THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Continued
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2770211414_338d529d17_o.png
On the question of whether or not the relative cool spell signals the end of the AGW problem as you are claiming, it is always worthwhile actually taking a look at a graph. If you do have aspirations to be a real scientist, you should do that more often!
The graph tells a rather different story. The upward rise of temperatures has always been marked by periods when the temperature has actually cooled temporarily. At present the world is in the grip of an El Nino weather pattern. The solar cycle is currently at its minimum. When those two factors change there is no reason to expect anything other than a continued increase of temperatures.
You’ve missed the point yet again, Peter. You say to Max that you’re “not sure why Robin is so keen to cast you in the role of ‘mainstream IPCC’ scientist”. But I didn’t give him that label – by implication, you did.
All I’ve done is point out that, on the question of human causation, he has precisely the same view as some of the scientists contributing to the 2007 IPCC Report. As you agreed (your post 863) that those scientists are part of “the mainstream” (your term, not mine – I dislike it), in logic it would seem that must think that Max is too.
You even added that “By mainstream I don’t necessarily mean part of the consensus. I do agree that it is possible to be one without the other …”, agreeing that “I’d include people like Spencer and Lindzen as mainstream too …” and adding that “the scientific consensus on climate change can be approximated as the subject matter going into the IPCC reports. And so, the examples you have given and the table you have quoted are part of that consensus too. The consensus is more a range of views than one fixed view.” I’m simply pointing out that Max agrees with a part of that subject matter. Hmm – perhaps you don’t understand your own comment.
Hi Peter,
You seem to have some sort of a strange obsession with Americans (and with wanting everyone who does not agree with your own rather curious opinion on life to be an American and therefore to display “the same redneck anti-intellectual sentiments as Sen James Inhofe from Oklahoma”).
As I told you earlier, I am Swiss, was born in Switzerland and live in Switzerland, but am currently visiting the USA for the next few weeks.
I do not question whether or not you are an Australian, nor do I frankly care very much one way or the other.
BTW Senator Imhofe is not a “redneck” because he questions the AGW hysteria, nor is he an “anti-intellectual”. Is Al Gore (a politician) more “intellectual” than Senator Imhofe (another politician), and, if so, why? Please explain your reasoning on this.
You erroneously wrote, “Robin is keen to cast you in the role of ‘mainstream IPCC scientist’.” This is a silly statement, Peter. As a matter of fact, I would be highly offended if Robin had cast me in the role of “mainstream IPCC scientist”, a role I personally consider to be somewhat dubious. Robin just pointed out that “mainstream IPCC scientists” were essentially of the same opinion as I am about the cause of recent heat waves, namely that there is very little evidence that there has been any increase in these events in the latter 20th century and that there is even less evidence that AGW has had any effect on these events. But he has cleared up this confusion on your part in an earlier post.
Yes, termites are puny, but there are a lot of them and they apparently generate more CO2 than humans.
To your Hadley graph forecasting a reversal of the current cooling trend: Peter, Hadley have been so dismally wrong in any projections they have ever made on temperature trends, that it is silly to even mention these predictions.
Your curve shows two such “predictions”. One is the Hadley (Met Office) prediction of continued warming (to 0.35°C higher than today by 2014), and the second is a fantasy projection entitled “climate skeptics’ projection (?)” (i.e. 0.15°C lower than today by 2014). I have not seen such a projection anywhere, have you? Where did it come from?
The Hadley “experts” predicted “record warmth” for 2006 (oops!). Then they predicted “record warmth” for 2007 (ouch!). These guys should concentrate on measuring accurately what is actually going on without manipulating and “correcting” the numbers too much, rather that giving us their “forecasts” of what is going to happen (which never turns out that way).
Your rationalization, “The upward rise of temperatures has always been marked by periods when the temperature has actually cooled temporarily. At present the world is in the grip of an El Nino weather pattern. The solar cycle is currently at its minimum. When those two factors change there is no reason to expect anything other than a continued increase of temperatures.”
