate
dT (2xCO2) (no feedback) = 1.0°C
dT (1750 to 2010) = 1.0 * 0.331 / 0.693 = 0.5°C
Using Spencer 2xCO2 estimate
dT (2xCO2) (Spencer) = 0.6°C
dT (1750 to 2010) = 0.6 * 0.331 / 0.693 = 0.3°C
These numbers are higher than the estimate you quoted.
But wait!
We know from the temperature records that temperature increased by around 0.6°C from 1850 to 2010, and CET records tell us it probably cooled from 1750 to 1850, when the modern global record started.
This tells us that the IPCC estimate is too high by a factor of at least 2.5 to 1.
Any way you slice it, Tony, human CO2 has not been and is not likely to be a big driver of climate, despite IPCC projections and even shriller warning by the likes of James E. Hansen.
And, even more, it raises serious questions about “man’s ability to change our climate” at will.
In light of the above numbers and since I have not seen any actionable proposals to achieve this, I must assume that man is not able to willfully change our planet’s climate. Period.
But I’m still waiting for someone to show I’m wrong.
PeterM has yet to take the challenge.
Max
TonyB
Back to your study on the impact of human CO2 (2652).
I have made the assumption (as has IPCC) that ALL of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 has been a result of human emissions.
The study you cite does not make this assumption.
Instead, it back calculates “man-made CO2” as a percentage of total CO2 by first separating out the estimated CO2 impact on the natural greenhouse warming of 33°C.
It then uses the GH warming from CO2 alone (no feedbacks) and the ratio of man-made to natural CO2 in the atmosphere to arrive at a figure of 0.087°C for “impact of human CO2” (also excluding any increase as a result of assumed net “positive feedbacks”).
I cannot disagree with the calculation method. I simply showed you another method, which arrives at slightly higher values.
The conclusions stand, either way.
(And that is what the study you cited also concluded.)
Max
Max
Thanks for those calculations. This is right up Peters street so I’m looking forward to his estimates of how much difference the UK and the world can make (against the original criteria I set out).
Tonyb
Max
Whilst we’re waiting for Peters calculations you might like to read this paper on cosmic rays, just out.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf
Tonyb
TonyB
Interesting new paper on the cosmic ray/cloud connection.
But back to your earlier question.
What would happen to global temperature by 2100 if we shut down the world economy?
To make it a bit easier for Peter to visualize, I’ve quickly gone through the numbers.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1409/5210200296_58e99a5552_b.jpg
Today’s global emissions are around 35.5 GtCO2 per year, including fossil fuels, deforestation plus cement and minor sources.
Around half of these emissions “remain” in the atmosphere, with the remainder absorbed by oceans and the biosphere or disappearing into space.
Today we are at 390 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere.
Assuming this rate continues until year 2100, we would be at a calculated 594 ppmv by then (see calculation). This is roughly the same as IPCC “scenario” B1 (580 ppmv).
So if we shut down the world’s economy on December 31, 2010 we could avoid these added 204 ppmv.
What impact would this have on global temperature?
Let’s take the exaggerated IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C.
On this basis, shutting down the world economy completely on December 31, 2010 would result in avoiding global warming of 1.95°C by year 2100.
The table shows how much global warming we could avoid by 2100 by shutting down various economies completely:
China 0.41°C, USA 0.34°C, EU 0.27°C, etc. – until we get down to Australia at 0.02°C.
Of course, if we only cut them back by 25% (instead of shutting them down completely), we’ll only get one fourth of the temperature savings.
And if IPCC’s climate sensitivity estimate is off by a factor of three, we’ll only get one third.
And if both are more realistic, we’ll only get one twelveth.
Maybe Peter wants to re-run the calculation. (But probably not, since it confirms that “man cannot change our planet’s climate”.)
Max
Max,
RE: But, But……….We have to do SOMETHING!!!!!!!!
The temperature is spiraling (upward) out of control and we ALL have to sacrifice for the COMMUNAL benefit of the planet!!!!!!!!!
Just think of the suffering polar bears and fuzzy creatures!
Brute
Polar bears? They may look cuddly – but I don’t think even Peter would want to cuddle with them.
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/the-worlds-top-10-most-dangerous-animals/
Max
Max,
Your calculations prove that the planet is not in a dire atmospheric collapse……at least not from the 100 watt incandescent light bulb.
What will Peter and his Warmist buddies do with their ingrained hysteria and their misplaced fear of imaginary hobgoblins?
Perhaps they can refocus their hysterical neurosis on supporting themselves without intervention from government and dependence on their fellow man.
Max
Whilst we wait for Peter to check the figures of the UK govt adviser and your own, can we return to cooling.
