If only we were more like China…
Eric Worrall writes:
The Guardian, a green British newspaper, has published yet another green sneer at democracy, with reference to the recent climate agreement between China and America, contrasting the efficient obedience of the Chinese government, with the “difficulties” Obama will encounter, when he faces the democratically elected representatives of the American people.
According to the Guardian,
“While Chinese apparatchiks will, presumably unquestioningly, jump to realize President Xi Jinpingās order to reduce carbon emissions in an ambitious deal with the United States, Barack Obama will come home to a newly elected Congress that will probably tell him to neuter his climate change agenda or be prepared for the kind of knock-down, drag-out fight that could potentially end with a government shutdown.”
This is not the first time greens have expressed open contempt for democracy. Who can forget former NASA GISS chairman James Hansen’s glowing praise of the Chinese way of doing things http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/18/hansen-would-rather-have-us-ruled-by-china/ , or even more blatant calls for anti-democratic extremes, such as Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki’s call for people who disagree with him to be jailed? http://www.nationalpost.com/Jail+politicians+ignore+climate+science+Suzuki/290513/story.html
The utter contempt greens hold for democracy, or for anything which empowers ordinary people to obstruct their ruthless pursuit of their goals, is in my opinion a trait they share with other villains from the pages of history.
A belief in imminent catastrophe is a moral slippery slope – if someone truly believes the world is on the brink of destruction, what wouldn’t that person do to stop their nightmare from being realised? What crime could possibly be more awful than a horrific vision of the whole world dying?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of deep greens, that road to hell is paved with their utter, unshakeable belief that they know better than other people what is good for them, and with a totalitarian willingness to override the concerns and rights of others, in a singleminded effort to realise their warped vision of global salvation.
How could anyone be praising China’s efforts to keep to the status quo but chastise the US for actually making strides?
Granted, this is all a debate in a vacuum but I’m really intrigued how so few people could have critical reading/comprehension skills.
there you go again, assuming intelligence.
Making strides? Was this a test?
Yes.
Sorry, you flunked…
Ā ā¹
Did I pass? š
Darn it. The last part of your post didn’t show up in my notification.
Since I failed, do I get do overs?
After all, I’m making strides!
Apparently you don’t remember what it was like in most US cities back 30, 40 years ago–the smog was thick and palpable.
Now it’s a whole different situation and it wasn’t because China cleaned up their act.
Ah. Context.
I remember quite well the smog and water pollution. I am a fan of the EPA due to this memory. I’m for re-missioning them and not “defunding” or destroying them entirely. I’ll get flak for stating that here, but that’s find.
I assumed, the post to which I responded was germain to the topic of the “pact” between China and the U.S. as I don’t see this pact as “making stride”.
As the press has recently stated, climate change action may be Obama’s greatest legacy. What faint praise. Look ,he has shown total failure in EVERYTHING he has attempted. Six years is more than enough to qualify as a total fail. His hypothesis has been falsified. What an appropriate ending having the climate hoax as his greatest achievement .
Time to defund his mistakes and let them die on the vine. Another watermelon has fallen of the truck and is all over the highway.
latecommer2014,
I realize that this response will be entirely counter to the political leanings of this site, but how about some perspective. The “Press” stated? Hindsight is the best tool for evaluation of presidents. While this is the topic of the day, let’s remember that he navigated us through the most challenging financial crisis in recent history. Do we have debt yet to pay? Yes. Do we deserve to have to pay it? You bet. We (via our leadership) allowed the crisis to occur, realized that financial institutions cannot be left to their own devices, and have done pretty much nothing to correct the situation. And this happened through the thread of “leadership” of both parties. So let’s not rely on the “Press” as our guide as depending on which “Press” one consumes, the orientation will vary.
INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama has agreed to triple the cost of energy in the US as compared to China which will result in increase job loss from the US to the China due to the higher cost of energy in the US. China has a strategic plan. The US has madness.
PBS noted in their November 12, 2014 segment on the China/US ‘agreement’: China is the number one world supplier of wind turbines (China restricts the export of rare earth elements which they have developed monopoly for. The rare earth elements are required to construct the wind turbine generator magnets and wind turbine bearings. China purchased the US rare earth company and then moved all of the US rare earth manufacturing equipment to China and subsequently closed the US manufacturing plant). China is the number one world supplier of photo cells, due to low labor costs. PBS stated that China is ‘helping’ the US reach our ‘green’ energy goals by supply us with all of our wind turbine and solar cell ‘needs’.
Obama’s executive order will enable the EPA to force US utilities to install wind turbines and to force utilities to install solar farms. The objective of Obama’s executive order is to get the green movement’s support to help with reelection. The unintentional consequences of the Obama executive order is further job loss to China.
