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.
Hey Max,
I’m waiting for Pete to wake up and proclaim that Obama is a religious zealot and ridicule him for his faith/belief in the Bible……….
Funny, I posted this very same thing on Huffington Post and brought the entire discussion to a screeching halt. The Leftists had been droning on and on; page after page about Palin being a “religious nut”, but didn’t seem to have a response when I posted this. Dead silence….deafening.
Hi Peter,
In reference to Mark Serreze’s (of NSIDC) Nye lecture you wrote: “Dr Serreze talks about sitting on the fence seven years ago. That was because, at that time, he wasn’t sure if the mid-century warming that you, Max, and Robin are fond of mentioning, and which everyone agrees was due to mainly natural causes, wasn’t being repeated in the late 20th century.
However, he has since concluded that the effect is qualitatively different and can only be explained by the inclusion of anthropogenic factors.”
Serreze’s logic on Arctic sea ice and AGW is very much the same as that of IPCC on global average surface temperature and AGW. As Robin has pointed out to you several times this logic is basically flawed.
The logic goes as follows:
1. Our models cannot explain the early 20th-century warming (viz. sea ice retreat).
2. We know that the late 20th-century warming (viz. sea ice retreat) was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
3. How do we know this?
4. Because our models cannot explain it any other way (i.e. it “can only be explained by the inclusion of anthropogenic factors”) .
Sorry, Peter, Dr. Serreze is simply chanting the AGW mantra without any logical basis for his opinion.
Until he can definitely state what caused the early 20th-century warming (and ice melt) he can only guess what has caused the late 20th-century warming (and ice melt).
Rather simple, Peter, when you apply a bit of rational skepticism.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Here’s another one for you on the “consensus” view (among climatologists) and the media.
The BBC News reported on January 7, 2007: “The world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007, the UK’s Met Office says.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm
“They say there is a 60% chance that the average surface temperature will match or exceed the current record from 1998.”
“Chris Folland, head of the Hadley Centre’s climate variability research, said the forecast was primarily based on two factors.
The first was greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, he said.
‘This is a statistical method; it is a number that represents the heating of the atmosphere.’
‘Greenhouse gases cause heating, while aerosols cause cooling,’ Professor Folland told BBC News.
‘The other factor which allows us to make a forecast that whether one year is significantly different from the next is the effect of the El Nino.’”
What happened in actual fact? Below is the “globally averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” as published by the Met Office:
1998: 0.515°C
2007: 0.404°C
Oops! A drop of 0.11°C in nine years, when the entire 20th century only saw an increase of 0.74°C.
And we saw all-time record CO2 emissions over the time period.
But wait! It gets even better for 2008 (Hadley already saw the handwriting on the wall and refrained from making another silly “prediction of record warmth”):
2008: 0.281°C (to date)
Ouch! A drop of 0.12°C in just one year!
The Met Office (Hadley) climatologists and computer scientists, such as Folland should concentrate on giving us un-biased temperature data and stop sending out silly predictions that come back to bite them as “Folland’s folly”.
What do you think, Peter?
Regards,
Max
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg
Sep 13, 2008
Problems with the Climate Models
By Michael R.Fox Ph.D., in the Hawaii Reporter
Recalling that people such as Robert F. Kennedy have called climate skeptics “traitors”, David Suzuki calls for their jailing, the Grist website called for Nuremburg trials for them, NASA’s Dr. Jim Hansen calling for their trials for treason, along with the habitual insults from Al Gore, its been difficult for anyone to respectfully dissent. It’s been difficult to stick to the rules of hard science, by demanding evidence and replication, both of which require questioning but are often followed by insults and threats.
The world owes a lot to many climate sci entists who are closely studying and reviewing the claims of the global warming lobby. They are also attempting to replicate some of these findings without the traditional support of the originating authors. Ordinarily, in the world of hard nosed science, such scrutiny and replication has been historically welcomed. No longer. The well-known name calling, the dismissiveness, the ad hominem attacks, is regrettably now the standard level of discourse. Additionally, these include many laboratory directors, media editors, and Ph.D.s who for whatever reasons adopt the same low roads of discourse and the abandonment of science.
