Cause for alarm?

Why do scientists and news stories blame everything on global warming? Fortune and glory.

Federal Signal Alarm Bell - Click for sound

Guest post By Paul Driessen, Willie Soon, and David R. Legates

We’re often asked, What really causes all these alarms about global warming disasters?

As scientists and policy analysts who’ve studied our ever-changing climate for a combined 65 years and attribute the changes primarily to natural forces, we’ve wondered that ourselves and also asked: Why is warming always framed as bad news? Why does so much “research” claim a warmer planet “may” lead to more diarrhea, acne and childhood insomnia, more juvenile delinquency, war, violent crime and prostitution, death of the Loch Ness Monster – and even more Mongolian cows dying from cold weather?

We’re not making this up. In fact, this is just the tip of the proverbial melting iceberg of climate scare stories chronicled at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm.

Clearly, too much money is being spent on one-sided global warming advocacy cloaked as “research,” not enough on natural causes and adaptation. Despite the best of intentions, too much money can corrupt, or at least skew the science.

As they say, follow the money. Remember Indiana Jones’ immortal words: “Fortune and glory.”

Too many people in government, wealthy foundations and activist groups have decided they know what’s best for us, what kind of energy and economic future we should have, and who should be in charge. They intend to implement those policies – and global warming scare stories are key to achieving that objective. They’re pouring tens of billions of dollars into the effort.

A good example of how research money politicizes science is this May 4 headline: “Carbon dioxide effects on plants increase global warming.” The story enthusiastically reported the results of a science journal paper by Long Cao and Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution. Carbon dioxide is not just making the atmosphere trap more heat, they say. It also enables plants to absorb CO2 more efficiently, so they don’t have to open stomata (pores) in their leaves as much, and they evaporate less water.

That should be good news, as it enables plants to survive better under dry conditions, even in desert areas where they couldn’t before. Any botanist or visitor to CO2science.org knows this. Indeed, hundreds of experiments show how growth, water efficiency and drought resistance of crop and wild plants are enhanced by higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. So more CO2 and better plant growth should be celebrated – not serve as another “climate crisis” to further the political goal of ending hydrocarbon use and controlling our factories, jobs, cars, lives and living standards.

But the Carnegie folks turned this good news into bad, ominously saying the reduced evapotranspiration means plants don’t cool down as much, and that supposedly raises global temperatures slightly.

Equally interesting, the researchers based their findings not on actual experiments, but on yet another computer model that allegedly predicts future temperatures. When they tweaked various assumptions about the physiological effects of CO2, global air temperature over land increased 0.7 degrees F (0.4 deg C) above what supposedly would occur just from doubled CO2 levels directly increasing the greenhouse effect. But just six months earlier, the same authors tweaked the same model differently – and got only 0.2F (0.1 deg C) of additional warming. The authors now say this earlier result is “unrealistic.”

However, what guarantee do we have that the new assumptions are “realistic”? Maybe they are but, face it, there’s far less “fortune and glory,” far less headline grabbing, in a mere 0.2 degrees. It’s also far less “realistic” to expect another research grant, if the first one could only come up with 0.2 degrees of crisis. That’s not even 9:00 versus 9:30 on an average summer morning.

Besides fortune and glory, and more research grants and publications in prestigious journals, there’s also the matter of reputation. Dr. Caldeira, besides being a reputable scientist, is also an advisor to billionaire Bill Gates on renewable energy, and in charge of the $4.5 million in geo-engineering research funding that the Gates Foundation has provided over the past 3 years.

How many climate scientists can rub elbows with Bill Gates? Glory indeed. So 0.7 degrees it is.

Of course, this does not mean more robust plant growth can never be harmful. But does it really take five researchers and six funding sources (including the National Environmental Trust, NSF, NASA and NOAA) to model ragweed under doubled CO2 computer scenarios and conclude, “there may be increases in exposure to allergenic pollen under the present scenarios of global warming”?

All this makes us wonder: Why is it a bad thing that more CO2 helps plants tolerate droughts better and revegetate deserts? Should we cut down more forests, to generate even more cooling than the planet has experienced since 2005? Why do “error corrections” always seem to result in more warming than originally predicted, instead of less? And why do taxpayers have to shell out Big Bucks on this stuff?

The United States alone has been spending some $7 billion a year on “climate change research.” That’s a lot of money. But a majority of Americans now say climate change is due to natural forces, not to human CO2 emissions. To alarmists that means more “research” and “education” on the “climate crisis” is clearly needed – but not more on better oversight of questionable research or studying natural causes.

During a March 2009 closed-door meeting, Department of Energy senior advisor Matthew Rogers outlined his “dilemma” over how to comply with his new mandate to quickly spend $36.7 billion in grants and loan guarantees from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka, the Stimulus Act) on renewable energy and climate change. Today, with only $300 million of our taxpayer money and children’s inheritance left to spend, poor Matt says his “popularity continues to decline.”

Nearly $2.4 million dollars of that Stimulus loot may be funding the latest research by Penn State University Professor Michael Mann, father of Mann-made global warming, the debunked hockey stick temperature graph and many infamous Climategate e-mails. In one new project where Mike is the principal instigator, over a half-million dollars in grant money generated only “0.53” jobs in Pennsylvania. We must have missed the headline “Stimulus Creates Millionaire.”

We’re not suggesting fraud or corruption by Caldeira or anyone else. But we do find it curious that the vast bulk of the money goes to research that consistently discovers more “global warming crises.” We find several other phenomena equally curious.

* In an era when ExxonMobil posts all its grants on its website, and we have the “most transparent government in history,” government agencies, liberal foundations and activist groups jealously guard information on who’s getting how much money from whom, to finance all this crisis-oriented research.

* Universities are fighting attorney-general investigations, and insisting that any investigations into alleged misconduct must be conducted in-house and behind closed doors. Yet they are happy to give Greenpeace fishing-expedition access to emails and work product by climate crisis skeptics.

* Despite insisting that their research and findings are completely honest and above-board, climate alarmists still refuse to share their data, computer codes and methodologies, or discuss and debate their tax-funded work with scientists who might “try and find something wrong with it.”

If we didn’t know better, we’d think the operative rules were: Never seek logical or alternative answers, if you can blame a phenomenon or problem (like decreasing frog populations) on global warming. Do whatever it takes and fund whatever research is needed, to advance the goals of ending hydrocarbon use, increasing government control and “transforming” society. And always include the terms “global warming” or “climate change” in any grant application.

It may not be corruption. But it sure skews the research, conclusions and policy recommendations.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org). Willie Soon is an independent scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. David Legates is a climatologist at the University of Delaware.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to Cause for alarm?

  1. DirkH says:

    “During a March 2009 closed-door meeting, Department of Energy senior advisor Matthew Rogers outlined his “dilemma” over how to comply with his new mandate to quickly spend $36.7 billion in grants and loan guarantees from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka, the Stimulus Act) on renewable energy and climate change. ”

    Easy. Buy a battery-powered Lotus Elise (or “Tesla”) for every official. Or better two. So one can recharge while he/she drives the other.

  2. Enneagram says:

    Too many people in government, wealthy foundations and activist groups have decided they know what’s best for us, what kind of energy and economic future we should have, and who should be in charge..
    It all began in the “enlightenment” movement, back in the 18th century: Then, the “Illuminati”(the enlightened ones) separated religion from government…after more than 200 years it became a belief, a religion, with all its paraphernalia, its Archbishops, Bishops, Saints, its “holy inquisition”, etc.
    They became what they hated the most!

  3. Neo says:

    I believe that you managed not to mention that “Global Warming” causes dogs and cats to live together.

  4. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    You forgot their magic term for what they are trying to do to us – “behaviour change”.

    It’s a Marxist world religion being imposed by elites who never leave home without bodyguards and can’t even go shopping on foot.

  5. Curiousgeorge says:

    Perhaps all the alarmists could be provided with large white sandwich boards to increase albedo, thus helping to cool the planet. No printing on them of course.

  6. Jimbo says:

    “But the Carnegie folks turned this good news into bad, ominously saying the reduced evapotranspiration means plants don’t cool down as much, and that supposedly raises global temperatures slightly.”

    Yet more plant growth due to co2 would leads to more (smaller) stomata and evapotranspiration. Note that the biosphere is greening.
    —-

    “Equally interesting, the researchers based their findings not on actual experiments, but on yet another computer model that allegedly predicts future temperatures.”

    Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann put their names to a document that stated among other things: “Modellers have an inbuilt bias towards forced climate change because the causes and effect are clear.

    —–

    “It may not be corruption. But it sure skews the research, conclusions and policy recommendations.”

    It is corruption of the scientific method and Mann is being investigated for possible fraud by his local prosecutor.

  7. Wade says:

    There is one thing I like to say: “Ain’t no news like bad news.” Bad news gets ratings. Why do you think network news stations start with the bad news and end with the good news? If there is any good news. The feel good story is at the end, not the beginning or middle. Cable news are even worse. They have 24 hours to fill and they love a bad story. Someone once told me CNN stands for Constant Negative News. The other cable news stations are just as bad. I can sum up what MSNBC pushes in two words: “Conservatives bad”; I can sum up what Fox News pushes in two words: “Liberals bad”.

    It is all about ratings because without ratings, the money is not there. This fact is not lost on scientists. Don Henly had it right in his song Dirty Laundry. There ain’t no news like bad news.