The US and EU are losing the industrial war with China. That is a fact. Job loss and well paying US and EU jobs is the crisis, not AGW. Enough is enough. It is time to stop this green madness.
William Astley +1. The Guardian is extraordinarily naive – no, make that disingenuous. China’s leaders can say what they like but their actions past present or future don’t have to match their words (a bit like Russia saying it had no intention of invading Ukraine, and later saying they hadn’t invaded Ukraine).
The Chinese must be having a good laugh over this – they are making money hand over fist selling stuff to the USA which makes the USA even less competitive, and the USA is applauding them for it and vowing to go at it even harder. Has any democracy ever willingly worked so assiduously on its own destruction?
William I too agree with your general analysis. The missing parts are: China’s emissions of CO2 will “peak in 2030”. Well, that was going to happen anyway. They are going nuclear. They are building a Thorium fluoride reactor right now. They are building several Sasol coal to liquid plants. There is a rumour they are building a direct conversion CTL plant in Inner Mongolia but the technology involved is unclear.
By 2030 they will be energy independent and hold their CO2 emissions below the 2030 peak level. It will not require any changes in policy or pace. There is about a trillion tons of coal in Mongolia, right next door. (South Africa also has more than 1000 years worth of coal.)
Gas from Russia, oil from Canada, coal and Thorium – they have enough to run for centuries. In the meantime compact fusion reactors will be sorted out. The “greens” of that day will insist we stop killing so many birds and bats with windmills.
One reason the Chinese leaders have no interest in meeting their targets is that they have even less interest in having 1 billion starving citizens starting the next revolution.
Actually, the current leaders are smart enough to understand that they have to keep the peasants at least marginally happy. The Chinese standard of living has increased substantially over the past decade and a bit.
Today most Chinese are happy with their life, but give the one chance to go abroad and stay and they will. I have asked many why and the reason in most cases is they do not trust any government in China. Everything might change tomorrow, you never know what will happen in China. Most of all you have no influence. But life today is good, they have everything we have and more. Most well of families have a nanny and they who are better off have cars with a driver. They live in mansions within the city and they have money. Most of them have a bit less, but still have a good life.
The deal between Obama and Xi is clear. Xi will not sacrifice anything and will not cut any emissions. He will just continue business as usual. If not he will face huge domestic problems. By 1930 it’s estimated the population in China is at it’s peak and it will just be natural emissions will go down anyway. China is also investing heavily in nuclear power which will help for years to come.
Uh, Rolf, I think you mean 2030.
And the whole thing being even funnier in that the Chinese are actually doing absolutely nothing about reducing emissions under this agreement anyway! I think they are “considering” stopping the increase in CO2 emissions by 2030, or something like that. And this is lauded in the Grauniad! Priceless.
Holy smokes Rob, thanks for noticing this too. I can’t quite get over the fact that so many people appear to be oblivious to the fact that China has essentially promised to increase their emissions for the next 15 years and that somehow everybody is applauding this as a coup d’etat climate treaty breakthrough. I mean for goodness sakes! How gullible can people be?
Mark/Rob: The way to test this story is to reverse the roles: China for USA – and then imagine what the Guardian’s article would have read like…
Maybe the EPA can pretend the Chinese are actually cutting and introduce those fictional models into its EnviroAtlas simulations for K-12 science classes. http://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/atlas.html
If there’s a multimedia presentation, it must be real. Warned about this virtual reality danger.
Yes, not just increase their emissions, but increase them as fast as possible, so as to provide the highest possible base level from which to peg future emissions. And the Guardian are falling for it.
Not to mention they have “promised” that *only* 80% of their total energy mix will be from fossil fuels! Meanwhile, 3% will be wind and solar, 6% from WOOD and the remainder from hydro and nuclear. Somehow this is an enormous achievement in the eyes of greenies and leftoids.
The idea is to make believe China is taking action so they can sell their action plans. This way they can explain the world won’t cross the extremely dangerous 2 degree C threshold by 2036 as predicted by Mann.
Rob,
Yes my interpretation of what they said was that they would continue building coal fired power stations at the rate of one a week until around 2030. How that equates to a huge cut in generation capacity by the USA is difficult to understand. However, what is not difficult to understand is how easily the Chinese premier will be able to sell the agreement on US industrial suicide in China.
Much ado about nothing.
They agreed to “Targets” because the current administration (et al.) in Washington is easily fooled into thinking they “have a deal”. China will do what it wants and this announcement probably quantifies their “best guesses” as to what will happen anyway. China, unlike the USA and the European alarmists, will not allow anything to get in their way to interrupt or stall their economy. China has some very smart folks looking into their future energy requirements, advising policy based on economics, and we just polarize it with politics. Our alarmist “smart” folks in contrast, not so much.