These are difficult times for traditional climate scientists who do practice good science, serious peer review, welcome scrutiny, replication, and the sharing of data. Thanks to the whole world of the global warm-mongers and indentured PhDs, the integrity of the entire world of science is being diminished, followed by a loss of trust and respect. Among the giants challenging the global warming dogma has been Christopher Monckton. He has been a strong international leader, spokesman, and expert in unraveling the complexities of the man-made warming hypothesis.
The greatest drivers behind the hypothesis have not been the actual evidence, but computer models. Relative to the largely unknown climate complexities, these are still known to be primitive and incapable of replicating climate data as measured from observations. If a hypothesis can?t explain actual evidence and climate observations, it is wrong, and needs to be modified or abandoned.
IPCC models in the 2007 report are already falsified. See larger image here.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg
Hansen’s model versus reality. Also being falsified. See larger image here.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN.JPG
In a recent exchange with an expert modeler and believer of global warming, Monckton responded in incredible detail by identifying many of the problems found with the computer models themselves. Monckton is impressively expert in the minutiae of computer modeling, a skill which applies directly to the analyses of the computer climate models. Monckton has performed a detailed analysis of the IPCC?s hypothesis of global warming and identified a long list of failings. They deserved much wider distribution, with an understanding of the serious implications. They and literature references can be found here .
Monckton is not alone in his concerns with computer modeling. Tens of thousands of scientists and engineers who have taken basic mathematics know of the problems and complexities with modeling even simple situations. This author has met a fellow scientist (a bit nerdy admittedly) who carried a long multi-variable multi-term equation on a paper kept in his wallet, which was the equation of the outline of his wife’s face. The modeling problem is delightfully defined by atmospheric physicist Dr. James Peden, who recently said Climate Modeling is not science, it is computerized Tinkertoys, with which one can construct any outcome he chooses. And for my nerdy modeler above, it’s easy to change his wallet equation if he gets a new wife! Read much more here.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?bcb0b0a8-86dc-4f0d-acce-dec9605c9b7a
The Carbon Credit Crunch…
… or is that crunchy carbon credits?
When the Vatican recently announced that being a polluter is now deemed a cardinal sin, I got to thinking about the Holy Mother Church of Global Warming/Climate Change (and its self-appointed pontiff, His Holiness Albert the Gore), the full reality of it hit me:
Carbon credits are nothing more than 21st-century indulgences.
Much like the indulgences the Catholic Church dispensed long ago, they don’t actually change anything. When His Holiness’ mansion/compound in Tennessee consumes the kind of energy in a month that most of us mere mortals do in an entire year (and spews out a commensurate amount of CO2), the amount of CO2 that’s actually in the atmosphere purportedly cranking up/fiddling with the global thermostat hasn’t actually changed, regardless of how many credits indulgences he’s purchased. In this particular case, the pontiff himself is committing the mortal sin, but it’s all good, since he’s paying himself indulgences through the magic of investment trusts.
And much like the indulgences of Rome, the indulgences of Environmentalism go into erecting edifices and monuments to the Holy Mother Church. Now if only we could do something about the sheer quantities of hot air coming out of the myriad pulpits of the Church of Global Climate Change, we’d be making some progress.
Sheesh. Even Dell gives me the option of assuaging my guilt every time I order a computer from them. I can buy not only carbon offsets for my shiny new computer, I even have the option of paying Dell a few bucks to plant a tree for me. Must be nice to pass off their facility landscaping costs directly onto the customers, in the name of cardinal guilt. That’s sheer genius right there.
Flame away. Just make sure you offset your emissions. I’ll be off shredding a tree.
History repeats itself……
All medieval society was preoccupied with the pursuit of purity, but the knightly aristocracy, forced by the nature of its profession into daily contact with contaminants such as violence and personal wealth, seems to have been particularly prone to harbor an obsession with spiritual infection and the afterlife… Knights across Europe were trapped — their secular obligations made sin inevitable, but monks cautioned them that their transgressions would, in the afterlife, trigger the most gruesome torments.” (The First Crusade, pp 71-72)
Pope Urban’s holy war thus came as a godsend, an antidote to Augustine’s theory of just war which only exacerbated knightly guilt. Since the fourth century, Christianity had taught that violence was intrinsically evil, even when justified. By reversing the morality of violence — by making bloodshed sacred — the knightly dilemma was effectively resolved. For decades the Peace of God movement had tried imposing a quasi-pacifism on the warrior class, obviously to no avail. Now these warriors could “kill for Christ” and have their sins remitted, enabling them to bypass suffering in purgatory.
