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.
“but it does not appear that you have been able to convince him either.”
No I don’t suppose I have. I once tried to convince a Jehovah’s witness that blood transfusions weren’t such a bad idea. I didn’t have any success there either.
Hi Peter,
To my remark concerning Bob_FJ, “but it does not appear that you have been able to convince him either”, you replied, “No I don’t suppose I have. I once tried to convince a Jehovah’s witness that blood transfusions weren’t such a bad idea. I didn’t have any success there either.”
Yeah, and I didn’t have much success trying to convince a religious doomsayer that the second coming of Christ and the end of the world was not imminent. Sort of like trying to convince a dedicated AGW doomsayer that the “tipping point” leading to the “end of the world as we know it” is not here.
These “fundies” (be they the AGW type or the religious doomsayers) are pretty much all the same, Peter, because they KNOW that they are right and they abhor any rational skepticism of their belief.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Can’t argue much about UK history, except that it is obvious that this country has been much better off since Mrs. T. was in charge than before.
Breaking Scargill’s coal union and its stranglehold on the country was certainly to her credit.
How much of the overall recovery is to her credit and how much is because of North Sea oil and gas is open to question.
You may disagree, but I sort of believe it was a bit of both. And most historians agree.
Regards,
Max
PS Yes, and to get this back on topic, she did set up the UK Met Office.
Obvious to whom? She was never as popular in the UK as she was in America. Nowhere near. As I ‘ve already said they she was pretty much loathed in Scotland and much of Northern England. She would have certainly lost the election of 1983 but for the Falklands War.
Her party typically would get just over 40% of the vote in UK elections. I was working in the UK in the mid -eigthties at it seemed amazing to me that the Labour and Liberal/SD parties were incapable of reaching an electoral agreement and using their combined majority to defeat her.
If the UK had had in place a sensible system of the transferable vote, (and it was curious that all the UK parties had this system for their own internal elections), as we do in Australia, Mrs Thatcher would never have been elected as a PM in the UK.
“she did set up the UK Met Office.”
No, she actually set up the Hadley Centre for Climate change. Such was her hatred for the UK coal miners that she would go to any lengths to defeat them. You’ll have your own opinions on how this has spectacularly backfired on the old *****
Incidentally, the way she won her battle with the miners was to split them with promises of a safe future, for some of them, if they kept working during the strike. She reneged on them, and after the strike was over pretty much the whole of the UK coal industry was closed down.
It is odd how things work out isn’t it?
Peter Martin 1643 wrote in part:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My response to your [1]
This is an over simplified comment because the mechanisms of loss of sea-ice are very complex. For example, loss of ice is not solely by the obvious thermal melting process. Among many things, the interface salinity changes, and as to how that may modify regional interface sea water circulation. (Aqueous convective heating or cooling). Then there is also sublimation of ice ( Sublimation = Aeolian ice conversion directly to water vapour, without any intervening melting)
I did a quick Google squiz FOR YOU on ‘Sublimation’, and was satisfied in brief with a paper by Jason E. Box & Konrad Steffen 2001, BECAUSE they are two of your FUNDAMENTALIST soul-mates, so let’s go with that for starters!
AGU paper 2001: Sublimation on the Greenland ice sheet from automated weather station observations. (<Google this title)
EXTRACT:
Greenland Climate Network (GC-Net) surface meteorological observations are used to estimate net surface water vapor flux at ice sheet sites. Results from aerodynamic profile methods are compared with eddy correlation and evaporation pan measurements. Two profile method types are applied to hourly data sets spanning 1995.4 to 2000.4. One method type is shown to accurately gauge sublimation using two humidity and wind speed measurement levels. The other “bulk” method type is shown to underestimate condensation, as it assumes surface saturation. General climate models employ bulk methods and, consequently, underestimate deposition. Loss of water vapor by the surface predominates in summer at lower elevations, where bulk methods agree better with two-level methods. Annual net water vapor flux from the two-level method is as great as ?87 ±27 mm at 960 m elevation and…”
May I remind you that sea ice lies at ~0 m elevation, is saline ice, in water of varying salinity, and is exposed to positive heat sources and/or sinks from the air above and the water below, and winds cause it to drift according to the direction and speed of the wind, etc.