Rob said: “And the whole thing being even funnier in that the Chinese are actually doing absolutely nothing about reducing emissions under this agreement anyway! I think they are āconsideringā stopping the increase in CO2 emissions by 2030, or something like that. And this is lauded in the Grauniad! Priceless.”
I pointed this out to the greenies from 350.org on a facebook post they released that was all unicorns and rainbows over the Obama/China agreement.
They all got pretty quiet after that.
I asked them how much temperature decrease the agreement would secure.
Crickets.
I asked them why they didn’t demand more of their leaders.
Crickets.
These people have such poor reasoning skills. Ghads.
I saw the lack of commitment from the Chinese in the wording. I didn’t bat an eyelid because the Chinese will do whatever they want regarding co2 emissions, now and in 2030 and the US can’t do anything about it.
Ernest Moniz, Secretary of the US Department of Energy, spoke this morning at SLAC, Stanford University. Among other climate-related comments, he revealed that the during Obama’s just past visit, the US agreed with China to pursue a project to achieve large scale carbon storage.
Secretary Moniz was careful to distinguish between sequestration and large-scale storage. They’re talking about a very large project. He said that the work on this project will be carried out in China. That will mean transfer of money, most likely in the many billions.
So we can surmise why the Chinese are, in part at least, happy with the agreement. It involves the US giving them lots of money. And any useful technology that’s developed will be at least half theirs.
Spot on. And supposing they do develop a sequestration process, who will use it [not China] and who will buy it [USA] and whose economy will thus go forwards [China’s] and whose economy will thus go backwards [USA]. And the money to achieve all of this came in the first place from ….. USA! Oh well, I suppose if you want to be barking mad you might as well do it thoroughly.
Maybe they mean they’ll store the co2 in the ocean?
Unbelievable foolishness from the enviro-whacko leftists all over the world who failed to note that China can burn coal, burn coal, burn to up their emissions to unbelievable levels to 2030 while they are bringing their nukes on line, then easily drop emissions as the coal plants are decommissioned or rejigged to run on natural gas making them look like geniuses with how they reduced emissions.
Amazing how many people only read the headlines. Course the news media and politicians know that.
Oh well. I’ll be dead by then but the ride has been amusing.
This NYT graphic shows how successfully the Chinese have played this for pr purposes (as indeed has Obama’s tame press and spin brigades). The US agrees to reduce its carbon footprint to 17th century levels (or thereabouts, I haven’t done the maths), the Chinese say they might do something after 2030 but will continue on their current course at least until then. America cuts its own economic throat and the Chinese look on with amused and profitable indifference. Win-win for them, economic and social disaster for the US. And, by 2030, China’s population will (they expect) stop growing – see a report on that aspect at Jo Nova’s blog.
https://twitter.com/nytgraphics/status/532626387468050433/photo/1
@RichiP.
Yes, well pointed out. Good graphical illustration of this deal.
I could not believe that the Obama administration would spin this as a victory for US negotiating prowess, and for the environment and climate. If I were the head of this negotiating team, I would hang my head in shame, and slink off to a quiet hicksville US town, and retire.
And yet we see Hussain Obama, grinning and crooning as if he is a world statesman with a feather in his cap. The guy has no shame. He is a clown and a retard, and he has been whipped fair and square by the Chinese. And while I am quite happy to see Obama being whipped, the whole of America has been whipped too. And China knows it.
Hang your heads in shame, Americans, you now have the same influence on world politics and affairs, as Albania.
Ralph
.
…. Is that whipped or wipped?? For Obama, it could be either…….. š
Ralph
At the core of environmental extremism is a belief that the enlightened state is always right. In a word, it is fascism.
More like Marxists.
Both are totalitarian. Mussolini said it succinctly, ” “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
I talk to Marxists on the blogosphere and they are in favor of progress, whereas the Greens are against it. The Marxists consider this pseudo leftist scum (PLS) as a blight on humanity.
A lot of marxists joined the green movement after the Soviet Union fell. Former General Secretary of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev got heavily involved with the green movement after he lost his old job – I’m sure he brought plenty of his old pals with him when he made the move.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Gorbachev
“… Since his resignation, Gorbachev has remained involved in world affairs. He founded the Gorbachev Foundation in 1992, headquartered in San Francisco. He later founded Green Cross International, with which he was one of three major sponsors of the Earth Charter. He also became a member of the Club of Rome and the Club of Madrid, an independent non-profit organization composed of 81 democratic former presidents and Prime Ministers from 57 different countries. …”
it is simply the Watermelon Branch of National Socialism.
Green on the outside, red on the inside.