  8. Jimbo says:

    Correction:

    “Yet more plant growth due to co2 would lead[s] to more…”

  9. J.Hansford says:

    “They’re pouring tens of billions of dollars into the effort.”

    …… Not quite right. They are misappropriating our hard earned tax dollars, is more like it. They never use their own money.

    In Australia our Labor government has even included Climate Change spending in the foreign Aid budget. …. Also money for “enviromental programes” gets redirected to climate change groups under the guise of “educating awareness”….. It’s a G’damn rort and the Labor party is happy to oblige.

  10. jack morrow says:

    You can’t have cap and trade without global warming and the disasters that go with it.
    You must have cap and trade to fund your policies and pay for spending and get rich.
    Boy, these answers are so easy! Hope, change, and something to believe in–November!

  11. 4 says:

    Amazing piece! This year we have seen in a number of nations that the public is not as stupid as the UN/IPCC would like to believe.

  12. Henry chance says:

    Look for the money. Watch for the dishonesty,
    Many of the most dishonest people around rail in regards to how much Big Oil gives money. to the skeptics.
    The Nature Conservancy gets 10 million a year from BP.
    If the eco terrorists can whine, activate alarms and get this kind of money they will keep sounding the alarms.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/23/AR2010052302164_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010052203644

    How many of our friends have money from BP? If we triggered fear and sounded the alarms, would we get ca$h?

  13. Logan says:

    The polite style of discourse in the academic and scientific worlds is traditional and appropriate for an abstract discussion. But that is not appropriate in the AGW attack on the West. From time to time, readers new to these issues should be directed to a website such as
    http://www.green-agenda.com
    to learn the extreme political and philosophical attitudes behind the AGW facade. There is a lot more than grant money for a subculture of professors at stake. The AGW hoax is a deliberate and well-funded attack on all industrial nations and anyone to the right of Karl Marx. Lysenko was a choir boy by comparison.

  14. Brego says:

    In a lot of ways, the Global Warming Hoax reminds me of the witch craze in England and the American colonies during the late 1500′s and early 1600′s.

    Back then, everyone “knew” that a witch could not be killed by drowning. It was common knowledge. There was a consensus! And so the dunking chair was employed to test those who had been accused of being a witch.

    That continued for quite a while, but the people finally did come to their senses and put a stop to that nonsense. The reason they did was because in local areas the witch accusations were approaching a majority of the population and the people realized that they could not all be witches because that just didn’t make sense. A critical threshold had been breached beyond which the accusations were simply no longer credible.

    I think the Global Warming Hoax is rapidly approaching this same threshold, if it has not surpassed it already. The accusations blaming global warming have turned stupid and silly, and are no longer credible.

    I think the Global Warming Hoax will end sooner rather than later, undone by its own fervor.

  15. rbateman says:

    “MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW. DECEMBER1898
    ARE OUR WINTERS CHANGING’?
    By ALFRED J. HENRY.
    The frequency and severity of the cold waves that have
    visited the soutbern portion of the United States in late
    years, and the fact that the present winter season began
    much earlier than usual have led a number of people to bake
    inquiry as to what are the reasonable expectations for the
    future ‘? Is it prolsable that a more or less permanent change
    in the character of the winters has taken place? This problem
    is important since it involves a possible readjustment
    of present economic conditions. It is not new, nor is it any
    nearer a clear and definite solution than it was fifty years ago.
    According to the trend of the best thought of to-day the climate
    is not perceptibly changing. The mean temperatures
    obtained by the earliest instrumental observations, both in
    this country and abroad, show no differences greater than
    might reasonably be due to the character of the instruments
    used and their environment.

    The impression that the climate is changing is partly due
    to the fact that in recent times an account of every severe
    frost and freeze that occurs in the South is sent broadcast to
    all parts of the country, whereas, during earlier times no record
    was preserved except of the very severe freezes. This
    very lack of information respecting the earlier minor freezes
    prevents us in a measure from asserting in a more positive
    manner a rule of climate that appears to be common to all
    parts of the United States, viz, that periods of great refrigeration
    generally extend over several years.”

    And today, with the focus on every thing that can be found to bolster the claim of Global Warming, no matter how trivial, convoluted or isolated, is our weather changing once again?
    Or, is the obsessive preoccupation with warming a fatal attraction, whereas the real movement of climate in the populated zones of the Globe are going in exaclty the opposite direction, catching many off-balance?
    Yes, I do believe it is an obsession.

  16. Ben U. says:

    It’s not just fortune and glory. The mana compass points are four: power, wealth, glory, and honor. Not bad in themselves, in fact quite nice to have, but liable to corrupt.

  17. Michael says:

    I hear them talking all the time on the CNBC business channel about countries like China going green and fighting climate change. Fighting climate change is a losing battle as the climate has bee changing for millions of years and cannot be stopped. I just want to rip the TV off the wall sometimes. The TV propaganda machine is Earth’s enemy. They must be stopped.

  18. pat says:

    cause for alarm? LOL

    20 May: Reuters: UK arrests four more in suspected CO2 tax probe

    The HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) investigators also found firearms and large amounts of cash during the early morning raids on seven properties in London and Leicester areas, the agency said in a statement…

    In late April, Germany and Britain arrested 25 people in connection with suspected tax evasion in carbon permit trading.
    European prosecutors are investigating a suspected 5 billion euro ($6.66 billion) tax evasion in carbon trading across at least 11 countries, under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

    Raids and other measures have also been carried out in Spain, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Cyprus, prosecutors said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J53X20100520

  19. tommy says:

    It now also causes UFO sighthings….
    “There has been an unusual number of sightings recently.

    “Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about what man is doing to this planet.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2261941/British-UFO-sightings-at-bizarre-levels.html

  20. latitude says:

    “We’re often asked, What really causes all these alarms about global warming disasters?”

    Who cares Paul, just encourage them to do more of them.

  21. Smokey says:

    tommy,

    Thank you. I love these stories!

    One of my favs was a story from Arizona last year [IIRC] about mysterious lights in the distance. An ex-Air Force officer was quoted as saying, “They were not of this world.” I’ll never forget that quote.

    Turns out the lights were air force parachute flares dropped during a practice mission.

    And the same page you linked had this:

    An equestrian club without horses or stables…

    You couldn’t make it up!

  22. pat says:

    good ol’ Alcoa!

    22 May: Consulate General of the United States, Shanghai: U.S. Commitment to Environmental Sustainability at Shanghai Expo
    Grant from Alcoa Foundation helps make the USA pavilion green
    Offsetting of all GHG emissions through the purchase of high-quality carbon offsets that are sourced entirely from China-based carbon offset projects. These offsets will meet the highest international standards (e.g., the Gold Standard or the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards)….
    Support for the Commitment. The USA Pavilion’s sustainability initiative is supported through a grant from the Alcoa Foundation, which is committed to addressing climate change inside its operations, across its industry, and within communities worldwide. Implementation of the initiative will be carried out by ICF International (ICF), a leading U.S. climate change, energy, and environment consultancy that has long supported the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in developing the annual U.S. national GHG inventory….
    http://www.america.gov/st/energy-english/2010/May/20100522091743abretnuh0.3020703.html?CP.rss=true

  23. George Turner says:

    Reading warmist press releases, you’d think the sun was already expanding into a red giant.

    Oddly, if it was they would downplay it because it would be natural instead of human influenced.

  24. Mike H. says:

    And yet Glowball Warming is going down.

  25. Daniel H says:

    “It may not be corruption. But it sure skews the research, conclusions and policy recommendations.”

    If squandering billions of taxpayer dollars on distorted scientific research in order to skew public policy and create a perpetual self-sustaining gravy train of political and corporate kickbacks is not corruption — then what the hell is?!

  26. u.k.(us) says:

    pat says:
    May 23, 2010 at 7:20 pm
    good ol’ Alcoa!

    22 May: Consulate General of the United States, Shanghai: U.S. Commitment to Environmental Sustainability at Shanghai Expo
    Grant from Alcoa Foundation helps make the USA pavilion green
    Offsetting of all GHG emissions through the purchase of high-quality carbon offsets that are sourced entirely from China-based carbon offset projects. These offsets will meet the highest international standards (e.g., the Gold Standard or the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards)….
    Support for the Commitment. The USA Pavilion’s sustainability initiative is supported through a grant from the Alcoa Foundation, which is committed to addressing climate change inside its operations, across its industry, and within communities worldwide. Implementation of the initiative will be carried out by ICF International (ICF), a leading U.S. climate change, energy, and environment consultancy that has long supported the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in developing the annual U.S. national GHG inventory….
    http://www.america.gov/st/energy-english/2010/May/20100522091743abretnuh0.3020703.html?CP.rss=true
    =========================
    Wonder how many workers lost their jobs to pay for the Press Release.
    Green profits, Green press.
    Subsidised by the taxpayer.
    (I know, a family blog).