Peter, your statement is pure speculation. There is no reason to expect the solar cycle to change. We were in an 11,000-year record solar maximum in the late 20th century, which has now stopped with the beginning of solar cycle 24, coinciding nicely with a reversal of a previous warming trend. There is no way to predict that ENSO patterns will change, except that the last letter stands for “oscillation” (which implies change, by definition). There is even less reason to expect “a continued increase of temperatures”, although this long-term trend may well continue as it has since 1850, as we keep moving out of the Little Ice Age, unless solar cycle 24 reverses this.
You do not know what is going to happen in the future. I do not know. And the “gurus” at Hadley have shown us time and again that they have no clue, either, despite all their posturing.
You asked what I do for a living. In the past I have had scientists who worked for me, and I recognize their strengths and weaknesses. (BTW, I have no aspirations whatsoever to be a “scientist”). First and foremost, scientists are plain human beings. They are not oracles or prophets. They make mistakes, like everyone else. They often have a hard time thinking outside their “paradigms” (i.e. thinking outside the box). To assume that “mainstream science” has got climate all figured out is incredibly naïve, Peter, particularly when there is such heavy political and financial pressure to “toe the AGW party line”.
My advice to you, Peter. Be a bit more rationally skeptical. Don’t blindly believe everything you read or hear. Challenge things, in order to make sure you are not being bamboozled.
Regards,
Max
Once again, Max – very well said. It’s a bit worrying: I seem to be turning into some sort of Max cheerleader.
Brute: what’s happening to your country? If this article (US gets ready to blow its economy away) is correct, McCain’s and Obama’s obsession with “green” policies plus the Supreme Court’s ruling that any greenhouse gases are to be treated as “pollution” represent a huge threat to the US economy. What’s wrong with US citizens – why are they not showing widespread contempt for these absurdities? Do you want to destroy the underpinning of Western values? As the article concludes, if the lights
Robin,
Various influences, but I feel that primarily, as Max wrote, the average guy doesn’t pay attention until his pocketbook is affected. We, (the small group posting on this site) are unusually, acutely, aware of the fallacy of the global warming theory and its implications. An unusually cold winter coupled with high oil/energy prices will probably do the trick, (which seems to be occurring judging by the Sun’s inactivity).
McCain, as with most politicians, is pandering. Last night at a head to head debate with Obama, he said…..I’m paraphrasing….that America must drill, drill, drill. He also advocated Nuclear power as well as wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc, etc which is pretty much in line with my opinion, (Neanderthal, Redneck that I am). By the way, Al Gore is from Tennessee, the same state that Jed, Granny and The Clampets were from in the television series The Beverly Hillbillies.
One thing to remember, the American system of government is based on 3 separate but equal parties; Executive (The President), Legislative (The Congress) and Judicial (The Supreme and Federal Courts). A system of checks and balances that must (generally) agree to get anything accomplished. One party/group can override the will of the other.
My theory is that commercialism/capitalism is ruling the debate right now and that “environmentalism” is popular and chic. Many industries are jumping on the bandwagon due to the mood of the country and are taking advantage of the hysteria/fad. I’m making money hand over fist right now exploiting this fad as are many others. Sanity will return as more information is disseminated to the general public, but Al Gore’s marketing campaign is working……however; people generally don’t realize the long term implications. The pity is that the hundreds of millions of dollars he is wasting could have been used to actually do something meaningful and productive. Maybe his ad campaign will get a few of his fellow party members elected, but I generally have faith that the American people will not fall for slick marketing and bumper sticker slogans. The Left controls the media and Leftists are more vocal, (they have lots of time on their hands as they sponge off of the government and don’t work). Conservatives are too busy working and taking care of themselves and their families to waste time protesting and plotting the demise of their country. Come election day Conservatives will vote, we’ll see.