Uk temperatures have been plummeting in recent years. (this doesn’t constitute a ‘trend’) This is seen in the 1772 Central England Temperature (CET) record , which shows anomalies (deviations from a given average)
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
We also have the much older (and curiously underused) CET records which enables us to go back to 1660.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/m2_1.htm
We can see many peaks and troughs and that our temperature today equates to 1730-the middle of the Little Ice Age.
A ‘global average ‘ temperature is a curious thing (you know how much I hate it!) as it disguises counter trends, for example the hundreds of locations cooling for at least thirty years (a statistically meaningful period)
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Listening to the Farming programnmes is instructive. A farmer-encouraged by Uk govt-who planted Apricot trees 10 years ago is now grubbing them up and another complains of recent lack of hot dry summers.
You will remember I produced graphs which showed a surprising corrolary between CET and Zurich Fluntern until UHI distorted Zurich data. I wonder if the recent cooling trend can be seen there or if UHI overwhelms it?
Tonyb
Max,
You say ” if we shut down the world’s economy on December 31, 2010 we could avoid these added 204 ppmv.”
The 204ppmv is calculated from 594ppmv(the projected figure for 2100 assuming present trends continue) minus 390ppmv (the current level)
If world’s economy was shut down the level of CO2 would fall between now and the year 2100, so you aren’t correct in your statement.
You would be correct if you’d said that if emissions of CO2 were halved, then we could avoid these added 204 ppmv.
Of course, that doesn’t mean having to shut down the world’s economy.
Hansen 1988: Manhattan Flooding by 2008, 5C (9F) Global Warming By 2040
We are at the halfway mark in 2010, and temperatures have been flat for a decade (below, enlarged here).
Here is one Englishman’s opinion (Nigel Farage, UKIP) of the Euro and democracy under the “Brussels bureaucrats”.
http://www.realecontv.com/page/744.html
I suspect that PeterM will not like this, since he probably considers Farage a “right wing nutter”.
However, seen from the vantage point of the average Swiss (who holds democracy very dearly), I can see that a lot of what Farage says here makes sense.
These are exactly the reasons that Swiss voters have rejected EU membership. But while the Swiss were the only people who were allowed to vote on EU entry, it is apparently not only the Swiss who echo Farage’s viewpoint.
This article states:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/214120/Nigel-Farage-in-another-attack-on-Brussels-bureaucrats
To get this back on topic, these are the same non-elected EU bureaucrats that want to implement a carbon tax of up to €30 per ton of CO2 on EU citizens. Wiki tells us that the average EU citizen emits around 10 tons of carbon per year (36.7 tons of CO2).
At €30 per ton of CO2 this works out to a per capita carbon tax of €1,100 per year for every man, woman and child in the EU!
Hurrah for Nigel Farage!
Max
PeterM
In your 2662 you fault my calculation (2657) for not considering the natural CO2 dissipation from our climate system.
I made the (simplified) assumption that CO2 has a “residence time” in our system of several hundred years (the IPCC view) and have therefore ignored any natural CO2 reduction over the next 90 years.
If we accept another scientifically represented view (eg. Segalstad) i.e. that the “residence time” is only 5-10 years, then the whole problem of AGW is a moot one, anyway, since we will never reach the even the lowest levels projected by IPCC.
You can’t have it both ways, Peter!
Shutting down the world economy on 31 December 2010 will only avoid an added 204 ppmv by year 2100 (essentially the same increase forecast by IPCC “scenario” B1).
And, using IPCC’s bloated CO2 climate sensitivity, this drastic move would “save us” from slightly less than 2C warming by 2100.
A “loser”, no matter how you look at it, Peter
Max
Brute
The “James E. Hansen saga” is as comic as it is tragic.
His 1988 “disaster” predictions have all been shown to be totally wrong (yet there are “doomsday believers”, such as Gavin Schmidt (RealClimate) – who, incidentally works for Hansen – who still try to rationalize that they were correct “except for…”
The “my prediction was right except for…” excuse is, of course, the standard rationalization used by forecasters, when their predictions fail miserably.
In Hansen’s case, however, the predictions were so extreme and bizarre and the actually observed results so drastically different, that there is no way to salvage the prediction as reasonable, no matter what rationalizations or weasel-words are invoked.
It is clear that the prediction was wrong because the scientific basis for the forecasts made was wrong.
Yet Hansen continues to make irrational “doomsday” predictions of “tipping points” occurring at “dangerous levels” of CO2 of “450 ppmv” , no, wait! “350 ppmv”, leading to “irreversible changes” in our climate, leading to “deleterious” effects, including “extinction of species” and “sea level rise” that can be “measured in meters in this century”, unless we stop the “coal death trains” immediately.