  27. Arno Arrak says:

    All true and deplorable. But why give an out to them with …”We’re not suggesting fraud or corruption by Caldeira or anyone else”…??? I do suggest that the entire case for global warming rests on corruption and scientific fraud. It starts with Hansen’s testimony in 1988 when he claimed that global warming had started and that CO2 we were putting into the air was the cause. He already had a computer projection then showing that 2020 would be one to one and a half degrees warmer than the seventies. This energized the global warming movement and brought us IPCC, Kyoto, and Copenhagen among other things. But satellites have been measuring global temperatures for over thirty years and they simply cannot see that warming that Hansen is talking about. What they do see in this time slot are temperature oscillations, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until 1998. That is twenty years after Hansen’s talk. Real warming began with the 1998 super El Nino, not with Hansen’s bogus warming. It was caused by a storm surge in the Indo-Pacific region that dumped a large amount of warm water at the beginning of the equatorial countercurrent near New Guinea. The countercurrent brought it to South America where it ran ashore, spread out, and caused the observed warm peak of the Super El Nino. Its aftermath was the twenty-first century high, a run of six warm years that ended with a La Nina cooling in 2008. Its cause was left-over warm water from the super El Nino. Its average temperature was 0.3 degrees higher than the average of the nineties. This, and not some greenhouse effect, makes the first decade of the century exceptionally warm. And since Hansen’s warming is non-existent and subsequent warming was not carbonaceous we can say that anthropogenic global warming has never been observed. But now comes the real crime: NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office temperature curves all show a “late twentieth century warming” in the eighties and nineties, just as Hansen testified. How is this possible? To find out what is going on I compared their temperature curves with satellite temperature curves. Figures 16, 17 and 20 of “What Warming?” show these comparisons. It turns out that they are all cooked. As in falsified. Lets take the HadCRUT3 from the Met Office and observe what they have done. It has the same resolution as the satellite curve does and the El Nino peaks in both curves can be matched up. They start out by cherry picking the peaks and then raising up the valleys in between to change a horizontal temperature trend into a rising temperature trend. But this works only with the first four El Ninos. The fifth one is out of line and too low for them so it gets raised up. The super El Nino is next and it helps them out but the twenty-first century high is too low for their taste so the entire right side of the curve gets raised up. NASA (Land-Ocean, from Hansen 2006) starts out exactly like Hadcrut3. It almost looks like someone passed out the word to stay with the peaks and adjust the low values as needed. But this works only until 1990 and after that they had to do their own data manipulation. Where HadCRUT3 lifted the curve NASA does not have the nerve to do it and their twenty-first century high is in the right place. NOAA is also in the game and they simply eliminated the low values between peaks and then lifted the right side. This is colossal scientific fraud. Trying to extrapolate this fraudulent warming as the IPCC modelers do will produce nothing but GIGO. And since three organizations are involved it is also a criminal conspiracy. The entire global warming movement rests upon this fake warming but Uncle Sam not only keeps funding it but is taking their policy advice too that will destroy our economy if followed.

  28. jonjermey says:

    Humanity loves apocalyptic scenarios: Why?

    1. It makes them feel important — it’s far more exciting and interesting to imagine yourself living in the End Times, rather than in some boring section of ongoing history.

    2. It promotes solidarity — like the Blitz in London, people can gather together and draw emotional comfort from their common resentment of everyone else.

    3. It allows ‘feel-good’ behaviour — fixing a dripping tap is not just saving on your water bill, it is helping to save the human species from disaster.

    What’s the solution? Unfortunately we may have to wait until the real costs of ‘saving the planet from global warming’ start to become apparent to everyone. Once people start saying: ‘Hold on, I’m not doing that!’ then it becomes much easier to convince them how little evidence there is for their other beliefs.

  29. Frank K. says:

    Finally! Someone writes an article which gets right to the heart of the Global Warming Mania, namely the billions in Climate Ca$h being consumed by our friends in the Global Warming Industry – Bravo!

    “Clearly, too much money is being spent on one-sided global warming advocacy cloaked as “research,” not enough on natural causes and adaptation. Despite the best of intentions, too much money can corrupt, or at least skew the science.”

    And, as someone pointed out above, it’s NOT their money – it’s OUR hard-earned tax money they’re spending like drunken sailors. It irks me to no end to think that 2009 “stimulus” funds were actually dumped into climate “research.”

  30. berniel says:

    Enneagram says:

    It all began in the “enlightenment” movement, back in the 18th century: Then, the “Illuminati”(the enlightened ones) separated religion from government…after more than 200 years it became a belief, a religion, with all its paraphernalia, its Archbishops, Bishops, Saints, its “holy inquisition”, etc.

    I would say it’s more that the science movement attempted separation of knowledge-generation from religious dogma generation. Science (as instituted by RoySoc etc) was supposed to provide knowledge on the authority of its empirical methodology (nothing by word, but by showing, based on experience etc). It was slow to catch on, but especially after WWII, and among all those now educated to high school and above, the authority of science became greater as the authority a centralised state-sanctioned religious dogma declined. The more its power, the more science became exposed to attempts to colonise it for dogmatic authority – to abuse its power. And so, yes, we have corruption of all the types we normally associate with politicised religion.

    Power corrupts and the temptation for scientists was great.

    I get this real sense that after Hansen gave his ’99% certainty’ testimony in 1988, sweating in the glorious light of the TV cameras, a lot of climate science folks (including Schneider) thought ‘jeez, he shouldnt have said that!’ but at the same time they where in awe of the power and the glory such a strong statement generated. Where they to give up their chance for a place in the sun? If we were to be nice we could say that those who (consiously or unconsiously) entered the devils bargain, and took the money, playing to the AWG cause…some of the science done under the cover of this cause has been good science. But can we forgive folks for that? Indeed, I find it hard to do so, because they have exploited the hard won reputation of science, ruined it, for their short-lived power and glory.

  31. _Jim says:

    Wade, May 23, 2010 at 5:49 pm :

    The other cable news stations are just as bad. I can sum up what MSNBC pushes in two words: “Conservatives bad”; I can sum up what Fox News pushes in two words: “Liberals bad”.

    Hmmm … market forces at work: Fox viewership: UP, CNN/MessNBC viewership DOWN.

    You can try and push string (or rope), or you can pull it … which technique suppose works best? Ans: Market forces are RARELY wrong in the long term and yes, you can ‘push’ string but it doesn’t accomplish much …
    .
    ..

  32. Reed Coray says:

    Why do scientists and news stories blame everything on global warming? Fortune and glory.

    Because they can.

  33. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    …as best I can tell, the origin of “runaway global warming” really took off with Hansen in the 1970′s. He was an astronomy student at University of Iowa and studied the atmosphere of Venus (see related WUWT threads on this topic), and spread great fear that, if we reached a certain tipping point, the Earth would evolve into something drastically different and horrible, Venus-like.

    Here’s a recent document by Dr. Hansen:
    http://www.mediafire.com/?trm9gnmznde

    On Page 22 of 39, Dr. Hansen says:
    “The Venus syndrome is the greatest threat to the planet, to humanity’s continued existence.”

    AGW crowd have a real problem with their SOCO (single overriding communication objective). Their SOCO changes minute-by-minute…..on some days, it is catastrophic melting & loss of coastal areas, the next it is death of polar bears, then hurricanes etc. etc. Each scenario is more extreme than the next.

    They’ve lost the trust and even the interest of the public, and really seem to resent “one man, one vote.” Oh well, tough nails, I hope we can stall off the really drastic economic and geoengineering debacles that many propose. Loss of faith in AGW seems to be a worldwide movement, which is interesting.

  34. davidmhoffer says:

    Tommy, Smokey,
    Re UFO’s

    As a teen ager it occured to me that a large ring cut from cardboard and fitted with candle holders could be attached with coat hangers to a large green plastic garbage bag. By lighting the candles and carefully arranging the garbage bag to fill with hot air, one could demonstrate how a hot air baloon works.

    I maintain that this was a high school experiment and that I was in no way responsible for reports of large green glowing objects that ranged in size from several meters to “a football field” and which were traveling from “just hovering there” to at least “two hundred miles an hour”. Those were clearly actual UFO’s and had nothing to do with my experiment which escaped ooops I mean had to build all over again because of not having thought of the need for a tether. Never found it, one of the UFO’s probably got it.

  35. DJ Meredith says:

    The alarmists aren’t gonna like this at all!!!

    “Death rates in children under 5 are dropping in many countries at a surprisingly fast pace, according to a new report based on data from 187 countries from 1970 to 2010. ”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/health/24child.html?src=me

    They’re supposed to be dying at a surprisingly fast pace…….because of global warming.

  36. R. Gates says:

    The post said:

    “Too many people in government, wealthy foundations and activist groups have decided they know what’s best for us, what kind of energy and economic future we should have, and who should be in charge. They intend to implement those policies – and global warming scare stories are key to achieving that objective. They’re pouring tens of billions of dollars into the effort.”

    _______________

    Budgets? Data? References? “Tens of Billions of dollars” would buy a whole lot of “scare” stories. I find hyperbole on both sides of this issue…

    REPLY: Hmmm. Sometimes I think you must live in a shack in the woods by yourself with a cat, with only a dialup connection. Oh wait, that’s Tamino.

    But you really need to get out more.

    Here’s your numbers: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

    It’s quite well known to those that choose to look. – Anthony

  37. Darren Parker says:

    Global Warming has caused thursday nights to be on tuesday mornings instead now

  38. Don E says:

    The more scare stories the better. A scare story will often be so outrageous that even someone who is scientifically challenged will say “that can’t be true.” So for every scare story you create more skeptics. Additionally, is it business psychology 1A that fear is the least effective means of selling a product. People tend to tune out. Scare stories are the skeptics best friends.