I guess there is no point in asking you [Pete] any questions because I have NEVER known you to conscientiously answer even one such, but I fantasize that you might ponder the above, and offer your infinite wisdom in some way
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My response to your [2]
I’m short of time this evening, so will make this very quick:
WOULD YOU PLEASE CAREFULLY READ MY 1624
I feel that you may have misunderstood what I said
If after studying what I said before more carefully, you would like to modify your comments, (or seek further elaboration from me
), please do so.
Peter, further to my 1654,
Personal observations can sometimes be helpful.
Some years ago my great passion was Back-Country snow skiing (A perverse wilderness form of cross-country skiing)
Particularly towards the end of the seasons, (plural), it was painfully apparent that the sides of some mountain slopes had a dearth of snow, whereas others were in-a-plenty.
I think you said somewhere that you are a physicist, or a science school teacher, or something.
I’m wondering if you might be able to explain the circumstances of my many repeated observations described above.
Hi Peter,
WOW! You seem to harbor a real dislike for Margaret Thatcher, when you write (1653), “Such was her hatred for the UK coal miners that she would go to any lengths to defeat them. You’ll have your own opinions on how this has spectacularly backfired on the old *****”.
I cannot see how it backfired for Thatcher (or the welfare of the UK, which was her primary concern at the time) at all. As I recall, Scargill and his coal miners union were trying to force a toppling of the Thatcher government by holding the nation in a stranglehold, and this is what backfired. Scargill (and his union) lost; Thatcher (and the UK) gained. And I suppose if there was any feeling of “hatred” on the part of Thatcher, it was probably for Cargill (and not “for the UK coal miners”, as you wrote).
Scragill’s timing was so poor one can only question his intelligence. British coal was playing out (it was cheaper to land coal from South Africa in English ports than continue operating the UK mines). Most importantly of all, the North Sea oil and gas had already started coming onshore, rapidly making British coal (including the coal miners’ union and Arthur Scargill, himself) redundant. This was truly the most stupid time of all to try to force a showdown.
It’s all about timing in politics. And about not underestimating your adversary.
Another leader of a coal miners’ union, John L. Lewis of the USA United Mine Workers tried the same, first in 1943 (during WWII), when half a million workers walked off the job in violation of a wartime “no strike” pledge. This one backfired, with President Roosevelt seizing control of the mines and popular support for the miners at an all-time low. (A good example of poor timing).
But in the spring of 1946, no longer hampered by wartime no- strike laws, Lewis again called his UMW to strike and close the coal mines and, since the nation had yet to build back up following the war, factories quickly became inoperative and lights were dimmed across the land. Just as importantly, the strike also threatened recovery in Europe. Lewis may have thought that President Truman would cave to the demands but he guessed wrong. Truman authorized the seizure of the mines by federal troops in order to prove his point. He also appointed the interior secretary to agree to a no-strike deal involving a major wage increase as well as improved safety regulations and pension funds to placate the miners. But by October 1946, John L. Lewis was involved in a power struggle with other labor leaders and felt he had to do something to show his strength. He decided to back off on the May deal and asked to reopen the contract agreement. But Truman refused to do so and Lewis then announced that the miners would consider the contract null and void. Truman got an injunction barring a strike but Lewis ordered the strike anyway. It was short-lived, with Lewis backing down and both Lewis and his union being fined for violating the injunction. (A good example of underestimating your adversary.)
Just like Scargill, Lewis chose the wrong timing to pick a fight with the wrong adversary.
Like you wrote, the timing for Attlee was good in post-war 1945, when the Brits were tired of “blood, sweat and tears”, but hadn’t quite realized yet that Britain was no longer a world power.