This is what the crusaders latched onto more than anything: an unprecedented opportunity to use their warrior-profession for salvific purposes.
Brute,
You are right, Osama Bin Laden too is a religious nut. Al Qaeda is a reactionary and bigotted religiously inspired organisation. Christianity does not have a monopoly on the phenomenon. You guys hate each other, but the odd thing is that if you compiled a list of social issues such as abortion, homosexuality, desirability of the death penalty etc etc, you’d find pretty good agreement between an extreme interpretation of Islam and the American religious right.
In addition, both will favour a creationist approach to the origin of the earth and origin of life etc. I’m not sure what the official Al Qaeda line on climate change is, but I would guess that they are so reactionary in their thought patterns that they probably do line up with you guys on that issue too.
Is it true that each and every member of the US congress has to declare himself to be of a certain religious faith? Don’t you have any non-believers at all? In most countries this sort of personal view is just not an election issue. Tony Blair has started a bit of a trend against this in the UK, but I notice that he has waited until he left politics before starting to talk about religion in a serious way.
A politician’s religion is his or her personal business. Its when they bring along concepts from that religion into their day job that the problems start. Holy War is just about the most worrying of these.
Max,
Sorry, Peter, Dr. Serreze is simply chanting the AGW mantra without any logical basis for his opinion.
It seems that your education in logic isn’t any better than it is in science. Have you ever heard of the saying ” When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth” ? Would you say that this is an illogical statement?
I’m not sure about the “however improbable” part but, this is what you are accusing the climate scientists are saying.
I’m not sure why you are so taken with a small increase in the August figure for Arctic ice. The loss of perennial ice over the years can be measured in millions of sq km. If you look at the long term graph it descends in a zig zag fashion with some years showing a reduction from the year before, other years it isn’t quite so bad and there is an increase. But nevertheless the trend is steadily downward.
Are you so stupid that you think one upward movement of the zig-zag pattern is at all significant or a you deliberately trying to deceive everyone? As Robin would say, its a simple question , please provide a simple answer.
Hi Peter,
You asked me, “Are you so stupid that you think one upward movement of the zig-zag pattern is at all significant or a you deliberately trying to deceive everyone? As Robin would say, its a simple question, please provide a simple answer.”
Simple answer: Neither (= none of the two choices you offered).
Just the facts, Peter. That’s all.
To your other question, “Have you ever heard of the saying ” When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth” ? Would you say that this is an illogical statement?”
Not really. But as Dr. Akasofu pointed out quite clearly, Dr. Serreze has not “eliminated the impossible” (i.e. that the late 20th-century ice melt is due to as yet unidentified natural causes, just like the early 20th-century ice melt before it, which cannot be attributed to AGW).
I would say that it is illogical to blame the late 20th-century ice melt on AGW when we do not know for sure what caused the early 20th-century ice melt. Would you say that this is an illogical statement?”
Regards,
Max
Pete,
So now you’re comparing Barrack Obama to Osama Bin Laden? You actually equating Obama with Bin Laden? WOW!
Obama is a bigoted “religious wacko” according to Peter Martin? According to your standard, he is unfit for office because he “hears voices”….I wonder if he believes in Noahs Ark and that the Earth was created in 6 days?
Obama distributed a campaign pamphlet that states his religious beliefs, (below), he states in this campaign bill that he is a COMITTED CHRISTIAN.
Brute,
I would make a distiction between Biblical fundamentalists and Christianity. Its possible to be a Christian without believing all that Noah’s Ark and six day creationist nonsense. If you take the Bible too literally then both eating shellfish and homosexuality are ‘religious crimes’. The Bible contains all sorts of nonsense. It tells us its OK to stone our kids to death if they give us a bit of cheek, for example. I wouldn’t have any of mine left alive and I would be writing this from a jail cell if I’d taken any notice of that!
When I vote I prefer there to be absolutely no religion involved but I can accept some but not too much.
I was comparing fundamentalists of two religions. I wouldn’t say that Obama was a fundamentalist though, would you?
Max,
It is an illogical statement. What is this ghost factor X? Where is the logic for believing it even exists? If you allow these sort of mysterious factors into any problem solving exercise it becomes impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions which is surely the object of your and Dr A’s exercise. If you haven’t got the evidence then muddy the waters as much as possible!