I happen to study history voraciously, (not formally) and am better schooled than most of historical precedent, (we also have no children which gives me more time to read and study). Also, ambivalence/apathy play a role, the “average” American is more interested with Dancing with the Stars or watching American Idol than picking up a book.
Congress passes laws, (which they know will be unpopular) in the dead of night, after press dealines, during the summer vacation season and on Friday afternoons when people are not paying attention. The majority of the media executives are sympathetic to the Leftist agenda and won’t publicize the “absurdities”. One example is Democrat Presidential Candidate John Edwards; this pillar of virtue and moral superiority was caught in a dalliance with a woman over a year ago……siphoning money from his campaign donations to keep her quiet. A bastard child is the result as well as serious questions regarding malfeasance and campaign finances…….IGNORED by the Leftist press outlets until recently. His wife is suffering from cancer and he campaigned using his wife’s illness and his devotion to his family as a shining example of his character attributes.
In the end, I feel that the American economy is large enough and diversified enough to absorb these lunatic fringe incentives. Companies/Institutions that embrace the ideology will quickly realize that they are throwing money down a rat hole and either fail completely or will realize, (after wasting substantial amounts of capital) that the policies are a path to economic insolvency and come to their senses, (this is already beginning to happen)……the smart money and less emotional business leaders will come out on top, as they always have. My fear is that smaller, more fragile economies that fall for this global warming ruse and will be less capable of absorbing the hit……the citizens of these nations will suffer needlessly because of their mindless leaders misguided attempt to “save the planet” from a non-existent environmental boogeyman. Oil, Gas and Coal are (right now) the most economical means of producing energy and will continue to be so. So called “alternative” energy sources are “pie in the sky” pipe dreams and while I am an optimist, hold no promise of being the magic bullet that will solve the world’s energy requirements or the “global warming problem” (except Nuclear power which the Eco-Zealot Luddites oppose).
I see this as the same scenario that led to the great depression and the stock market crash of 1929. Smart people survived, (as did we all in varying degrees), but many people suffered due to hysteria and emotion….a natural correction. Remember, Jimmy Carter and his naiveté brought America Ronald Reagan, (and some would argue Margaret Thatcher). A weak, Marxist “feel good” candidate such as Obama (or less so McCain) may bring us a sensible, powerhouse leader in 2012. The key will be which candidate, (we really only have a choice between the two) will do the least amount of damage. McCain’s positions on the Supreme Court, energy and national security are far better for America, (and by extension, the World) than Obama’s.
It’s cyclical, and hopefully the system will keep itself in check and not swing too far over the edge from one side or the other. America’s Founding Fathers were pretty smart…..I still marvel at their wisdom and foresight.
Robin,
Another anecdote…….Late summer of 2006 before congressional elections I attended a meeting with several (local) bank executives. For over 10 years Republicans had been in control of Congress and it seemed as if the country was in the mood for a “change”. The economy was booming. I stated that if the Democrats took control of Congress, the economy was likely to see a downturn…….They looked at me as if I had three heads and stated that Democrat (Liberal) controlled government/policy causes economic prosperity, (they all hated Bush and Conservatives/Republicans in principle).
After the election, (Democrats won the majority of Congress), I pulled my money back into safe stuff. They invested in long shots……..They lost. After the Democrats took power, gas prices skyrocketed, the housing market slumped and the economy/stock market took a dive. The BIG money interests know which way the wind blows and although they will not state it publicly for fear of causing a panic, they kept their heads and quietly moved their money into conservative, low risk markets.
The Executive branch, (The President) has far less influence on domestic economic issues focusing on foreign policy and national security. Increasing taxes and regulation of industry is generally a function of Congress and is primarily responsible for domestic economic health. Since Democrats have been running the show, (January 07) the economy has slumped. Some say it was time for a slowdown, I think otherwise.
How Long Does America Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.”
“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”
“From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.”
“During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage”
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
Electoral College
http://www.maitreg.com/politics/articles/electoralcollege.asp
Bob,
The Electoral College and the electoral process of The United States is complicated.