And the timing was perfect for Thatcher when Cargill tried to bring her down and failed, as it was for Truman when Lewis tried the same and failed.
Now to mention something having to do with our topic of AGW.
I am convinced that the Hadley Centre will again play an overall positive role when they realize that the whole AGW hysteria is just that, and they stop trying to keep it alive with “alarming” forecasts (that never happen), and just concentrate on giving the public unbiased data on weather and climate. It may take some changes in personnel, but I am sure that Hadley is a good thing in the long run, so Thatcher did the right thing by setting it up.
You added, “It is odd how things work out isn’t it?” Yep. I agree.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Well its good that you seem to have changed your mind about the Hadley Centre. They do some good work there and it’s nice that you’ve recognised it. What’s made you change your mind? Was it you who recently suggested that they should stop doing climate research and look for jobs doing weather forecasting?
The miners strike in 1984 wasn’t to change the government. That has never happened in the UK. It wasn’t even about getting a pay rise which is the usual reason behind strikes. It was to try to prevent the closing down of the British coal industry which is exactly what happened when the strike was defeated.
The timing was of the Government’s choosing. February, right at the end of winter, is a good time to announce mine closures especially as the power stations had been stocked up with several times their normal amount of coal reserves.
Other European countries managed the decline of their coal fields with a good deal more sensitivity and intelligence than did the Thatcher government. It would have been better all round to have not provoked so much class conflict with talk about the ‘enemy within’ etc. These guys were coal miners not terrorists.
No-one has answered my point that you climate sceptics are all extreme right wing types who certainly would not sympathise in any way with the British ex-miners. You don’t even have anyone with centre ground political opinions , let alone any that can be described as leftish. Why should a scientific question be so divisive politically?
Because the “solutions” that the Alarmists propose to a non-existent problem are counter productive and tyrannical. They also violate the Constitution of the United States.
If global warming is irrefutable and the “consensus” is rock solid why are the “solutions” proposed by the Alarmists compulsory? If the majority of the world, (as you say), believes that the planet is going to Hell in a hand-basket due to burning fossil fuel why not simply ask them to voluntarily stop burning them?
Brute,
I very much doubt if any serious minded solutions do violate any cause in your constitution, but leaving that aside, it is generally agreed that some difficult measures will need to be adopted, worldwide, to get CO2 and other GHG levels under control.
What you are saying is that because the remedy is unpalatable, the illness cannot exist. Isn’t that known as being in denial?
PS I’m sure that you would like taxes to be voluntary too. At least as far as your own are concerned. Let me know if you come up with a winning argument when the taxman comes after you.
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “Well its good that you seem to have changed your mind about the Hadley Centre. They do some good work there and it’s nice that you’ve recognised it.”
The current leaders there do some very silly work, when they warn us annually in press releases of a new impending record warm year due to AGW, which then turns out to be another hoax. They should back off from trying to “sell us” AGW and concentrate on bringing us factual data without any AGW “spin”. This will eventually happen, I am sure, as “anthropogenic global warming” is exposed as the farce that it is and the few AGW enthusiasts at Hadley are retired or fired.
You are Australian. I am Swiss. What the hell are we doing arguing about what Margaret Thatcher did to Cargill’s coal union in the UK back in the 1980s? Thatcher won. Cargill lost. The UK won and is better off today for it. Move on, Peter.
All of us Europeans that witnessed what happened then firsthand realized that Thatcher (plus the North Sea oil and gas) got the UK back on its feet after several post-war decades of mismanagement and decline with systematic trade union appeasement and unsuccessful socialist experimentation. This is history, Peter.
Now to your last rather rambling statement: “No-one has answered my point that you climate sceptics are all extreme right wing types who certainly would not sympathise in any way with the British ex-miners. You don’t even have anyone with centre ground political opinions , let alone any that can be described as leftish. Why should a scientific question be so divisive politically?”