As I’ve no doubt said many times before mathematics works on proof. Science , like the law, works on evidence. I guess when a defendent is up in court he can always dream up some hypthetical “ghost factor X” to explain why he cannot possibly be guilty. But I guess if I was on the jury I’d be looking at the more tangible items of evidence.
Some Biblical Quotes:
It’s full nonsense like this!
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 Its a good thaing that Mr Palin wasn’t a clergyman !)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)
Just one more. If only I had these sort of supernatural powers!
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” (2 Kings 2:23-24)
That’ll teach em to poke fun at their elders!
Hi Peter,
In your latest rant you asked me regarding the early 20th century ice melt, “What is this ghost factor X? Where is the logic for believing it even exists? If you allow these sort of mysterious factors into any problem solving exercise it becomes impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions which is surely the object of your and Dr A’s exercise. If you haven’t got the evidence then muddy the waters as much as possible!”
Calm down, Peter. This is exactly the question that Dr. Akasofu raises (who is certainly more qualified to discuss Arctic temperature and sea ice trends than either you or I). And this, Peter, is the illogic of the claim that AGW caused the late 20th-century ice retreat while we do not know what caused the early 20th-century ice retreat.
As a scientist specializing in Arctic climate, Dr. A. says we must understand the natural factors affecting the Arctic climate before we can draw any conclusions about the anthropogenic factors. This is a very logical scientific approach to understanding what is going on and has nothing to do with “muddying the waters”.
Peter, you must realize (as the expert, Dr. A. does) that our knowledge of what the forces are that drive climate is so primitive and incomplete today that we are fools if we think we know that anthropogenic factors have any significant impact on Arctic ice melt or global average temperatures.
Then you dig your own grave with the statement, “As I’ve no doubt said many times before mathematics works on proof. Science, like the law, works on evidence.”
That’s exactly the point, Peter. The “evidence” for an anthropogenic cause for recent Arctic ice melt is not there, just as Dr. A. (a scientific expert on the matter) has pointed out.
The only way to really know if there has been an anthropogenic impact on Arctic sea ice in the late 20th century (when there was a significant human emission of CO2) is to determine what caused the melting of Arctic sea ice in the early 20th century (before there was any significant human emission of CO2). Right?
It’s really so simple and logical that anyone should be able to see it, Peter. I’m sure that if you clear your mind of all the preconceived AGW clutter that has become part of your quasi-religious belief system, you could see this as well.
Try to think rationally, skeptically and logically, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
This is all a bit off topic (as Tony would agree), but all your many Bible quotes do not contribute much to the climate change debate.
Sure, there were the “seven lean years” and “seven rich years”, but the only really significant climate phenomenon mentioned in the Old Testament was Noah’s Flood.
Historical records show that this Great Flood was mentioned long before the Old Testament by the ancient Sumerians.
There is a strong corollary with today’s AGW hysteria.
Man was guilty of sinning and incurred God’s wrath. (Today’s AGW aficionados like you, yourself, believe “man” is “sinning” by burning fossil fuels and enjoying a high standard of living in the process, when he should go back to a simpler life style).
Prophets and oracles warned of impending doom if the evil ways of man were not changed. (Today we have James E. Hansen, Al Gore and a whole raft of IPCC sponsored “climate scientists” with their computer models to act as our prophets of doom unless we repent and reject our “wasteful” life style.)
The Judeo-Christian “guilt and fear” combination is being used very effectively to sell AGW hysteria today.
In those days the ulterior motive was to get the “sinners” back in line with the principles espoused by the religious leaders and back under control. (Today it is to justify an immense power and money grab.)
Marine biologists, geologist and other scientists have recently discovered several clues to the real cause of a possible major flood in the region currently covered by the Black Sea, much like a much earlier flooding of the Mediterranean basin (and the reason for both, of course, was no more anthropogenic than that for the late 20th century warming).
So here is a “Bible story” that I’m sure Tony will agree is on topic.
It just goes to show how guilt and fear can be used to motivate the gullible masses.
Regards,
Max
Max,
You are very fond of using the phrase “the evidence for an anthropogenic cause for recent Arctic ice melt {or AGW generally} is not there” even though the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion would disagree with you. I’m not sure what standing Dr. Akasofu has in this field but once again you are choosing his opinion just because you like it rather than taking a broader range and trying to work out where the mean or average point of scientific opinion may lie.