Basically, and I’m not a Political “Science” guy, it is another check on the process. The Founding Fathers were big on checks and balances and attempted to diffuse/dilute power within the government…….so that one group/person does not gain the upper hand. Remember, we were trying to get as far away from a Monarchy as possible, having just rejected British rule. Ironically, many people wanted to appoint George Washington as King…….(how soon we forget). Thankfully, he was a very wise man and did not accept, limiting himself to two terms and then retired.
George Washington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington
Example:
The popular vote is important; however, in cases where pressure groups such as The National Socialist Party in Germany, The Bolsheviks in the former Soviet Union or Unions groups or White Supremacist groups or super rich industrialist, (or whatever) confound the process and intimidate voters (keep them from voting) or buy votes or stuff the ballet box, the Electoral College becomes important. If a group such as this subverts the popular vote the members of the Electoral College are SUPPOSED to reinforce the will of the people of their state.
Another scenario:
If the official was elected solely on the outcome of the popular vote then candidates would campaign primarily in high population centers and ignore the needs/voices of the minority in the less populated, less affluent areas.
Politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the will of the people, not their political party…..Sadly, this seems to be an antiquated notion in this day and age.
Democrats cried foul in the 2000 Presidential Election, (their guy lost), and wanted to abolish the Electoral College. During the 2008 Democrat primary, Obama won the primary due to the Electoral College and now they don’t oppose it. I guess it depends on which side you’re on when your candidate wins/loses.
Brute: I found your reply (post 1156) fairly reassuring – and in accordance with my own expectation. You may recall that on August 3rd (post 906), having noted that “any hope that mankind will really reduce its CO2 emissions depends on the actions of the economies that will matter most over the coming decades. This graph from today’s Sunday Telegraph shows plainly which they are: China, USA, India, Brazil, Russia and Indonesia”, I went on to say that “Not one of these (yes, not even the US under a President Obama) seems at all likely to make radical emission reduction a genuine priority”. [Emphasis just added.]
Max,
Yes, not only are the state of various ocean systems often known as oscillations , but also the state of the sun is known as the solar cycle. You can’t just assume that solar cycles have stopped because solar activity is at a minimum point in the phase. OK, so we don’t know for sure anymore than we know for sure, that the sun will rise again in the morning but experience tells us otherwise, and that the cycle will continue.
If solar activity is to diminish as it did in the last LIA, the likelihood is that the peak of the cycles would decrease over time, rather than just stop abruptly. There is no evidence of this happening.
You still seem remarkably coy in telling us what you do in your day job. If you are claiming some source of wisdom which is not available to us lesser mortals, then shouldn’t you back up your opinions with some statement of your credentials?
Credentials are especially important for those who are arguing a contrarian position. The rest of us don’t have to do anything more than acknowledge that every scientific body of any importance in the world has got it right.
The only opinions that really matter are qualified opinions. The world’s climate is not going to react in some democratic matter according to the will of the people. Even American ones! I’m sure that I could find some quack who would claim all sorts of things over the state of my health, for instance. But, if I wanted a qualified opinion, I would look at the doctor’s credentials first.
Hi Robin,
Thanks for comment.
To your 1160 comment to Brute citing the Sunday Telegraph statement that none of the major growth economies (China, USA, India, Brazil, Russia and Indonesia) are likely to make radical emission reduction a genuine priority.
The only one that might end up reducing CO2 emissions could be Brazil (depending how sugar-cane ethanol is figured into the calculation).
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2008/07/28/brazils-petrobras-targets-13-billion-gallon-ethanol-production-by-2012-via-23-jvs-europe-offers-massive-expansion-of-brazilian-ethanol-imports/
But (if it happens) it won’t be from making “radical emission reduction a genuine priority”, but rather from pursuing an energy strategy of self-dependence, taking advantage of a tropical climate where sugar cane can grow and parlaying this into becoming a net exporter of ethanol for motor fuel.