No, I did not at the time sympathize with Scargill, who misused the hapless coal miners to try (in vain) to topple Thatcher for his own power.
“Extreme right wing types”? Whodat? Please explain.
“You don’t even have anyone with centre ground political opinions, let alone any that can be described as leftish.”
How do you classify yourself here, Peter, “centre ground” or “leftish”? How would you classify me? Or Brute? Or Bob_FJ? On what basis?
I believe that any “scientific question” must be able to withstand the scrutiny of rational skepticism in order to be scientifically sound. The heavily financed AGW hypothesis as suggested by IPCC does not pass this test. This is exactly the reason why it is “so divisive politically” and why it will eventually be shot down as another politically motivated pseudoscientific hoax.
Peter, your argumentation on politics is just as confused as your argumentation on “global warming”. I suspect that your confusion on the two may even be linked.
I would suggest that you back off from political posturing and get back on to the ongoing scientific debate surrounding global warming.
Explain to me why AGW should be a potential problem for our planet when the physical observations show that it stopped in 2000.
Regards,
Max
How do you classify yourself here, Peter, “centre ground” or “leftish”? How would you classify me? Or Brute? Or Bob_FJ? On what basis?
“Extreme right wing types”? Whodat? Please explain.
Well why don’t you find out and tell me yourself? This a two dimensional test which should give you all some idea of where you stand.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
My score comes out at (-7.38,-5.44) which would indicate a leftish non-authoritarian attitude. Of the examples given, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama would seem to have similar views!
Hi Peter,
Took your test. Enjoyed the few “trick questions” that were sprinkled throughout.
I came out at +1.50 (Economic Left/Right)and -0.82 (Social Libertarian/Authoritarian), exactly halfway in between Gandhi and Friedman.
Wonder where Al Gore would come out. Halfway between Stalin and Hitler? Hmmm…
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Just looking at your Economic/Social score, looks like you are in the same range as Trotzky was (before Stalin had him wiped out).
Guess I’d have to conclude that you are a bit more on the “extreme” side than I am. But, hey, we need all kinds of guys out there.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
You asked Brute, “Why should a scientific question be so divisive politically?”
Brute made a very good point when he asked you in return, “If global warming is irrefutable and the “consensus” is rock solid why are the “solutions” proposed by the Alarmists compulsory? If the majority of the world, (as you say), believes that the planet is going to Hell in a hand-basket due to burning fossil fuel why not simply ask them to voluntarily stop burning them?”
The answer to Brute’s question is not simple, but it is obvious if you look into it a bit more deeply.
First, anthropogenic global warming is not “irrefutable”. It is based on the greenhouse hypothesis, a very logical hypothesis that has yet to be proven in the real world.
There is no “rock solid consensus” on either the validity of this hypothesis or the magnitude of the human impact, as the ongoing scientific debate clearly demonstrates.
The AGW hysteria depends upon computer models, which are programmed to show an exaggerated impact of AGW resulting from assumed positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, which exaggerate the theoretical warming expected from a 2xCO2 scenario by a factor of four, from 0.8°C to 3.2°C. Recent studies show that these positive feedback assumptions are not supported by actual physical observations showing a net negative feedback from clouds; satellite observations on water vapor show that the model assumptions on positive water vapor feedback are also greatly exaggerated. Together, these two factors put the theoretical 2xCO2 warming back at around 0.8°C, rather than 3.2°C as assumed by the models cited by IPCC. This means that the warming we should expect from pre-industrial times to the year 2100 from AGW should be lass than 1°C. Really no big deal, since we’ve seen almost half of it already.
Then there is another major weakness in the AGW hypothesis. It underestimates or essentially ignores the importance of natural climate forcing factors (the latest IPCC AR4 report has these weighted at less than 8% of the anthropogenic forcing factors). As has become obvious from the observed temperature records, there is something out there causing major fluctuations that cannot be explained by AGW, yet this is ignored as inconsequential “background noise”. The recent cooling trend despite record human CO2 emissions points out very clearly that natural factors are of much greater importance than the assumed anthropogenic factors.