I did ask you for examples of things that might ‘make sense’ to you. You were very quick to tell me what didn’t make sense, but how about some positive examples?
Can I just confirm that you are agreeing that one small upturn in the ever decreasing zig-zag graph of Arctic sea ice is insignificant?
Would you say that the 670,000 sq km gain in Arctic sea ice from August 2007 to August 2008 was more or less significant than the loss of 1.5 million sq km from August 2006 to August 2007?
If you are trying to present a fair and true account of ice change in the Arctic , why is it that you mention the recent gain but ignore recent loss? Why not give the net loss/gain over two years rather that the net gain over one year? Or, better still why not present a long term graph showing the net change over many years?
You really aren’t interested in the science. You’re just interested in peddling what can at best, and at a stretch, and to stay within blog rules, may be described as half-truths.
Can something like this be the beginning of the end for contararian web sites?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7613201.stm
Max,
You are very fond of using the phrase “the evidence for an anthropogenic cause for recent Arctic ice melt {or AGW generally} is not there” even though the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion would disagree with you. I’m not sure what standing Dr. Akasofu has in this field but once again you are choosing his opinion just because you like it rather than taking a broader range and trying to work out where the mean or average point of scientific opinion may lie.
I did ask you for examples of things that might ‘make sense’ to you. You were very quick to tell me what didn’t make sense, but how about some positive examples?
Can I just confirm that you are agreeing that one small upturn in the ever decreasing zig-zag graph of Arctic sea ice is insignificant?
Would you say that the 670,000 sq km gain in Arctic sea ice from August 2007 to August 2008 was more or less significant than the loss of 1.5 million sq km from August 2006 to August 2007?
If you are trying to present a fair and true account of ice change in the Arctic , why is it that you mention the recent gain but ignore recent loss? Why not give the net loss/gain over two years rather that the net gain over one year? Or, better still why not present a long term graph showing the net change over many years?
You really aren’t interested in the science. You’re just interested in peddling what can at best, and at a stretch, and to stay within blog rules, may be described as half-truths.
Can something like this be the beginning of the end for contararian web sites?
{I’ll post the link separately}
Link from 1586
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7613201.stm
Peter Martin, I repeat the last lines in my 1564 that were directed to you:
You [Peter Martin] responded to the above in your 1566 in part with:
You [Bob_FJ] are correct, though, in saying that I have written “The Polyakov graph appears to show that the Arctic was warmer in 1940 than the present time. This isn’t the view of the [NSIDC] who say it is warmer now”. You are also correct in saying that this was on the basis of watching Dr Mark Serreze’s (of NSIDC) Nye lecture.
Putting aside for the moment that you have NOT ANSWERED question 3a, or, adequately; its genesis; my much repeated question 3, I now prefer to allow you to entirely concentrate ALL YOUR EFFORTS in responding cognitively to Max’s well questioning 1584.
Thus, I defer any direct response to your 1566, pending any sensible and rational developments on Max’s 1584
Groan…… Peter I see my 1587 crossed your 1586 by a few minutes!
Peter Martin 1586 wrote in part to Max:
Sorry Max, whilst you are in slumber-land, (?), I could not pass asking this simple question (and repeated reminder) to Pete:
You Pete, have been repeatedly reminded that GFSC (NASA) has reported that the dramatic sea-ice melt especially in 2006-2007 was caused by unusual winds developing since 2000, blowing the ice into southerly sea currents taking it into warm areas, and thus causing rapid melting. This is a SEPARATE phenomena to air temperature considerations.
WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS NASA REPORT?
DO YOU THINK IT IS FALSE?
Bob_FJ,
I think the Nasa report is suggesting that unusual winds may have been partially responsible for the very low ice cover in 2007. I think if you read their paper you’ll not find that they are saying that unusual winds are becoming slightly less unususual on a year to year basis and are in fact responsible for the long term sea ice decline.
I think you might guilty of using a slightly flatulent and overblown argument here.