  39. Bill Tuttle says:

    Frank K.: May 23, 2010 at 8:23 pm
    And, as someone pointed out above, it’s NOT their money – it’s OUR hard-earned tax money they’re spending like drunken sailors.

    The difference is that a drunken sailor will stop spending when he runs out of money.

  40. Al Gored says:

    Fear sells. Extortion works. The eco-crisis research-industrial complex sells fear the same way the military-industrial complex does.

    Stranded polar bears, mushroom clouds. AGW, WMDs. The same trick.

    Give me money or the planet will die. Or, give me money so I can save you.

    Its an offer we can’t refuse. The media is owned by them so they deliver the message, repeatedly. That’s the way brainwashing works.

    Any doubts about the complicity of the media in this have been erased by their silence or spin of what the Climategate leaks really revealed, and their complete silence on any of the real questions about the whole AGW story.

    The only reaction so far is that they have reduced the number of daily climate doomsday features, but they are still coming out as if nothing has changed.

    ——-

    rbateman noted (May 23, 2010 at 6:17 pm) “MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW. DECEMBER1898, ARE OUR WINTERS CHANGING’? By ALFRED J. HENRY.”

    About our perceptions of climate change. A huge factor now that is constantly exploited by the media parrots, is that there are video cameras everywhere all the time so every event is featured. And selectively, of course. Flash flood in some village in Tierra del Fuego is suddenly world news. It adds up. Brainwashing.

    And who can forget that reporter telling her scary story from a canoe when some guy walked by behind her in ankle deep water? That kind of crap is happening constantly. At their most honest, the video focuses on the worst case, e.g. the one low lying street in a town that happens to be flooded, etc.

    —————-

    Henry chance noted (May 23, 2010 at 6:01 pm): “Look for the money. Watch for the dishonesty… The Nature Conservancy gets 10 million a year from BP.”

    The chairman of the Nature Conservancy is or was Hank Paulson. Enough said.

  41. Pete H says:

    Slightly O/T

    pat says: May 23, 2010 at 7:20 pm and u.k.(us) says: May 23, 2010 at 7:51 pm
    “22 May: Consulate General of the United States, Shanghai: U.S. Commitment to Environmental Sustainability at Shanghai Expo ..Grant from Alcoa Foundation helps make the USA pavilion green”

    Coffee over the keyboard moments again guys!

    I have been in Shanghai for the last 3 years. First we had to put up with the upheaval over the Olympics and for the last year its been the bloody Expo!

    GREEN???? I think the Consulate General has probably not been out of the U.S. compound for 18 months!

    Putting aside the Expo site itself and the impressive engineering that has gone into it, Shanghai has once again been ripped apart and painted! Imagine ripping up the many parquet block pavements and replacing them! Miles and miles of the bloody stuff, forcing pedestrians to chance there luck with Shanghai’s fine drivers! The crazy thing is, the old pavements were in good condition but I guess if someone has a budget to spend..they find a way to spend it!

    China has spent an estimated $4.2 billion on this fun, get together, so how the Consulate General can claim to be “Green” is beyond my confused brain. The amount of air travel alone that the inept U.S. organizers ( http://shanghaiscrap.com/?p=2926 ) have made would be in the “Carbon Budget” of the building? What about the Expo visitors travel? Make me wonder how they plan to “Green Cool” the building in the next few, hot, humid, months!

    Putting all that all aside, I am sure Anthony, with his love affair with L.E.D. lighting, would love to visit the Expo simply for the light show each evening. It even made a cynical old goat like me stand open mouthed watching it!

  42. Captain Tuttle says:

    “Why do scientists and news stories blame everything on global warming?”

    Because they have to. It’s the domino effect. If something is not due to humans, it immediately weakens the causation because just about everything is related. For example, if Arctic sea ice decline were to be natural, then what else would be natural?

    For this reason it is unlikely we are responsible for most of the warming, because the attribution of universal change to AGW is not plausible. Sure a bit of warming is man made…but compared with other changes it’s likely to be small.

  43. Perry says:

    A possible “cause for alarm” might, repeat might, be EQs in the region of Katla in Iceland.

    Lo & behold!

    http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/myrdalsjokull/

    Steinunn Jakobsdottir, a geophysicist from the Icelandic Meteorological Office, told the BBC that the Eyjafjallajokull volcano was “kind of dormant for the moment”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10144911.stm

  44. savethesharks says:

    Once again, Anthony, a razor-sharp post.

    In a related topic, I just got my new National Geographic entitled “Greenland. Ground Zero for Global Warming.”

    Now….as I have always considered Nat Geo one of the greatest magazines in the world, I have also always taken with a grain of salt their political bent….thinking, you know, it is what it is.

    Well I have skimmed the articles…not read them yet, and the interesting thing is, save for the “but global warming” phrases [like GW is some inanimate or animate object or creature] appear in the first article describing the moulins, the tone is overall POSITIVE for Greenland.

    DUH. Yeah, but don’t let Mann have any say so. Remember….the MWP doesn’t exist.

    Interesting subtitle quote for the second article, called “VIKING WEATHER”:

    Quote: ” As Greenland returns to the warm climate that allowed Vikings to colonize it in the Middle Ages, its isolated and dependent people dream of greener fields and pastures…and also of oil from ice-free waters.”

    But then the author asks: “When I ask [Greenland native] Poulsen if he thinks global warming will make life easier for him or his child, his expression becomes almost pained…. ”

    Poulsen: “‘Last year we almost had a catastrophe’, he says. It was so dry the harvest was only half as normal.’”

    Of course , damningly, NOWHERE does the article provide a chart or refer to the Atlantic Multidecadal Osciallation.

    You wanna know what it was so dry last year?? Geez.

    But they sure do talk about the soot from third-world coal factories in Asia [a legit concern] that kills the albedo.

    My big beef is the juvenile one-sidedness of these magazines and journals.

    Sure, coal dust from inefficient third-world Asian crap coal plants is contributing to the loss of albedo in the Arctic and Greenland.

    But what about the ****ing AMO and many other hereto-unknown other oceanic cycles???

    So this leaves us with the title page of this months Nat Geo, which only tells one bl**dy myopic viewpoint and I quote the title: GREENLAND, GROUND ZERO FOR GLOBAL WARMING.

    Nat Geo….I have given you lots of money over the past 20 years. Keep it up, and you will have one less subscriber.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  45. David, UK says:

    “It may not be corruption.”

    No? It sure smells like it.

  46. Kate says:

    Arno Arrak
    “…Lets take the HadCRUT3 from the Met Office and observe what they have done…”

    Can you publish a link to the graphs from HADCRUT3 you are using?

    According to their website http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/jan_2010_update.html they have corrected their original graphs.

  47. anna v says:

    I think that on the evolutionary tree we have a long way to go.

    We are primates with self consciousness and awareness, who can ask: “who am I”.
    We still are dominated by the primate herd’s instincts and social responses.
    Alarms are very important on the evolutionary scale. We, our genes, are from ancestors that heeded alarms. The ones who didn’t never propagated their genes. The reaction of primates to alarms is with the whole body. First run away, then evaluate.

    When we had the series of earthquakes in Athens in 1981 or so, for about a month we were like a bunch of monkeys on tree being shaken to fall down. The physiology takes over, the impulse on the muscles to run with every tremor is immense, even though the brain says one is safe. I have promised myself that if it happens again, I will put on my running shoes and run around the block to dissipate the anxiety.

    The fact that we have a brain and imagination means that the scope of alarms can expand enormously with imagined dangers . That is where the quacks and semi literates can take over a crowd’s mentality, where the precautionary principle arises . Even though the alarms are intellectual, the physiology resonates and forces the primate patterns, “run first, look back later”.

    In our earthquake case, we got earthquake prophets alarming the populace, scientists who were quite good in their original field taking over and becoming seismic experts, measuring this that and the other and predicting with flimsy numbers and bad statistics and analysis all sort of large earthquakes. The populace gobbled hungrily the lot. It is again primate behavior/impulses, the need to have leadership in the herd, expressed on the intellectual level .

    In a sense, if there were truly a danger, this collective behavior would be useful. Suppose the data shows the ice age is coming in 200 years. Collective anxiety about this would be useful to husband resources and find ways to face the change.

    What has happened with global warming is that some people are manipulating society with a false alarm. Some in good faith, following their prophetic delusions, but more and more it becomes obvious that the thesis “follow the money” applies, as shown here.

    We could say that the manipulators are like cannibal predators ,they are aware of the primate herd behavior and are directing it for their own well being, treating the crowd as prey.

    Let us hope that the winters turn colder and colder. No manipulation can work then. Reasoning, facts and scientific evidence have small weight against the released behemoth of AGW and the avarice of cap and trade.

  48. Ibrahim says:

    Look what’s in the yellow and click.

    http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/canada_e.html

    It’s a gouvernemental organisation.

    See also Defra’s old website (England): “This website reflects the policies and priorities of the former government prior to 11 May 2010. The contents of the website are under review and are subject to change.”

    http://www.defra.gov.uk/index-old.htm


  49. The authors above mentioned a recent study published by Carnegie Institution investigators Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, and observed that they had “…based their findings not on actual experiments, but on yet another computer model that allegedly predicts future temperatures.