So the hypothesis of potentially alarming AGW is not “irrefutable” at all.
And it is obviously not true that “a majority of the world” sees AGW as a very important problem at all, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars of TV ads and other media propaganda trying to “sell” this story.
Now to the second part: why are the “mitigating solutions” compulsory rather than voluntary?
The proposed carbon tax or cap and trade schemes are a political power grab, which will make a few already wealthy people (like Al Gore) even wealthier and will give UN and other bureaucrats and politicians obscene amounts of taxpayer money to shuffle around, all at the expense of the public.
How much money are we talking about here?
A carbon tax of $100 per metric ton of CO2 has been proposed as a long-term goal to “force” people away from fossil fuels.
World CO2 emission (2007) = 27 billion mt/year CO2
Carbon tax = $100 per mt
Total cost (at current CO2 emission level) = $2.7 trillion per year
A real bonanza for the pols and bureaucrats!
World population = 6.5 billion
Per capita cost = $415 per year (paid by every man, woman and child on Earth)
But let’s say you are a resident (and taxpayer) of one of the major “industrialized” countries, i.e. the USA, the EU, Japan, Canada or Australia. You then have a “carbon footprint” of:
Combined CO2 emission = 12.4 billion mt/year CO2
Carbon tax = $100 per mt
Total cost (at current CO2 emission level) = $1.24 trillion
Combined population = 976 million
Per capita cost = $1,270 per year (paid by every man, woman and child in these countries).
Now why is this being proposed as a mandatory (rather than a voluntary) solution?
I’d say most people will say they have better ways to spend or invest this kind of money than to hand it over to a bunch of UN and other bureaucrats and politicians to shuffle around at their will.
The final irony of this whole farce is that the “mitigation” action will achieve absolutely nothing.
Assume that this carbon tax “forces” a shift from fossil fuels resulting in a 20% reduction of CO2 emissions below 2007 (back to level of 1990) within 10 years, and that it remains at that level to the year 2100. (Note that this is a very aggressive goal that will be extremely difficult to actually reach.)
Reduction of 20% = 5.4 billion mt/year CO2
Over next 92 years
Equals a cumulative reduction of 497 billion mt CO2
Earth’s troposphere plus stratosphere has a mass of 5.3 million Gt (5.3 quadrillion mt)
So that if we assume that all of the reduction in emissions results in a direct reduction of atmospheric CO2 the cumulative reduction of CO2 represents:
497 / 5.3 = 94 ppm(mass)
Equals 62 ppmv (correcting for density of CO2 and air)
Today’s level = 380 ppmv
Impact on warming
Use IPCC 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3°C
(Note, as mentioned above, that this sensitivity has been obtained from climate models, which all assume a strong positive feedback from clouds; recent observations on strong negative feedback from clouds indicate that assumed the 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3°C is probably overstated by a factor of 3 to 4, and that this should be 0.8 to 1°C instead. But let’s use the IPCC number, anyway.)
ln2 = 0.6931 (2xCO2)
CO2 today = 380 ppmv
Reduction = 62 ppmv
Future CO2 = 380 – 62 = 318 ppmv
380/318 = 1.193
ln(1.193) = 0.1767
dT (warming not experienced due to CO2 reduction) = 3°C * (0.1767) / (0.6931)
Equals 0.76°C (this is the total amount of warming that was averted by the “mitigation”)
dT per capita (amount of warming each person helped avert) = 0.00000000012°C
Carbon tax = $415 per year per capita today
At 20% reduced CO2 emission
Carbon tax = $332 per year per capita
Over the 92 years from today until 2100
This equals a per capita cost of $30,500
This equals $248 trillion to reduce warming by 0.76°C at most (and a more likely 0.2 to 0.3°C)
For the industrially developed nations mentioned above:
Carbon tax = $1,270 per year per capita today
At 20% reduced CO2 emission
Carbon tax = $1,017 per year per capita
Over the 92 years from today until 2100
This equals a per capita cost of $93,500
“Mitigation” (i.e. carbon tax) is obviously a very expensive cost to humanity that will achieve nothing.