Why is Max in ‘slumberland’? It’s the middle of the day in Switzerland. It’s not a question of the Polyakov data being falsified as you put it. It’s just that the NSIDC , NOAA, or NASA and disagree with it. You only need to read the reports of the the voyage of the St Roche to realise that ice was much thicker in 1940-1942, whether or not it was caused by unusual winds :-). I’ve given you my references. Please make an effort to listen to Dr Serreze’s lecture before you come back with yet another ill-informed rant.
Incidentally, I’ve noticed that Max seems to have taken a liking himself to that little word ‘rant’ which I may have introduced him to in posting 1373. He’s copied me and used it several times himself too recently. I’m not sure whether to be annoyed or flattered.
Pete,
You’re talking in circles. Get hold of yourself.
Max,
An interesting question arose on another website where the question was put forth; being:
If virtual reality computer models did not exist, would we be discussing Global Warming?
After all, Hansen’s prophecies based on computer models have failed miserably, (although he claims that he was taken out of context or some nonsense)……or he claims that even though his modeling is inaccurate everyone still must all stop, (FILL IN THE BLANK). The entire global warming religious doctrine is based on these virtual crystal balls…….If they did not exist, would we even be having this discussion?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN.JPG
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg
The Global Warming Suicide Cult
By Don Feder
GrassTopsUSA.com | Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Global Warming movement has been compared to a religion — albeit one without God, but with a vision of sin and repentance, damnation and salvation.
Not quite.
Real religion is about improving the human condition by encouraging moral conduct in obedience to the will of God. The proponents of Global Warming are creating a suicide cult, which — if followed to its logical conclusion — will lead to human extinction.
Forget the Kyoto Treaty. Forget the Luddite Lieberman-Warner bill to cut so-called greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2050, which would cost the U.S. an estimated $1 trillion and result in the loss of 3.4 million jobs. That’s just the beginning.
Ultimately, the Global Warming crusade is a frontal assault on procreation, the family and the future of mankind.
In the December 9th edition of Medical Journal of Australia, Professor Barry Walters urges a one-time “baby levy” of $5,000, followed by an annual tax of $800 per child, on Australian families with more than two children.
“Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society,” writes Walters, who calls childbearing “greenhouse unfriendly behavior.”
Walters will have to look hard for families to tax. Australia’s fertility rate (the number of children the average woman has) is 1.75 — well below replacement level (2.1) and less than half of what it was in 1960 (3.6).
Angela Conway of the Australian Family Association thinks Walters should pay his own gas tax. “I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create,” Conway says.
Beyond the fiscal flogging to be administered to families who stubbornly continue to procreate, Walters says he wants the Australian government to consider population control measures like China’s, with its one-child-per-family policy backed by draconian penalties, sterilization and forced abortions.
In Britain, a group called The Optimum Population Trust has the same agenda. The Trust is horrified by a brief blip in the U.K. birthrate — up from 1.8 in 2005 to 1.87 in 2006.
It notes that the lifetime energy consumption, or “carbon footprint,” of a child born in Britain today is the equivalent of 620 roundtrip, trans-Atlantic flights. The Trust urges government coercion for Brits who don’t follow the Planned Parenthood model.
Global Warming-ists see people only as energy consumers (or pollution-generators), never as potential creators — of say a more efficient light bulb or engine, or a new way to clean the environment.
The greenhouse-gas gang is on a population-control kick.
“Human population growth is the paramount environmental issue,” says Ric Oberlink, a spokesman for the ominous-sounding Californians for Population Stabilization. “Global warming is a very serious problem, but it is a subset of the overpopulation problem.”
Ric (dropping the consonant is his contribution to conservation) claims the problem isn’t just too many people, but too many Americans, who, by our evil nature, will consume too much energy over the course of our lives. Americans are “by far the most voracious consumers and the greatest producers of greenhouse gases per capita of any nation on earth,” Ric remarks.
That America has spent the past century showering prosperity on the rest of the world (not to mention defeating the twin totalitarian horrors of the 20th century) is irrelevant to Ric. It’s all about our voracious consumption and great production.
“One solution to the crisis (a hot globe) is for people to stop having so many babies,” says a March 14th posting by Dave Johnson at that fount of idiocy, The Huffington Post. “We’ve already used up the fisheries. The cattle being raised to feed so many meat-eaters is as big a problem as the cars we’re all driving.” So the solution is to stop having babies and become bicycle-riding vegans.