The old joke, “Brazil is the land of the future; and it always will be” may soon be proven untrue. It may soon become the land of the present.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You wrote about solar cycles, “You can’t just assume that solar cycles have stopped because solar activity is at a minimum point in the phase.”
No one assumes anything here, Peter. You have probably heard the story of how to spell ASS-U-ME.
Solar scientists have told us that the late 20th century was a period of high solar activity, unprecedented for 11,000 years (possibly contributing to the warming experienced then, although all of the mechanisms for this are still unknown). Starting with solar cycle 24, early this year, the sun has been unusually inactive. Will this continue? Has it been a cause for part of the “unusual” cooling in 2008? Who knows? Some solar scientists predict that we will see cooler times ahead because of reduced solar activity. Are they right? Who knows? Let’s hope they are wrong, because we do not need another “Maunder minimum” or another “Little Ice Age”.
There are many pieces to the puzzle and blaming everything on AGW would be myopic.
Peter, I do not claim to possess unusual “wisdom”. Just an average guy that didn’t fall off the turnip truck.
You wrote, “Credentials are especially important for those who are arguing a contrarian position.”
There you go again, Peter, with the silly word “contrarian”. Is Richard Lindzen a “contrarian”? Does he have “credentials”? How about Roy Spencer or John Christy?
Then you added, “The rest of us don’t have to do anything more than acknowledge that every scientific body of any importance in the world has got it right.”
By all means, Peter, if that is what you want to do, please do so. I will continue to be rationally skeptical of anything I read that smacks of a “sales job”.
You wrote: “The world’s climate is not going to react in some democratic matter according to the will of the people.”
I can fully agree with that statement, Peter. The “world’s climate is not going to react” to anything we humans do. It’s going to do exactly what it wants to do, and not what some Hadley “experts” or IPCC GCMs think it ought to do.
Your last statement is a bit more obscure, as it has nothing to do with AGW: “I’m sure that I could find some quack who would claim all sorts of things over the state of my health, for instance. But, if I wanted a qualified opinion, I would look at the doctor’s credentials first.”
Yes, Peter, I agree that I would also check a doc’s credentials, particularly if he is trying to sell me an expensive and painful cure today for a problem where I have no symptoms today but that he has diagnosed based on a computer simulation that I may develop over the next 100 years.
Would you check a used-car salesman’s credentials before buying a used automobile from him? If so, what credentials would you check? Past sales record? Number of automobiles sold last month? Honesty? Integrity? Is he telling me the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Is he exaggerating a bit (or a whole lot) on the great condition of the used car? Is what he tells me really true (that the automobile was previously owned by a little old lady who just used it to drive to church on Sundays)?
Rational skepticism never hurts, Peter. It does not require “unusual wisdom” or “credentials”. Just good common sense.
Regards,
Max
Pete,
If that were the case than I would expect you to be devoutly religious……unless you’ve been schooled in Theology. Using your line of reasoning, no one should question the existence of God simply because they haven’t been formally schooled.
Max,
“Starting with solar cycle 24, early this year, the sun has been unusually inactive”
It’s just at the minimum phase in the cycle. Nothing unusual about that.
If you want a impartial account of what is happening to the sun, take a look at some of the Radio Ham websites. They take their information from NASA and other solar observatories. They haven’t got any AGW axe to grind, they are just looking forward to good HF propagation conditions returning.
Scepticism is all very well, but if your doctor ever gives you a bit of advice, maybe that you need to change your lifestyle or even that you might need an operation for this or that, the sort of stuff that doctors routinely tell their patients, you might just want to set some of it aside in your own interest.
That would be more sensible that looking for other ill-informed opinion on the net, which I’m sure you could easily find, to reassure you that he was wrong.
Here you are Robin….
August 17, 2008
Poll: Few Americans Worried About Global Warming
Only 1 in 4 Americans believes global warming is the biggest environmental challenge facing the world, a new poll reveals.