Does this sound like the considered opinion of a rational human being or the rantings of a doomsayer who has lost his perspective?
It is tragic to witness that this man has apparently lost touch with reality in his messianic zeal to “save the planet from humanity”.
It is laughable that some people actually swallow this garbage.
We need to “save the planet” from James E. Hansen.
Max
Max, The Earth’s oceans and forests effectively absorb approximately half of human CO2 emissions. I think we both agree on that.
However, they don’t actually ‘know’ what those emissions are and divide the figure by two. Although some proponents of the Gaia theory may well believe that the Amazon rain forest may somehow get a message telling it to get its finger out, as its well behind on its quota for the year.
The way it works is that the Earth, providing the ecosystems are still healthy, responds to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to try to restore them to their equilibrium value. The higher they become the more the Earth takes up. Of course have emissions have risen so have concentrations so its just seems like the 50% ratio holds.
If there were no emissions for one year, the uptake by the Earth would be pretty much the same as the year before. If half were taken up the previous year the other half would then be taken up the year after and concentrations over a two year period would be stable.
Of course exactly the same thing would happen if emissions were halved over the whole of the two year period.
Peter,
Are you afraid of the dark as well as invisible weather bogeymen? I’m just curious as to what other infantile neurosis are rattling around in your psyche.
On a different topic, I see that Spain’s “green economy” has saved the entire EU from economic disaster…..
Leaked Doc Proves Spain’s ‘Green’ Policies — the Basis for Obama’s — an Economic Disaster
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/spains-green-policies-an-economic-disaster/
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
And, that the carbon credit market is thriving.
Sub-Prime Carbon Bubble Has Burst: ‘Carbon jobs are dying’: U.S. Carbon Trading Goes Up in Smoke — ‘Carbon traders are calling to ask me what they should do now’
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2010/tc20101123_671505.htm?campaign_id=yhoo
These aren’t models or theories Pete……this is reality…..
PeterM
Yes.
We agree that “something” seems to make around half of the CO2 emitted by man “disappear” out of the atmosphere.
I think we also agree that this “something” is likely to be the ocean (including the amount gobbled up by phytoplankton and eventually ending up on the ocean floor), the terrestrial biosphere (plants, forests, crops, etc.) and whatever is escaping into outer space.
I’m sure we also agree that the planet’s natural carbon cycle is much greater than the relatively tiny bit of CO2 emitted by humans, and that the total amount contained in the ocean is infinitely greater than all the CO2 contained in all the world’s optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves.
The 50% “remaining” in the atmosphere (by arithmetical calculation of the difference between human emissions and atmospheric CO2 increase) has remained fairly constant as a percent of emissions, despite the fact that the annual human contribution has increased. In other words, “something” is increasing the absolute “dissipation” or “absorption” of the human CO2 to keep pace with the annual human emissions.
Your argument is that the absolute amount “disappearing” would remain “constant” independently of the annual human emissions (even though the record shows that the “disappearing” amount has increased as the emissions have increased).
So, if you are right, the amount of the atmospheric CO2 reduction by 2100 from totally shutting down the world economy now would not be 200 ppmv, but rather somewhere between 300 and 400 ppmv, and the net warming avoided would be somewhere around 2.5 to 3C.
In other words, we would have a slight cooling compared to today as a result of slightly lower CO2 levels in 2100 than today.
How much cooler would you like it, Peter?
Back to 1990 levels, for example?
Would this be worth shutting down the total world economy, in your opinion?
The point is.
No matter what we do – even the ridiculous and suicidal proposal to shut down the entire world economy – we cannot change our planet’s climate.
So we should give up even trying to pursue this silly path and concentrate on being ready for any climate changes (warming or cooling) that come our way, WHEN they come our way.
That’s the point here, Peter.
Max
It would seem that this “savior of the planet” is more interested in the monetary aspects of his “environmental” policy than in any benefit to the world’s ecosystems.
As opposed to elevating the third world economically, Obama’s (unelected/unconfirmed) “climate czar” feels that it would be easier to simply steal property in the name of “distributive justice”.
Cass Sunstein wants to spread America’s wealth
Echoes Van Jones on using ‘environmental justice’ to redistribute money
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=110031
JERUSALEM – It is “desirable” to redistribute America’s wealth to poorer nations, argued President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
According to Sunstein, global climate change is primarily the fault of U.S. environmental behavior and can, therefore, be used as a mechanism to redistribute the country’s wealth.
The argument bears striking resemblance to comments made by Obama’s former environmental adviser, Van Jones. WND reported Jones used a major environmental convention to argue for spreading America’s wealth.