Kind of a long answer to Brute’s very pertinent question.
And it answers Peter’s point, “if the remedy is unpalatable, the illness cannot exist. Isn’t that known as being in denial?”. The “remedy” is not only “unpalatable”, it is totally ineffective (sort of like a multi-trillion dollar “snake oil” cure). And the “disease” only exists in the virtual world of computer models. Calling for expensive “mitigation” to avert an imaginary “AGW disaster” is truly “being in denial” of the facts.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Are you taking your figures from Lomborg? If so they have been discredited in ways previously described. But, in any case, this type of anaylsis is completely irrevelant to the problem of whether AGW is a serious problem.
If you are going to do these calculations remember that the year 2100 is also followed by 2101 and out to 2200 and beyond too. How about factoring in a couple of metres of sea level rise into your calculations?
You are saying essentially the same as Brute. That the AGW problem is too hard, or too expensive, to solve , therefore it cannot possibly exist. I can understand how Sarah Palin, and her band of happy-clappy Christians with their belief in the supernatural, probably think otherwise. That all we have to do is pray and we will all be looked after, but it is not a rational line of thought.
We’ve only just started to see the effects of AGW, and of course the loss of Arctic sea ice is the most obvious example. You don’t need a computer to see that.
PS It is Trotsky not Trotzky and his name wasn’t included in the analysis sheet.
“probably think otherwise” in 1667 should read “probably think likewise”
I don’t think this at all. The AGW “problem” has not been “proven” to exist and therefore the proposed “solution” need not be undertaken.
Max,
My analysis/questions to Peter were along the lines of tongue in cheek, rhetorical questions. Yes, even after the billions of dollars spent to brainwash people and “sell” their load of claptrap the Alarmists still have not proven their point or convinced people to voluntarily embrace their Socialist/Enviro-religious doctrine.
People like Peter, Hansen and Gore don’t give the average person enough credit. THE PEOPLE DON’T BUY IT.
The reason that these “solutions” must be compulsory is they cannot get people to adopt these policies otherwise………it’s a PONZI SCHEME.
This is akin to withholding taxes. If people had to write a check every month to the Federal Government to pay their taxes there would be a nationwide tax revolution….Americans would take the politicians outside of the Capitol……tar and feather them, (maybe do it in the chamber itself). They require businesses to do their dirty work for them so that the average American worker never really appreciates the amount of income taxes that they are paying. Also; if the government depended upon average citizens to write a check to the government every month, they’d never get any money.
That’s why taxes are CONFISCATED from the American citizen before their employers even write a pay check and why these global warming “solutions” must be compulsory.
It’s called tyranny……..oppressive government.
Hi Peter,
To your question regarding the impact of “mitigation” you asked, “Are you taking your figures from Lomborg?”
No.
To your opinion, “But, in any case, this type of anaylsis is completely irrevelant to the problem of whether AGW is a serious problem.”
Actually it is very relevant, Peter. It shows that “mitigation” is a non-solution (to a non-problem).
You wrote, “How about factoring in a couple of metres of sea level rise into your calculations?”
Since coming out of the LIA we have seen around 18 cm per century sea level rise. This has not increased in the latter 20th century as claimed by IPCC (see my earlier post detailing this), but has actually decreased slightly compared to the (pre-AGW) early 20th century.
So at 18 cm rise per century a “couple of meters” (200 cm) would take 11 centuries (let’s say until the year 3100). Ho-hum! Even if this rate of sea level rise were to continue (which is far from certain), we’d just need to call in a few Dutch civil contractors to resolve the problem.
You state, “You are saying essentially the same as Brute. That the AGW problem is too hard, or too expensive, to solve , therefore it cannot possibly exist.”