“The population explosion has severely disturbed the ecological relationships between human beings and the environment,” the Sierra Club warns. “In recognition of the growing magnitude of this conservation issue, the Sierra Club supports a greatly increased program of education on the need for population control.” The left is really into control.
Global Warming fanaticism seems to lend itself to self-loathing. In 1989, David Graber, then a biologist with the National Park Service, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times observing: “Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true… We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon Earth. Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature (by wearing natural fibers and living in trees?) some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
And they call them misanthropes.
Is the right plague what Jacques Cousteau had in mind, when he wrote in 1991: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but its just as bad not to say it.” A speaker at Gorbachev’s 1996 State of the World Forum in San Francisco called for cutting the global population by 90%. He did not specify the method.
Most of the Global Warming-ists are content to make preposterous predictions and induce panic, while leaving their ultimate agenda unstated.
Thus, in accepting his politically correct Nobel Peace prize, Al Gore (the Herman Munster of Global Warming) declared that, “We have begun to wage war on the Earth itself.” Gore predicts that our trashing of the ozone layer could cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet in this century. Would that be before or after New York City is covered by a glacier, a la “The Day After Tomorrow”?
In a column in Sunday’s New York Times (“It’s Too Late for Later”) Thomas L. Friedman squawks: “The fact that global warming is now having such an observable effect on pillars of our ecosystem — like the frozen sea ice within the Arctic Circle, which a new study (conveniently, unnamed) says could disappear entirely during summers by 2040 — is certainly one big factor (in the change of ‘global consciousness’) . But the other is the voracious power of today’s global economy, which has created a situation in which the world is not just getting hot, it’s getting raped.” Look at the bright side: At least when Friedman is babbling about the environment, he’s not blathering about the Middle East.
The doomsayers notwithstanding, Global Warming is not an observable phenomenon, which is why hysteria is an essential part of the sales pitch. I write this while gazing out the window of my New England home at 12 inches of snow and ice — in mid-December, for God’s sake.
As a group of scientists reported in a study published in last week’s online edition of the International Journal of Climatology, over the past three decades, the forecasts of computer-generated climate change models (which warming alarmists rely on) don’t correlate with actual, measurable data from weather balloons and orbiting satellites.
But that’s just the tip of the Arctic ice cap (which, by the way, is not shrinking).
According to Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center, this year, the Arctic ice cap is within 1% of the winter norm, and winter has just begun. Ice on the southern polar ice cap has grown substantially, compared to last year.
Australian Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, notes that the atmospheric temperature of Mars has risen by 0.5 degrees Celsius. If only Martians would stop having so many kids with huge carbon footprints and start riding bicycles.
Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years. Neil Frank, a former director of the National Hurricane Center, calls Global Warming “a hoax.”
Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, points out that Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages then it is today. But the 17th century was much colder. (Then, it wasn’t unusual for the Thames to freeze over in the winter.) In other words — please pay attention, Albert — the Earth goes through periodic cycles of warming and cooling, completely unrelated to carbon emissions.
There are now an estimated 22,000 polar bears, compared to 5,000 60 years ago. Apparently, the creatures enjoy the effects of Global Warming on their environment — witness their predilection for sunglasses and Hawaiian shirts.
The temperature in Greenland is lower now then it was in 1940.
A thousand years ago, Viking settlers were growing crops in Greenland, which really was green. Sadly, Sven and Inga began driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels to run their 11th century factories. Ja, by jimmeny, the rest is history.
Reid Bryson, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, considered the father of scientific climatology, explains: “We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years.”
From what we know about climate change over the past 12,000 years (based on historical accounts and data like growth rings on trees) the Earth’s warming and cooling cycles exactly coincide with the sun’s magnetic activity.
How about that scientific consensus in favor of man-made Global Warming, touted by Gore and company? It’s a myth. There are plenty of scientists with the courage to call it a fraud — the 21st century equivalent of the Piltdown Man. Others are silenced by intimidation. Scientists who are willing to go along to get along get tenure, research assistants, grants and peer recognition.
As Lindzen explains, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” The invective is vicious. Lindzen: “I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all of the connotations of the Holocaust (deniers). That is an obscenity.”
Lindzen is one of those who compares the dogma of Global Warming to a religion. “Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?”
The professor is mistaken. Global Warming is a religion only in the sense that Jim Jones’ People’s Temple and the Heaven’s Gate were religions.