The ABC News/Planet Green/Stanford University survey found that public concern over the global warming issue has diminished over the past year.
Fewer than half of the poll’s respondents, 47 percent, think global warming is an important issue to them personally, down from 52 percent in April 2007.
While 80 percent believe the earth is warming, that figure is down four percentage points from last year.
Doubts over the science behind the global warming issue still linger in people’s minds, according to the poll results reported by the National Journal. Just 30 percent of respondents said they trust what scientists have to say about the environment “completely” or “a lot,” 39 percent said they trust them “a moderate amount,” and 30 percent said they do not trust them.
Also, nearly 60 percent of respondents said there is “a lot of disagreement” within the scientific community as to how dangerous climate change is.
According to ABC News’ Gary Langer, the diminished concern over global warming coincides with decreased media attention to climate change, in favor of the election and economy. “A database search finds 50 percent fewer news stories on global warming in the month before this poll was conducted, compared with the month before last year’s survey,” Langer wrote.
In any case, about 7 in 10 respondents said they’re attempting to reduce their energy consumption by driving less, using less electricity and recycling.
But 63 percent are in favor of drilling for oil in coastal waters where it is currently not allowed, and 55 percent support drilling in U.S. wilderness areas where it is not allowed.
Brute,
I think it would be perhaps more valid to say ” .. no one should accept the existence of God at least until they been formally schooled.”
Your 60% figure of your respondents who said there was “a lot of disagreement” within the scientific community shows that such propagnada channels as Fox news have had their influence. The simplest underhand tactic that can be adopted by those who wish to delay and stall on the climate change issue, for their own financial or other reasons, is to spread disinformation about a “scientific disagreement”. I can well understand James Hansen when he compared them to criminals against humanity!
You and Max, even though you think it is wrong, will now know how united the scientific community is on the AGW issue. No major body of any standing worldwide disagrees.
Peter: you say, “every scientific body of any importance in the world has got it right” and “No major body of any standing worldwide disagrees”. Hmm … let’s consider just two scientific bodies, the American Physical Society and the Russian Academy of Sciences. As to the first, see my post 608 (analysing the APA’s statement – carefully drafted to protect its members’ interests but cleverly designed to mean all things to all men). As to the second, see my post 609.
Furthermore, re those bodies that do apparently cleave 100% to the IPCC line, few – if any – put their administrators’ views to their memberships for scientific peer review and a proper vote before publication. Such “official” statements have little if any credibility.
And then consider the sceptical position of the Indian Government (a “major body” of standing by any measure): see this pdf link (a big file). This document doubts that there is any firm link between GW and human CO2 emissions: see this. As you know, India , one of the countries that will matter most in the 21st century, is investing massively in coal-fired power stations.
Brute,
Many thanks for your very well written explanations on how the American “democratic system” works. I admire you for the lucidity of your views, and your great sense of humour, however I cannot agree with everything you say. To pick on just ONE point, concerning your desire for uncontrolled personal freedoms, let me tell the tale of one Bruce, a victim of such want of total freedom.
Bruce awoke as if from a bad dream, and gradually became aware in blurred vision, that here he was in a hospital bed!!! His head was hurting really really bad, but when he tried to move his hand towards it to explore why, as in natural reflex, nothing happened. He tried and tried, but his hand would simply not move, and then he realized that neither would his other limbs.
So, he saw an hazy image of a nurse, and he called out, or tried to, but no sound issued forth from his lips, no matter how he tried. Later, a nurse happened by, and explained to him that he had apparently been the driver in a bad car accident, and that unfortunately the vertebrae in his neck were severely and irreparably compressed, thus resulting in permanent paraplegia. (It would also seem that the speech and visual centres of his brain were also damaged as a consequence of his unrestrained head and body mass trying to penetrate the windscreen of his car)
What was really irritating to Bruce, was that when his loved ones visited him, although he was visually cognitively aware of their presence and their devotion to him, he was unable to speak and say; look; I’m really sorry for being such a total dick-head for not wearing my seat-belt.