No, Peter, that is not what I am saying (and I have not read that Brute wrote this, either, as he just clarified for you in his latest post). If you read my posts you will see that I am saying that AGW is a non-problem and that the proposed “mitigation” is an extremely costly non-solution to this non-problem. (I compared in with a multi-trillion dollar “snake oil” cure to an psychosomatic imaginary sickness.)
To your next statement, “I can understand how Sarah Palin, and her band of happy-clappy Christians with their belief in the supernatural, probably think otherwise. That all we have to do is pray and we will all be looked after, but it is not a rational line of thought.”
Are you seriously expecting me to respond to such utter rubbish?
Stay on topic, Peter, and try to avoid hyperbole and political rants. Makes you look childish and silly.
Regards,
Max
PS “It is Trotsky not Trotzky and his name wasn’t included in the analysis sheet.”
Sorry about that. In German his name is written Trotzki. Of couse the real spelling is ???????.
Hi Brute,
Yeah. I caught your “tongue in cheek”, but it apparently went right over Peter’s head.
You are certainly correct when you say that most people do not believe (as Peter apparently does) that AGW is a potential threat, despite the billions being spent to sell this message. Most people are just too intelligent to fall for this hype, and most see that it is really a hidden power and money grab.
To your other point, I can identify with your position on withholding tax.
Switzerland is a tiny country with a fairly homogeneous and self-disciplined population (despite the three main different languages and a smaller local language being spoken in the southeastern mountains).
They only have withholding tax for their equivalent of social security (FICA) tax, but income tax is usually paid in predetermined installments or at the end of the year, depending on the canton.
The tax payment is split up among the community (gets the biggest slice), the canton, sort of like a tiny US state (gets a slightly lesser slice) and the federal government (gets the smallest slice).
Unlike the USA, Switzerland has many political parties. The left-leaning parties (socialists and greens) want to increase the federal slice. They have already pushed through tax reform, whereby “rich” cantons have to share their tax revenues with “poorer” cantons, and are continually trying to expand on this against the resistance of the centrist and right-leaning parties. The greens are generally in opposition to any new highway or tunnel construction or expansion and want to “force” people to use the railway system (which is well developed and expanding) or ride bicycles (not catching on too well).
There is a tax progression (as you have in the USA), where the wealthiest taxpayers carry the bulk of the load. The leftist parties are constantly trying to make the progression steeper. Many wealthy individuals move to cantons and communities that have a lower tax rate, so that the more left-leaning cantons with a high progression rate, lose these taxpayers. Local communities can “cut a tax deal” with wealthy individuals who come to live there. One famous example was the German billionaire, Gunther Sachs, who cut a deal with an impoverished mountain community to pay them millions (but still a relatively low rate). The socialists hate these deals, which they label “flight from taxation”, but the local communities like them.
Non-Swiss workers, who work in Switzerland, are subject to withholding tax, presumably with the justification that they could “skip the country” and leave the taxman hanging.
There is the constant tug-of-war in Switzerland, just like anywhere else in the world, between those who want to “take from the rich and give to the poor” and those who oppose this philosophy.
The socialist motto of “taking from everyone according to his ability and giving to everyone according to his need” does not sit well with a majority of the Swiss, although the big cities (Zurich, Geneva, etc.) are usually more left-leaning than the rest of the country.
Most Swiss would agree with Winston Churchill’s famous quotation: “The vice of capitalism lies in the unequal distribution of its wealth, while the virtue of communism [or socialism] lies in the equal distribution of its poverty.”
But it’s just a very small and prosperous country with generally centrist to conservative viewpoint in the countryside and red/green viewpoint in the big cities.
Regards,
Max
Switzerland sounds nice; I’d like to visit one of these days.