    I immediately flashed on the statement articulated by Dr. William Happer of Princeton University on 20 May 2010 before the House Select Committee on Energy and Global Warming at the invitation of Edward Markey (National Socialist, Massachusetts), in which he said:

    “Over the past ten years there has been no statistically [significant] global warming. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC computer models. The existence of large climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control the climate. To the best of my knowledge, none of the climate models designed to predict future climate have been successful in explaining these past fluctuations of the climate. If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?”

    And then I recalled my experiences in wargames design and development.

    When I was in college, commercial “conflict simulations” boardgames – wargames largely employing die-cut cardboard counters and hex-gridded maps – became something of a flourishing industry. This continued through the mid-80s, whereupon “SPI Died For Your Sins.”

    Having been there while it was happening, I tend to go along with Greg Costikyan’s explanation of why the industry got kilt, but I strongly suspect that a major factor – unaddressed by Costikyan – was that by the mid-80s a great many of us baby-boomer males who had been largely supporting the wargames publishers not only got married but started raising kids.

    Ceteris paribus, wives hate their husbands’ hobbies. And keeping a diningroom-table-deployed wargame from being catastrophically dislocated by cats and house-apes is effectively impossible. To this day, there is a cardboard counter designating the Scharnhorst somewhere behind a baseboard in my home. I have long since resigned myself to its loss.

    Now, in addition to being a former wargamer, I am also a former wargames designer and developer, strongly affiliated with Simulations Publications, Inc. I have some considerable experience of the methods by which SPI games entered the gestation process, how systems were devised to effectively model historical events, what mechanisms were used to make these conflict scenarios into real, playable, balanced games instead of heuristic intensive manual simulations (and at SPI we did just that – once and never again).

    Think of those wargames created in the ’70s and ’80s in much the same light as we speak of computer models for any purpose.

    The sine qua non of our work – for a damnably finicky core clientele of grognards whose knowledge of military history rivaled that of the teaching staffs at Carlisle, Leavenworth, and Newport – was that each wargame must be capable of simulating the historical events of the war, campaign, or battle we were addressing, and doing it pretty goddam precisely.

    The “what if?” element had to come later, despite the fact that our customers bought and played these games chiefly out of a desire to explore possible alternative outcomes. I cannot tell you how many times (and how many ways) I have been involved in explorations of what might have happened if Longstreet’s corps had swung wide to the south of Round Top on that second day at Gettysburg to take the Army of the Potomac in the left flank and rear.

    (Mostly, the answer to that question is found in Clausewitz’ “friction of war.” It doesn’t work all that well. By the afternoon of 2 July, VI Corps was lurking back there in reserve, and it would take a helluva stretch on the credulity muscles to assume that Longstreet wouldn’t have Sedgwick down his throat like a dose of castor oil had he tried an end-around like that.)

    Despite the fact that commercial wargames design and development in those days was a completely informal and non-rigorous process – decidedly not undertaken for any academic purposes whatsoever – we were held to exacting standards when it came to our obligation to “model the past” accurately.

    Much more so than are these AGW fraudsters today.

    The reason why the AGW hucksters cannot come up with accurate and reliable models of the climate (or any aspect thereof) is because their incentives are precisely the opposite of those under which we were operating in the commercial wargames industry twenty and thirty years ago.

    We were under immense pressure to maintain adherence to documented factual reality, and their “Fortune and glory” comes entirely from supporting blatant falsehoods which are conducive to socialist and mercantilist scheming on the part of professional politicians and other bloodsucking sons-of-anonymous-fathers.

    Interestingly, I recall being involved in the late ’70s with a young meteorologist whose hobby was wargaming, and who wanted to develop a “conflict simulation” that modeled a succession of hurricane seasons impacting the southern and eastern United States. He planned to have the game system “generate” the hurricanes according to then-understood principles of Atlantic tropical storm gestation, and the game player would allocate resources, both in anticipation of likely landfalls and remediatively, to get the maximum positive outcome for the expenditures made.

    The damned thing foundered on our conjoint inability to get a hurricane-cranking system that came remotely close to simulating historical hurricane season events.

    And by the looks of it, even with their oh-so-sophisticated megabuck mathemagical computer models today, the “climatologists” aren’t doing any better than he and I – working on paper and without much more than a calculator – could do back in ’79.

  50. Alexander says:

    Another excellent article; WUWT continues to grow in status with the quality of posters and their offerings.
    David M Hoffer: Your story rings memory bells. At a student party many years ago a couple of us made two tissue hot air balloons powered by tiny spirit burners crafted from the bottom end of a Coke can. We released them into the night sky and were struck by their etherial beauty as they slowly drifted from sight. The reponses in the local newspapers next day made one think hard about the thought processes of the citizenry – everything from ‘spy drones’ to UFOs were thought to be the cause of the ‘sinister’ and ‘threatening’ lights in the sky. We felt any confession would not be believed as the truth was too mundane and unthretening.

  51. JustAddWater says:

    Thanks anna v – I enjoyed that analysis, though I guess Greeks have more than earthquakes to be alarmed about atm…where’s Σωκράτης when you need him?

  52. Alexander says:

    Sorry for the mis-spellings – thick fingers!

  53. Your example of higher CO2 on plants typifies the difference between the sound science and the climate alarmists.

    On the one hand we have a certain, measurable benefit that can be tested and reproduced by any researcher in a laboratory: higher CO2 causes plants to close their stomata, leading to less water loss, thus less requirement for water. That’s an absolutely certain benefit where agriculture, especially where marginal and water-stressed areas are concerned.

    The other side of the coin is that reduced evapotranspiration results in slightly increased temperatures, supposedly leading to a slight global warming. Here, the effect is much more tentative and remote. For a start, it is a very tiny effect on a global scale, and not to be compared with the benefits of reduced water usage and the ability to grow crops in dry areas.

    Moreover, I wonder whether the alarmist researchers did their homework on the full effects of increased CO2. Increased CO2 not only reduces transpiration, it also increases the rate of photosynthesis, and photosynthesis is an endothermic process, thus cooling the plant. Thus, any reduction in transpiration must be netted off against increased photosynthesis, and when this is done, is the result positive or negative?

    In reality, these alarmist ideas are pure folly – highlighting a minor, tentative and uncertain downside when there is a major and certain upside. In many fields, such a one-sided presentation would be regarded as dishonest. For example, if one creates alarm by only mentioning some possible minor side effects of a drug or intervention without mentioning the life-saving and definite advantages.

    Simply by crunching the numbers it is obvious that increased CO2 is going to have a dramatic benefit to crops for humankind, but a negligible effect on global temperatures due to transpiration. A doubling of CO2 would increase agricultural production by at least 30%, not only by increased photosynthesis but also by bringing some dry but rain-fed lands into productive use, and enabling a limited supply of water to be used for irrigating more land. That’s a very real benefit. On the other hand, vegetation utilizes only around 1% of incoming solar radiation. Plants only cover part of the earth – not oceans, not icecaps, not deserts etc; C4 plants are up to 7% efficient, and C3 (which are the most abundant) up to 3.5% efficient; so, all told, less than 1% of solar insolation utilized. Changes to photosynthetic rates and transpiration rates are playing around with fractions of this 1%. Who knows whether the effect will be positive or negative from a heating point of view? Whatever the answer to that, the magnitude of the effect is utterly negligible in the scale of things, whereas an increase in crop production by over 30% is definitely NOT negligible, and an unquestionably positive benefit.

  54. FrankS says:

    Richard North suggests that the greenies replacement for Climate scares will be Biodiversity here

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/05/fading-away.html

    And you can see the logic, it is a global issue that affects pretty much everything that mankind does, requires a worldwide framework to save the planet and it gives these “feel gooders” plenty of scope to call for regulation and taxation to salve their consciences and force the non believers to do their bidding.

    Oh and last but not least there will be plenty of conferences in Bali, Maldieves, Rio…….all of course in the name of saving the planet.

    Has anyone told Al Gore?

  55. Roger Carr says:

    The populace gobbled hungrily the lot. – anna v (May 24, 2010 at 12:44 am)

    Which is probably the full answer, Anna V. “When we had the series of earthquakes in Athens in 1981…”

    Now, having done our running away, we will pause and look back and allow ourselves time to think and consider. We will then be more difficult to bolt, and as the dark side grows more shrill it will begin to meet resistance, and finally contempt.

  56. Brent Hargreaves says:

    Anna V’s comment above (May 24, 12:44) is a fine piece of analysis.

    Those of us who see Global Warming as a fairy tale are sometimes amused by the warmists’ hysteria, their endless stream of dud predictions, their ever-growing list of bad things caused by global warming. And we are sometimes exasperated when we observe the success that the end-is-nigh brigade have enjoyed – UN bodies, government departments, windmills and commodity exchanges to name a few.

    If we are so right (which we surely are) how come the preposterous scare story has not yet collapsed? And how much longer will its zombie corpse stagger on? And how come we cannot despatch it with one athletic lunge of the rapier? (Oops, mixed movie metaphor there – Dawn of the Dead meets the Three Musketeers!)

    I think that Anna’s analysis can point the way. If we understand the psychology behind the AGW myth can we confront it more effectively and then defeat it. She makes the good point that a few cold winters will help reduce AGW advocates to a laughing stock, but these slippery customers can play the “temporary reprieve” card for decades to come.