In its more extreme variation, Global Warming is a suicide cult whose prophets and priests warm to the idea of the mass extinction of humanity.
While many warming alarmists are content to repeal the industrial revolution, and others favor the end of civilization through gradual de-population (worldwide, fertility rates have declined by 50% in the past half-century, and still they carry on about over-population), others are more ambitious.
Underlying the left’s agenda has always been a hatred of humanity. Enlightenment philosophers hated mankind because our nature wouldn’t conform to their utopian ideals.
Marxists hated us because we were selfish beasts who stupidly refused to embrace scientific socialism. Ah, the misuses of science.
An earlier generation of ecologists hated us for polluting, for despoiling virgin wilderness with skyscrapers and shopping malls, for not allowing them to contemplate pristine nature from their vacation homes.
Animal rights activists hate us for dominating other species.
And Global-Warming-ists hate us for having children, not driving hybrid cars, destroying the ozone layer with CO2 emissions, making life miserable for the penguins and polar bears, and, eventually — according to their nightmare scenarios — making the Earth uninhabitable.
Hence, the inevitable conclusion: The world would be better off with all of us dead.
“Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth’s community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence in short is not needed,” Paul Taylor in “Respect for Nature, A Theory of Environmental Ethics.”
“We have no problem in principle with humans reducing their numbers by killing one another. It’s an excellent way of making humans extinct,” a spokes-creature for the Gaia Liberation Front.
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs,” John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First.
In the book “The World Without Us,” Alan Weisman celebrates what he sees as the inevitable extinction of humanity, as vine and branch, deer and bear, reclaim our cities.
There’s even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which describes itself as “the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.” VHEMT explains that “the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens… us.”
Continuing with this grotesquely morbid line of thought: “When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve… and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature’s ‘experiments’ have done throughout the eons.” Is that why liberals seem to be disappearing?
The let’s-all-die-for the-planet movement may be the fringe of Global Warming. But their conclusion is the logical expression of its ethos. Why settle for the gradual extinction of humanity through below-replacement birthrates and deindustrialization when we can accomplish the same thing in a generation? (For other Global Warming-ists, their death wish is more subconscious.)
But rather than having the decency to just kill themselves, they need to make a statement — like the poor bastards who go to a mall with a high-powered rifle to see how many innocent bystanders they can take with them.
If you see Al Gore in a shopping center with what looks like a semi-automatic — or at a podium handing out Kool-Aid — run.
Hi Brute,
You make a good point that there would be no discussion of Global Warming if there were no virtual reality computer models. The whole thing is an “invented” imminent disaster based on GIGO computer models.
Nobody even takes notice of the miserable failure of these models to predict anything. Many people are just gullible enough to believe anyone who calls himself a “climate expert”. “2,500 scientists are in consensus on this, so it must be true.”
Not only have Hansen’s models failed to predict anything, but the folks over at the UK Met Office (Hadley) are just as poor in their ability to forecast. Yet they continue to do so year after year, with much media ballyhoo and the general public is duped into believing that we are facing a man-made climate crisis.
When the forecast turns out to be wrong there is not much press coverage, just a few mumbles about “La Nina” or some other excuse, with the warning that man-made global warming will come back “with a vengeance” after the natural “climate noise” has settled down.
There are those, like Peter, who truly WANT to believe in AGW, since this reinforces a deep internal political viewpoint. Then there are others, who just believe anything they’ve been told over and over again, no matter how absurd, especially if it’s backed by a multimillion dollar super-computer.
And the politicians, the media and the “scientists” with vested interests (like Hansen) are doing their best to keep the general public frightened with increasingly shrill warnings of imminent “tipping points”, etc. Fear and guilt are strong motivators and these people know how to use them to maximum advantage.
But fortunately, more and more people are beginning to question the computer models, as they fail year after year and as temperatures have continued to cool down.
The “Farmers’ Almanac” has been around a long time. It’s weather predictions have been much more accurate than those of the computer oracles. It predicts a very cold winter 2008/2009. Let’s see what happens.
I know Peter doesn’t agree on this, but I personally give the whole multibillion dollar AGW business another two years of colder than normal weather before the whole bubble bursts and we move on to a new “imminent” disaster caused by the “evils of industrial mankind”.
And, yes, computer models will be used to replace real scientific observations in order to justify this new disaster. It’s a very easy cop-out.
Regards,
Max