Hi Peter,
For a good summary of yet another IPCC fraud (this one on “water stress impact” of AGW) read this report.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/how-the-ipcc-portrayed-a-net-positive-impact-of-climate-change-as-a-negative/
This is just one of many examples of IPCC inaccuracies and outright fraud. Others involve:
· False claims on sea level rise (see earlier post)
· False claims on Antarctic ice sheet mass loss
· False claims on Greenland ice sheet mass loss
· False claims on Northern Hemisphere snow cover
· False claims on surface vs. troposphere record
· False claims denying a distortion of the surface record due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect
These are some of the outright lies in the latest set of IPCC reports. In addition there are doubtful claims:
· Questionable claims denying past warm periods
· Questionable claims on solar forcing
· Questionable claims on water vapor feedback
· Questionable claims on cloud feedback
· Questionable claims on tropical cyclones, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events
All of these false and questionable claims are used to “project” future changes, which are, by definition, also false or exaggerated.
IPCC has made no effort to provide an unbiased scientific view of our climate, but has concentrated its efforts on “selling” its own views and opinions on AGW and feeding the “policymakers” to whom its reports are directed a false and one-sided view of what it really going on. This appears to have been done in a blatant attempt to gain support for a political agenda involving carbon taxes or cap an trade schemes.
Regards,
Max
Brute,
Yes, Switzerland is beautiful. But take plenty of money with you when you go there. It isn’t the cheapest place in the world.
You might not be able to afford it when the tax bill for the big bank bail out drops into your mail box shortly. You’ll be hearing all the usual election promises but whoever wins there is a looming financial reality waiting to catch up with you all.
The truth is that you guys haven’t been paying anywhere near enough in tax in recent years. Wars aren’t cheap and you can’t just expect to borrow the money in the way you have done, trillions of dollars, and expect there to be no consequences.
It may have been kept fairly quiet in the US but it’s interesting to note that Iraq has finally entered into a 20 year fixed-price deal with a big foreign oil company to develop the al-Ahdab oil field in southern Iraq. It’s quite a big deal, valued at around $3 billion. And that’s just for starters.
The company? Exxon? Chevron? Shell? Total?
I must admit that these were the ones I would have expected a few years ago. But, none of the above. The deal is with the China National Petroleum Company.
Now why would a government that is supposedly a ‘puppet’ of the US not grant such a lucrative long-term contract to US Big Oil?
Of course the official line would be that the Iraqi government was a democratically elected and represents a sovereign state that is not a puppet of anyone. But come on , what kind of a ‘butterballs’ (is that the right American expression) do the US government take you all for? Do you they really expect you to believe this load of pony?
The war in Iraq has effectively been financed by the Chinese, and everyone else who you’ve been borrowing from. They’ve lent your Government back the money that you’ve all been busily spending at Walmart and elsewhere. The Chinese alone hold , at a conservative estimate, over a trillion dollars worth of US treasury bonds. Now I would imagine that the last thing the US government would need right now is these traded in for Euros or whatever. The Chinese are in a pretty good position to call the shots right now. Well out of the way from the danger of the reals shots!
What does this all mean? How about that the US army isn’t acting so much for US interests in Iraq anymore, but rather as a mercenary force for the Chinese government!
It looks like this is really the start of the 21st century and the rise of Chinese power is already well underway.
Max,
Say that AGW was established to be a real problem. Just for the sake of argument. Go on try to imagine that you may be wrong and all, or most, of the world’s scientists are correct. Its not so hard is it?
Would you then still say that it would be totally impossible for humanity to fix the problem?
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “Say that AGW was established to be a real problem. Just for the sake of argument. Go on try to imagine that you may be wrong and all, or most, of the world’s scientists are correct. Its not so hard is it?”
Please provide a list of “all, or most, of the world’s scientists”, who have specifically supported the IPCC take on AGW as expressed in its latest published reports.
Be specific, if you can, Peter.
Awaiting your input to back up your sentence. Otherwise I will have to conclude that it is not fact-based.
As for “humanity” (whodat?) fixing the “problem” (what problem?). Get serious, Peter.
Regards,
Max