    For what it’s worth, I see two possible strategies – one scientific and the other political.

    Scientific victory can come from focussing the debate on the two key AGW arguments: positive feedback and greenhouse forcing. Demonstrate (as excellent WUWT articles argue so often) that climate has natural negative feedback mechanisms – rather than positive with its consequent (yeek!) tipping point – and we kick away a leg of their stool. Demolish the IPCC claim (Chapter 2, p.136) that CO2 is far-and-away the biggest temperature driver (dwarfing water vapour, dwarfing volcanic, dwarfing solar) and the theory collapses.

    There remains the possibility that feedback IS positive, and carbon IS the only game in town, in which case the IPCC, and the Royal Society, Australia’s AAS and the US’s NAS have been advising governments wisely. In this case, we doubting Thomases must shut up and get building that ark, muttering “Sun and cloud have no effect on climate… who’dathunkit?!”.

    Political victory is, I think, much harder. Nobody on the sceptic side can match Al Gore’s presentation skills, but boy do we need a hero; with the US’s EPA declaring CO2 a pollutant, the reputation of this useful trace gas will be mud for a long time; with a UK government department bearing the title “Energy and Climate Change”, their raison d’etre is embedded in the language. (If they create a Ministry of Exorcism and Witch Drowning I bet they’d manage to recruit and to spend the budget with great skill.)

    Is the AGW theory a vast conspiracy? I think not. It’s more likely a form of mass delusion afflicting especially the intelligentsia. Does it “at least raise green awareness”? Perversely, yes, but I think it diverts precious resource from vitally important areas such as habitat conservation, and is more likely to lead to green-fatigue among the general public.

  57. Just ME in T says:

    Better get those thermal undies out… they will blame frostbite next!

    Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA. Has a very different point of view.

    “You thought last winter was bad? Wait until this winter,”

    “Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been,” says Easterbrook. “Twice as many people are killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat.”

    http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/05/mighty-freeze-coming-our-way.html

  58. Dr Soon, Legates, Driessen
    Keep up the good work. People are aware of what is going on, and what is being done – in the name of climate science.

  59. Stefan says:

    Al Gore’s Holy Hologram says:
    May 23, 2010 at 5:32 pm
    You forgot their magic term for what they are trying to do to us – “behaviour change”.

    This is actually my own #2 or #1 objection to the AGW movement. They are apparently unaware that you can’t change people. Certainly, you can’t change people’s core values, aspirations, and needs. If they just consulted developmental psychology properly, they’d see it can’t be done. Nobody knows how to do it. At most you can coerce people, force them, impose stuff. That is all.

    Even if AGW was 100% true and catastrophic, relying on progressive behaviour and social change is the slowest most ineffective and least likely to succeed method when time is short. Positive social change takes 50 to 100 to 200 years, depending on how deep you need it to go.

    The only solutions are technical. If the technology doesn’t succeed, then we are screwed and civilisation will be thrown back to more primitive culture. That’s the irony — they focus on social progress but without technical foundations it would just create social collapse to a more barbaric era.

  60. Ulric Lyons says:

    @ Enneagram says:
    May 23, 2010 at 5:27 pm
    “after more than 200 years it became a belief, a religion”

    And on top of that, they proffess to be athiests. While Vicars are very open to the idea of natural variation, and would see Planetary Ordered Solar Theory, as the best example of the perfection of god`s creation. Its just some wierd theater, where they have swapped hats.

  61. Ken says:

    “Mass Delusion” is right. What’s driving the alarmisn is a form of neurosis, which a writer at the Wall Street Journal summed up nicely at:

    Global Warming as Mass Neurosis, By Bret Stephens, July 1, 2008; Page A15
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    As for activists & intellectuals knowing what’s best for the rest of us, consider Eric Hoffer’s observation:

    “One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation.”

  62. Roger Carr says:

    Rich Matarese says: (May 24, 2010 at 1:47 am) The authors above mentioned a recent study published by Carnegie Institution …

    Wonderful read, Rich! Thank you.

  63. Joe says:

    Obama’s energy contest so far has been a bogus bust.
    But I did enter into another contest ConocoPhillips Energyprize and recieved an e-mail from them to submit a good presentation for the judges as the contest fits exactly into efficiency of energy which this contest was made for the research I have done of 18 times more efficient turbine.
    Last years winner was an oil for windturbines that is more efficient.
    This contest still allows me to keep my ownership of the technology and ConocoPhillips has the right to make the first offer on any technologies.
    I do not fit into the government grant area of belonging to any approved organization or institution. So that avenue is out.
    In the long term, this will be how I will fund that web school on mechanical science.

  64. Frederick Davies says:

    If you want to have a laugh at the ridiculousness of this whole thing, read this…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7755563/Mammoths-contributed-to-global-warming-with-methane-emissions.html

    How they managed to measure the farting behaviour of the mammoths is something best left unanswered.

  65. Vincent says:

    This shows just how utterly one-sided climate change research has become. Whereas a genuine and impartial climate scientist would look for both pros and cons, to these guys, the word “pro” doesn’t even exist. You can almost imagine them in their crisis headquarters:

    “Damn, these higher CO2 levels are gonna lead to higher levels of plant productivity. If we don’t stomp on this right away, the public is gonna get the idea that more CO2 might even be – gasp – good for the planet. We’ve got to find something negative about CO2 on plants – no matter how minor, irrelevant or risible is sounds. Yeah, here’s one – too many plants means more hayfever. That could be a major economic cost – billions of hayfever sufferers fleeing across borders to escape pollen tsunamis.”

  66. Vincent says:

    Anna v’s analysis of how alarmism works is interesting but doesn’t appear to apply in this case. Although in theory a larger brain should create alarm from abstract dangers, in reality this alarm of which Anna speaks – rising heartbeat, adrenalin rush etc – does not exist in the world of AGW hysteria. Apart from a handfull of psychiatric cases, nobody is fearfull about this. Even those who believe all the hype are acting out of guilt, not fear.

    This is strange, because abstract sources of alarm can induce fear. We saw that during the financial meltdown in 2007, and we will see it again as the sovereign debt destruction spiral begins to unfold. I can only attribute the lack of AGW induced fear to the possibility that nobody believes it, or if they do, they believe a modified version in which the outcomes will be mild, and given enough time humanity will adapt.

    I guess people aren’t so dumb after all.

  67. hunter says:

    John Maddox, past publisher of “Nature” magazine, noted this with disdain.
    He wrote a book about this problem called “The Doomsday Syndrome”.
    I urge anyone who wants to understand how scientists and media and political forces have combined many times to over state threats, misstate risks, spread pointless fear and waste great sums of money to read the book.
    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday_pr.html
    The book is available on Amazon.com:

  68. Enneagram says:

    The elites who fought, during the “enlightenment” era, emperors, kings, queens and tyrany, and took them down then, want to become the new emperors, kings and queens of a “Brave New World”, they too are now the Archbishops and Bishops of the Gaia Religion. Non-believers will be persecuted, condemned and sent to the stake because they think themselves as the ones who know what is best for humanity, who are convinced that through their “social justice” will make us all happy because “they know what’s best for us, what kind of energy and economic future we should have, and who should be in charge”
    They, being the “chosen ones”, as back in history, Kings, Queens, emperors, archbishops and all the “nobility”, feel they are the only possessors of the truth; THEIR truth: an unphantomable universe filled with scary monsters, like Global Warming, Black Holes, White Dwarfs and so on , that they preach on us, like the unbearable David Susuki.
    We, the doubters, doubt of their truths, so dear for them. We skeptics do not follow their dogmas because we are FREE. Our new “bastille” is near, just keep your necks clean folks!


  69. Frederick Davies speculates: “How they managed to measure the farting behaviour of the mammoths is something best left unanswered.

    Best or not, I can assuredly answer that.

    They didn’t measure the critters’ greenhouse gas emissions.

    They modeled ‘em.

  70. DirkH says:

    “Vincent says:
    May 24, 2010 at 5:29 am
    Anna v’s analysis of how alarmism works is interesting but doesn’t appear to apply in this case. Although in theory a larger brain should create alarm from abstract dangers, in reality this alarm of which Anna speaks – rising heartbeat, adrenalin rush etc – does not exist in the world of AGW hysteria.[...]”

    In a way it does. Arguments with real life Believers (not only AGW, but also Anti-Globalisation, Greenpeace-style enviromentalism, the “we must change our ways or we will all perish” style types) quickly lead to increased adrenalin in them when they run out of arguments. Just tell one of them in the face that global warming has at least paused during the last decade and they’ll quickly resort to “Yes, but we need to decarbonize the economy anyway because we’ll be running out of oil.” Now tell them that a) a lie for a good purpose is still a lie and b) point to the abundance of shale oil/gas and coal. You’ll get their adrenalin up in no time.

  71. Tim Clark says:

    It also enables plants to absorb CO2 more efficiently, so they don’t have to open stomata (pores) in their leaves as much, and they evaporate less water.

    But, but, but, I thought the IPCC said increased water in the atsmosphere was a positive feedback? /sarc

  72. Bruce Cobb says:

    Stephen Schneider aka “Doctor Doom” himself said ”we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
    Selling doom isn’t easy, you know. So cut them some slack. They’re doing the best they can. Sheesh.