Now WND has learned Sunstein made similar, more extensive arguments.
The Obama czar penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – in which he debated whether America should pay “justice” to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S.
Sunstein heavily leans on the side of such an agreement, particularly a worldwide carbon tax that would heavily tariff the U.S.
A prominent theme throughout Sunstein’s 39-page paper, entitled “Climate Change Justice,” maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. He uses terms such as “distributive justice” several times.
The paper was written with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner
“It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid,” wrote Sunstein.
He posited: “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.
“If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation’s interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives,” he wrote.
Sunstein maintains: “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”
Sunstein is not the only Obama czar to make such an argument. Jones made similar remarks before he resigned earlier this month after WND exposed he is an admitted radical communist.
Two weeks before Jones started his White House job in March, he delivered the keynote address at Power Shift ’09, billed as the largest youth summit on climate change in history. A reported 12,000 young people were at the D.C. Convention Center for the event.
During his speech, available on YouTube, Jones used terms such as “eco-apartheid” and “green for some,” and preached about spreading the wealth while positing a call to “change the whole system.”
In one section of his 29-minute speech, Jones referenced “our Native American brothers and sisters” who, he claimed, were “pushed,” “bullied,” “mistreated” and “shoved into all the land that we didn’t want.”
“Guess what?” Jones continued. “Give them the wealth! Give them then wealth! No justice on stolen land … we owe them a debt.”
“We have to create a green economy, that’s true, that’s true. But we have to create a green economy that Dr. King would be proud of,” Jones exclaimed.
Brute
Yes. It appears that several of the non-elected “czars” with whom President Obama has surrounded himself, are a bit flaky.
Holdren wants to shoot sulfuric acid into the stratosphere, Sunstein wants the USA to pay a “guilt tax” to the world (it saved from Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), Jones wants to end “eco-apartheid” (whazzat?).
Where does O. pick up these flakes?
And, more importantly, why are US taxpayers paying their salaries?
The answer is simple:
President Obama has become one of those “leaders” of the “political elite”, who (like ex. PM Gordon Brown of the UK) arrogantly believe that they know better what is good for their electorate than the voters themselves know.
A “fatal flaw” as the last election has shown. (But it appears doubtful that he has gotten the message.)
The so-called “October revolution” of the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917 got rid of a more-or-less democratic provisional government of moderate socialist, Alexander Kerensky, but the only good thing it did was to get rid of the Czar.
Let’s hope the US “voter revolution” of 2010 will do the same and get rid of these highly paid nincompoops.
Max
Max,
More than that, it proves that “global warming” is nothing more than a smokescreen for massive taxation and unprecedented control over the means of production……..nothing to do with “the environment”.
I have posted six or seven messages in the last month or two, and none has been published…. all are “awaiting moderation”. Wassup ?
Are the truths too hard to handle ?
TonyN: This blog is not pre-moderated and there are no comments from you in moderation.]
Brute
You wrote (2672)
Maybe I was naive, Brute, but a few years ago I believed that the AGW scare really had something to do with our “environment”. And I saw that the greenhouse theory itself made sense and, as a result, I believed that the premise that humans could cause measurable global warming was plausible.
But when I started checking into the “science”, I saw how the numbers were being fudged or exaggerated, how “uncertainty” was underplayed, how scientific data that did not support the premise were ignored, how rational skeptics were being denounced and ostracized by the scientific community and how the so-called “peer review” process had been corrupted by the “insiders”.
In other words, I saw that much of the “science” behind the whole hysteria was flawed or, even worse, intentionally skewed.
I guess the final straw for me came when I saw that there were no actionable mitigation proposals to reduce the warming, but that “mitigation” was simply a cover for levying a trillion dollar globally administered carbon tax on every man, woman and child in the developed world for international bureaucrats to shuffle around at will, without changing our climate one iota.
In other words, the whole scheme was a cleverly disguised massive political tax gimmick that really had nothing to do with our environment.
Then came Climategate and the revelation of more shenanigans by IPCC and the scientific insiders plus the ensuing political collapse at Copenhagen.
The rest is history, and now the whole world has begun to see that this all has nothing to do with the environment, as you have written.
The “Emperor’s clothes” in action.
Max
Brute
Back to Obama’s “czars”. See:
http://hillbuzz.org/2009/09/06/operation-romanov-john-holdren-should-be-the-next-czar-to-go/
John Holdren (of “let’s inject sulfuric acid into the stratosphere” fame) reportedly earns a government salary of $172,000 to come up with such hare-brained schemes.
If the other 41 “czars” appointed by President Obama all earn the same, this comes to $7.2 million per year.
Max