Subsequently, whenever his loved-ones departed, he also contemplated endlessly on the enormous cost of supporting him for the rest of his life, maybe decades, both financially and emotionally, and as to his inability to apologise to them for it.
PeterM,
Forget your waffle,
You owe me a few answers.
I will reformulate them if necessary, but I don’t have time to do so right at the moment.
Pete,
Alright then, I won’t except the existance of AGW because I haven’t been to weatherman school.
Once again, an alarmist was trounced when he was unwise enough to take on a sceptic in open debate. This time it was Christopher Walter (aka Lord Monckton) v. Richard Littlemore (the established alarmist). Listen to their debate here. An earlier such occasion took place last year: see this US Senate report.
No wonder Gore refuses all challenges to public debate.
Brute: you may find this interesting – especially the survey of UK views of the USA.
Pete,
Forgive me; my previous post should have more accurately stated……(along with corrected spelling).
Alright then, I won’t accept the existence of AGW because I’m not a politician.
RE: Post # 1169
I do hope this is not a story that you or any of your loved ones have personally experienced.
I noticed that you slipped the word “uncontrolled” personal freedoms in there…..If that’s the way you interpreted my diatribe then I must have done a poor job of conveying my feelings on this broad topic.
According to statistics that I just looked up, more than 42,000 people died in traffic accidents in the United States (2006). I agree with you, automobiles should be outlawed…… too dangerous. I think it should be left to the government to decide how I get back and forth to work and what method of transportation I use. The data did not single out alcohol related, reckless driving, fatigue, seat belt use or the size/weight of the vehicles. Maybe if Bruce had been driving a more substantial vehicle, instead of the tin can mounted on a roller skate that the government mandated he purchase, he would not have been so unfortunate. Maybe, Maybe, Maybe.
Here are a couple of anecdotes:
It seems that Dan has contracted HIV Aids from having unprotected sex with multiple partners. Dan is now dying. Government should mandate condom use for everyone.
Dave’s family is destitute, his family is about to be evicted and his children are hungry. His wife cannot afford to pay the electric or gas bills. It seems that Dave is very sick, unable to work due to cirrhosis of the liver. It seems that Dave was unable to control his consumption of Merlot. Therefore, the government should outlaw the sale of alcohol.
John experienced a head on collision with a rather large tree while snow skiing. Dave is now a paraplegic. The government should outlaw snow skiing.
Pablo did not pay his heat bill. Pablo decided that it would be a good idea to heat his house with his gas fired barbecue grill. Pablo’s family is now dead from carbon monoxide poisoning. We should pass a law outlawing gas grills. The remaining members of Pablo’s family have sued the gas grill manufacturer for $18,000,000,000,000 because they didn’t inform Pablo that burning un-vented propane would kill his family and the labels written on the gas grill warning of this danger were not translated into the dialect of Sanskrit that he speaks/reads.
Look, I don’t advocate anarchy or this “if it feels good do it” mentality, but I think that we have come far a field of people taking responsibility for their own lives and circumstances. Government will not and cannot solve all of the world’s problems. There are and should be limitations on government authority. Deciding what temperature I keep my home or how much gasoline I choose to purchase/use is my business. I paid for it, it is a legal activity, (at the present time) and I have every right to use as much energy as I can afford to.
I know, I brought up the seat belt thing….I shouldn’t have……way off topic. But my broader point is that we have been indoctrinated and conditioned to hand over what should be personal responsibilities to the government in far too many areas. Our personal liberties are being eroded. It seems that many people embrace government regulation when it suits their personal interests and reject it when it doesn’t. Mr. Martin trumpets the virtues of free speech, (when it vilifies industrialization, capitalism or the United States of America)…….he will not afford the same courtesy/right to Fox News when it reports a story questioning his Global Warming Doctrine…in that case he endeavors to ban it and jail its producers.