  73. evilincandescentbulb says:

    Why is AGW called a mass mania, an anti-humanism and a new age doomsday religion preaching apocalyptic Thermageddon?

    Because us realists have been watching this dumbing-down of society and the government-funded education system for years, and global warming alarmism is just one of many indications of the spiral into oblivion of Western civilization, i.e., behaviors leading to the ruction of morals, ethics — the principles of the scientific method — that undermines our personal faith and shared cultural confidence in our abilities to overcome ignorance and superstition with reason and knowledge, and rubs all of our collective noses in societies’ lack of will to discriminate between good and bad or reward excellence and personal achievement over self-destruction and self-defeating nihilism.

    If you don’t know and understand that fear of global warming is simply a symptom of a sick, corrupt and mentally dysfunctional zeitgeist — a case of global societal ADHD that has spread across and infected all of the Leftist and liberal fascists in the Northern hemisphere — then, answer these questions:

    “Why do scientists and news stories blame everything on global warming?

    “… Why is warming always framed as bad news?

    “Why does so much ‘research’ claim a warmer planet ‘may’ lead to more diarrhea, acne and childhood insomnia, more juvenile delinquency, war, violent crime and prostitution, death of the Loch Ness Monster – and even more Mongolian cows dying from cold weather?”

    “… Why is it a bad thing that more CO2 helps plants tolerate droughts better and re-vegetate deserts?

    “… Why do ‘error corrections’ always seem to result in more warming than originally predicted, instead of less?

    “And why do taxpayers have to shell out Big Bucks on this stuff?

    “… If we didn’t know better, we’d think the operative rules were: Never seek logical or alternative answers, if you can blame a phenomenon or problem (like decreasing frog populations) on global warming. Do whatever it takes and fund whatever research is needed, to advance the goals of ending hydrocarbon use, increasing government control and ‘transforming’ society. And always include the terms ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ in any grant application.

    “It may not be corruption. But it sure skews the research, conclusions and policy recommendations.”

    [Paul Driessen, Willie Soon, and David R. Legates, Cause for alarm, May 23, 2010]

  74. denmason says:

    There is a way to stop this nonsense. Stop paying your taxes! Stop listening to these swindlers. These idiots should be laughed at. It’s all just a money grab. If this bull was real and these idiots were really concerned, they would be using their own money. They are addicted to money…. your money. They want all of us to support their addiction so they can keep up their life styles. It will continue until we rid ourselves of these parasites once and for all.

  75. Jim G says:

    It’s the Lemming instinct. It occurs in many walks of life; politics, corporate politics, any group or committe, and now science. People want to be on the “right” side of an issue. The two main reasons I have observed are 1. self benefit ie $$$ and 2. to be associated with whomever they believe to be the movers and shakers. Like the lemmings, they many times swim to their own destruction. John Wayne is credited as having said that “life is tough and it’s tougher if you’re stupid”. Remember, that by definition, the average IQ is 100 which leaves a huge portion of the population below that level. Room temperature IQ’s can now obtain any degree they desire if they have the time and money: PHD, MD, no area of education is exempt from this rule. A hundred or so years ago if you were stupid you might not make it to pass along your weak genes. Not so more recently.

  76. LarryOldtimer says:

    It is a basic neccessity for governments, for themselves to survive, to predict crises which can be dealt with only by large government intervention. Without such predicted crises, there would be little perceived need for large and controlling government.

  77. Mark Buehner says:

    Anybody catch the hatchet job ABC did on climate change/climate gate yesterday before Lost? A whole segment on poor Michael Mann and others who feel physically threatened by rabid “denialists.” They reference the latest Inhoffe report, and summarize Climategate in one sentence- that further investigations had found no wrongdoing whatever (also made it a point to claim the emails were stolen, which is not a proven fact). These guys are shameless.

  78. Pascvaks says:

    ‘The United States alone has been spending some $7 billion a year on “climate change research.” That’s a lot of money. ‘
    __________________
    Seems like it’s high time to elect representatives and senators and presidents and governators and ministers (the non-denominational irreligious type) who vow to cut budgets and do away with waste in state and federal spending. The two main parties are mirror copies of each other so that little item is worthless as a means of distinguishing the credibility of the candidates. Maybe we should institute a vow of poverty as a prerequisite for nomination.

    PS: I think we up a creek without a paddle folks.

  79. Tenuc says:

    The Gaia hypothesis was first posited in the 1960s by James Lovelock. This load of complete and utter hog-wash struck a chord with a group of people who rapidly developed this piece of cargo cult science to the status of religion – the worship of mother earth.

    Time for people to wake up to the fact that far from being a benefactor, our environment has always been trying to kill us and this has made us who we are!

  80. kwik says:

    Tenuc says:
    May 24, 2010 at 11:54 am

    “The Gaia hypothesis was first posited in the 1960s by James Lovelock…”

    Yes, well, even Lovelock has stated that this AGW stuff is nonsense, so I hope the Gaia-followers that visit WUWT has noticed this…….hehe.

  81. evilincandescentbulb says:

    Even worse than knowing Warmanism is no more than astrology is realizing that the use of numerology by secular, socialist schoolteachers in the government-funded education dropout factories — to further the global warming hoax — represents the dumbing-down of all Western civilization.

  82. Enneagram says:

    evilincandescentbulb says:
    May 24, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    government-funded education dropout factories So it was designed by UN’ s UNESCO: A factory of “gammas” for the “Brave New World” owners. Salaries and wages have been too high in Europe and in the US, with the appropiate currencies debasement and convenient inflations they will reach competitive levels with China and India.

  83. PatB says:

    I live in the Oakland hills at 1000 feet elevation. When I go down the hill to get a quart of milk I experience a temperature rise of about two degrees. If I were to go to San Jose a couple dozen miles south I would also experience a similar warming. So I guess I should stay here on my hill so as to avoid acne.

    Years ago after reading about all the diseases that warming was going to bring I reasoned that San Francisco would come to have the same malaria rate as Los Angeles in a warmer future. LA is about three or four degrees warmer than SF. So I looked it up. The malaria rate of SF was zero. The malaria rate of LA was also zero. Hmmm?

  84. Parorchestia says:

    I am puzzled as to why the AGW protagonists don’t vigorously dispute the arguments in these posts. Do they think their cause is best served by ignoring all the objections raised to human-induced GW? Or are they unable to? How on earth have they gotten such a hold over our decision makers with science that is looking increasingly shonky? There are catastrophes in the making – the destruction of scientific credibility, and deep harm to the economy.


  85. Parorchestia asks: …why the AGW protagonists don’t vigorously dispute the arguments in these posts. Do they think their cause is best served by ignoring all the objections raised to human-induced GW?

    Speaking from recent experience, warmists do not commonly appear in this forum (or other fora like it) because their concept of an environment hospitable to disputation is one in which articulate and informed critics of the anthropogenic global warming fraud are suppressed.

    Not only is this not the case on Mr. Watts’ Web log, but because it is not the case (and because Mr. Watts seeks central contributory participation from individuals like the authors of this post, who are unarguably both scientifically literate and articulate), this Web site tends to draw readers who value such literacy and who bring to their comments that proper attitude of skepticism which is required to participate effectively in the give-and-go of valid discourse.

    Mr. Watts does most certainly see that his forum is moderated. What he does not do is to obliterate opinions contrary to those he himself espouses. That cannot be said about the warmist fellahin and their sorry and specious simulacra of disputation on the Internet.

    What reason could a supporter of the AGW fraud have for posting in a virtual “place” like this one? They have no case that can be made for assertions that lack support, and even those who are utterly gormless when it comes to the usages of public debate sense (I’m reluctant to use the word “think”) that they have about as much persistence and efficacy in an open venue frequented by genuinely educated and honest men and women as does a paramecium in a blast furnace.

    I myself take immense delight in leaping into the midst of the fascisti and whacking about in such a target-rich environment. Factual reality has pretty reliably “got my back.” These people, though….

    Well, say what you like about their intellectual bankruptcy and their moral depravity, but they do show levels of animal cunning and a self-preservation instinct that any biologist must find worthy of thorough appreciation.

  86. Wayne Delbeke says:

    When we insult and debase our fellow man, we debase ourselves. When we point a finger at someone, we have three pointing back at ourselves.

    I enjoy the many references provided on this site. I have many bookmarks to keep me up to speed on information. Thank you for the excellent access to information. however some of the personal comments, though often entertaining, are a distraction and denigrate the site.

    But then I live in Canukistan where I just rode horseback 25 miles in two inches of snow and enjoyed it (it almost always snows on the May long weekend in Alberta). Most Canucks (other than Green Peacers and Suzuki-ites – oops my apologies in advance for that ;-0 ) appreciate politeness and access to intelligent Internet sites. (and I too dropped my subscription to National Geographic a while back.)

    WUWT is a great site. The recent dialogue with Environment Canada over the temperatures at Eureka was excellent. There were a number of interesting threads. But lately … I wonder why the dialogue has gotten a bit edgy … spring fever?

    The sun is shining on my deck, the snow is mostly melted, the pastures are green and the grass is growing …

    May EVERYONE have a great day.

  87. Smokey says:

    Wayne Delbeke:

    “But lately … I wonder why the dialogue has gotten a bit edgy … spring fever?”

    A dozen, or maybe less, posters from climate progress, realclimate, tamino, or from their own blogs, come here intent on stirring things up by disputing everyone else over even the most insignificant points.

    They are certainly not all objectionable, and several of them do a good service by keeping the rest of us on our toes.

    But a few of them have their On/Off switch wired around; they argue with everyone else about everything that goes against their world view.

    It is the price WUWT pays for its rare no-censorship policy, which opens up the rest of us to incessant polemics by a few. But it also makes WUWT a place completely unlike the heavily censoring warmist blogs. Ideas and concepts from both sides get thrashed around here, until the only ones left standing are the un-refuted ones [like natural variability explaining the climate - had to throw that example in here].

    Anyway, it sure beats being an echo chamber for true believers.

    You have a nice day too.

  88. Parorchestia says:

    I thank Rich for his explanation as to why the warmists do not enter the debate on fora like this, but if they do think disdain is the best strategy, they must have forgotten their Shakespeare. Polonius (he was the one who, to the the snickering amusement of countless generations of schoolboys got stabbed in the arras) advised Hamlet thus:

    “Beware
    Of entrance to a quarrel but, being in,
    Bear’t that th’ opposed may beware of thee.”

    Good advice, in my opinion.
    The warmists’ position is weakened by their refusal to debate – it speaks volumes of the poverty of their arguments. If they are not aware of this; the public will be – they aren’t fools.

    Incidentally, the warming here in New Zealand has been minuscule since the 1850s. We have extremely good records that show this. Our glaciers are advancing, we have even had icebergs appearing off our south coasts. The animals I am interested in, which include some semitropical creepy-crawly imports, stubbornly refuse to recognise global warming and refuse to move South towards cooler climes.

    Warmists try to explain this by saying our climate is not representative because we are surrounded by ocean which strongly moderates our climate. But this argument can be refuted by the fact that temperature stations situated on islands remote from anywhere, without deserts or smoke stacks, and unaffected by urban heat island effects must reflect global background temperatures.

  89. savethesharks says:

    Vincent says:
    May 24, 2010 at 5:29 am
    “Anna v’s analysis of how alarmism works is interesting but doesn’t appear to apply in this case. Although in theory a larger brain should create alarm from abstract dangers, in reality this alarm of which Anna speaks – rising heartbeat, adrenalin rush etc – does not exist in the world of AGW hysteria. ”

    ========================

    It doesn’t have to. It is the same herd-stomping and rushing….just SLOWED down from the amygdala response….to a pattern of mass cognitive dissonance.

    Both conditions are emotional and reflex based…not on science, reason, or logic.

    In fact, the amygdala flight instinct is sometimes correct. So it deserves some credit.
    Think of the throngs of New Yorkers migrating on foot away from lower Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001.

    But cognitive dissonance is rarely, if ever, legitimate.

    Cognitive dissonance is rather unique [and unfortunately endemic] to our species.

    And cognitive dissonance…is the chief mechanism in the embarrassing phenomenon of CAGW. We see it all the time. Bypass the data. Circumnavigate logic with clever fallacy. Conveniently slip out of honest debate. Try and instill fear in the masses, as opposed to honestly educating them to think for themselves.

    The foregoing are all hallmark characteristic behaviors of individuals who convince themselves subconsciously to believe what they WANT to believe, and selectively denounce everything else. James Hansen? Michael Mann? Al Gore?

    The groupthink, herd mentality is all too evident. Anna V was dead right about this being an indictment on our evolution.

    And her prescient analysis very much does apply to our species, and to the Church of Hotter Day Saints…an organization that rules the current worldwide scientific community with a sweaty, hand-wringing, Inquisition-like hands.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  90. savethesharks says:

    Brent Hargreaves says:
    May 24, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Is the AGW theory a vast conspiracy? I think not. It’s more likely a form of mass delusion afflicting especially the intelligentsia. Does it “at least raise green awareness”? Perversely, yes, but I think it diverts precious resource from vitally important areas such as habitat conservation, and is more likely to lead to green-fatigue among the general public.

    ================================

    Bravo. Extremely well said.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  91. Roger Carr says:

    Chris, Norfolk, VA, USA — Church of Hotter Day Saints
    I’ll salute that one, Chris!

  92. evilincandescentbulb says:

    Why does the AGW enviro-whackpot religion reject the scientific method? For the global warming alarmists, truth is measured by its utility, i.e., the means of rationality is only useful if it justifies the desired ideologically-motivated end result. The dispassionate search for truth for its own sake holds no value when the maximization of political power is the sole objective and perquisite of the few. The `few’ always will reject humanity’s authority and eschew all principles that underlie a belief in enduring primacy of individual liberty and personal responsibility as a God-given right that is foundational to a free people in a just world.

    _______________


  93. evilincandescentbulb writes:

    “The `few’ always will reject humanity’s authority and eschew all principles that underlie a belief in enduring primacy of individual liberty and personal responsibility as a God-given right that is foundational to a free people in a just world.”

    I would ask that people please drop these incessant appeals to religious belief when railing against the warmists as themselves being religious True Believers.

    There are ample objectively verifiable reasons for supporting the “primacy of individual liberty and personal responsibility” and really none at all when it comes down to dependence upon an appeal to the ineffable. To cite the putative ratification of a deity (“whatever you perceive him to be: hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin“) is not only unnecessary but positively pernicious.

    “The scientist who yields anything to theology, however slight, is yielding to ignorance and false pretenses, and as certainly as if he granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake.”

    – H.L. Mencken

  94. Jack near Chicago says:

    Seems to me that most stories I read tell us how bad things will get when it warms, but never address the fundamental question if or whether the warming is very likely to occur.

    This simpleton always thought that more CO2 would stimulate more plant growth leading to more food and oxygen. Is that such a bad idea?

  95. Jack near Chicago says:

    It always seemed to this simpleton that more CO2 would lead to more plant growth which leads to more food and oxygen. Is that such a bad idea??

  96. evilincandescentbulb says:

    Why does the AGW enviro-whackpot religion reject the scientific method? Why can’t global warming alarmists admit basic facts? How can the secular, socialist schoolteachers of the government’s fascist education complex continue to support MBH98 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph) when it is a proven scientific fraud? How can the Democrat party continue to support AGW commie dogs who are driven solely by their ethos of anti-capitalism and Anti-Americanism? How can an agency of the government define CO2 as a poison and a pollutant? “Why do scientists and news stories blame everything on global warming? Why is warming always framed as bad news? Why does so much ‘research’ claim a warmer planet ‘may’ lead to more diarrhea, acne and childhood insomnia, more juvenile delinquency, war, violent crime and prostitution, death of the Loch Ness Monster – and even more Mongolian cows dying from cold weather? Why is it a bad thing that more CO2 helps plants tolerate droughts better and re-vegetate deserts? Why do ‘error corrections’ always seem to result in more warming than originally predicted, instead of less? And, why do taxpayers have to shell out Big Bucks on this stuff?” How come Leftist-libs are incapable of seeking logical or alternative answers and are compelled to blame America for the problems of the world, “like decreasing frog populations.” How far will the AGW fearmongers go to do “whatever it takes and fund whatever research is needed, to advance the goals of ending hydrocarbon use, increasing government control and ‘transforming’ society” into their socialist Utopian state? For how many more years will legitimate science be polluted with the inclusion of, “the terms ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ in any grant application,” to gin-up the funding for more filing cabinets full of junk science? How much fiat currency will be printed to pay for the lifestyles of those whose only job is to ride the backs of the productive?


  97. evilincandescentbulb (26 May 2010 at 9:49 am) voices a bunch of good questions.

    Might I venture to suggest that answers are to be found in the writings of positive (as opposed to normative) economists, with specific attention to Adam Smith, Richard Cobden and John Bright (of the Anti-Corn Law League), Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Thomas DiLorenzo, and Walter Block

    Sorry if I’ve left anybody out.

    In terms of expense associated with such reading, the Web gives access to much that these scholars have written, including the opportunity to extensively sample the recent promulgations of currently practicing scholars such as Dr. DiLorenzo, Dr. Block, and Dr. Sowell.

    For light entertainment incidental to this process, permit me to recommend the novels Alongside Night (J. Neil Schulman, 1979) and An Enemy of the State (F. Paul Wilson, 1980).

    If you haven’t read either of those two works of fiction – which bear up remarkably well despite their ages – you really ought to get your hands on ‘em.

    Especially now that the Euro is descending to its intrinsic value (i.e., the smelter price of the base metal tokens into which a one-Euro note can be broken) and our Mombasa Messiah is channeling Rudolf E. A. Havenstein (look up “Weimar Republic” and “hyperinflation”) to make the U.S. dollar worth precisely as much as that JPG computer graphic image he’s been passing off as a legitimate Certification of Live Birth.

  98. mrtouchdown says:

    The other night I was driving through a bad neighborhood and I saw Climate Change stealing a TV out of someone’s house.

    Seriously though, it’s a fad. It’s a straw-bogeyman that everybody can feel good about taking a swipe at as a blanket excuse. As soon as it’s cool to boo someone off a stage for bringing up Climate Change it will disappear. That time might be near!

  99. evilincandescentbulb says:

    AGW prognosticating was a smithy’s craft. In an age of technology, reason and hope, they traded for sheepskins by pounding out the coffin nails that were used to bury science.

Comments are closed.