National Socialism is fascism, but with an environmental “uber alles” twist. The state controls (dictates) anything and everything it wants, as long as the profiteering industrialists, who are allowed a handsome personal profit and property and elitist status, kowtow to the state and by extension, the “green” agenda. Elon Musk is probably the prototypical Watermelon Fascist Billionaire.
They are worse than Marxists if now that’s possible.
Simply a different spelling of the word.
I agree. It is a curious policy victory of the Left over the years! It was they who wanted to distance themselves from fascism. So they claimed that the Nazis were a “far right” party, when in fact, they were the National “Socialists” party, a party that wanted the people to look to the state to solve there problems real or perceived, they want total control over the lives of ordinary people!
Given the impossibility of competing in the free market place against an authoritarian government lording over forced and directed labor, I wish Great Britain, except for the Graniad, a long and authoritarian-free future. We just don’t need more of that kind of competition in a world of steadily diminishing freedoms.
“Given the impossibility of competing in the free market place against an authoritarian government lording over forced and directed labor, ”
Sorry dp but China does not have the forced and directed labor as you state. There might be forced labor for prisons, but the vast majority of people in China participate in a free labor market. This is evidenced by rapidly rising wages and standards of living in the areas like Shenzhen, Guangdong, Shanghai, Beijing, etc. In fact the problem of rapidly rising wages has gotten so bad that some factories are closing in China, and reopening in a special zone next to North Korea, to take advantage of North Koreas truly ‘forced and directed labor.’
When you say “free labor market”, the Chinese actually do get paid–not much, but it puts food on their table.
Nobody wins working for free.
/sarc
Every Chinese must have a “certificate of domicile,” and cannot live or work in any place, other that the one stated in this certificate. Most of the Chinese cannot work in any other place without getting a special permission. There are quotas for workers who get such permissions, and even these permissions are temporary — after working the allowed amount of years in a sweatshop factory, a worker must return to his former place of domicile. Anybody who speaks about “free labor market” in China is living on another planet.
>>Sorry dp but China does not have the forced
>>and directed labor as you state.
Rough quote from ‘Gone With the Wind’. Rhett Butler says…. “A man with no food in his belly is not free’.
Indeed, if you are that poor that you have no choices in life, you are still a slave. And since a slave is someone with a subsistence living and no choices in life, then the majority of Chinese workers are still slaves. It always amazes me that the Liberal Left will condemn slavery, yet have reinvented slavery in China and made us all dependent on it.
If you are buying a torch for $1 or a lawnmower for $25, you are a slave owner dependent on slavery, just the same as the plantation owners of the 18th and 19th century. It matters not if the shackles are made of iron or made of hunger – it is still slavery.
Ralph
@Kozlowski – Kind of amusing. What happened to first Japan, then South Korea, Taiwan and other Asian nations, is now happening to China. It is a new domino effect
Alexander Feht, You are behind with your history. Although some backward cities and states in China may indeed still require a “certificate of domicile” which allocates where you may work and live etc. in the growing areas of China especially Shanghai, the demand for skills and labour by PRIVATE companies is so much that workers simply find they have enough wealth to eat and live according to the free market and are ignoring the old regulations. Interesting my language tutor from Shanghai had observed that first hand.
It is also significant that the administration do not appear to be enforcing the old rules and I believe the policy is to let them wither as they become redundant.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Roger,
Yes, many are working illegally and ignoring regulations — and each one of them can be arrested any minute, beaten, forced to return home, if not end his days in jail. The fact that the government gangsters connive at the violation of their rules when it suits them, doesn’t mean that there is a free labor market in China.
Oh, I forgot: your language tutor from Shanghai says otherwise. I should prostrate myself in the dust before his traditional Chinese wisdom of never criticizing the authorities.
Alexander Feht,
“and each one of them can be arrested any minute, beaten, forced to return home …” etc
Do you care to state your sources for your opinions?
Mine are based on what people who were there have told me, Including during the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and the rise of Zheng Xiao Peng and the times since.
Hate to tell you old son, but if you want to take the time to see the architecture of HK, Beijing and Shanghai etc. you might just realise that China is no longer the place you think it is.
Cheers
Roger
Evolution:
Sierra Club, Green Peace, Earth First, Michael Mann, Obama Care man Gruber.
China too is in reverse evolution also.
Well, gee, The USA used to do this “elites-only decision” stuff all the time under King George III (I think it was called “Georgecare”), right up until the time of the American Revolution.
Now we’re supposed to bow to the will of a bunch of “basement dwellers at mom’s house” idiots who think “scientific methodology” is something you do to save someone from choking and “accurate data” is restaurant recommendation on YELP.
I don’t think so.
Um… this comment made as much sense as a Yoko Ono concert.
Have you tried playing the concert backwards?
Will playing a Yoko Ono concert backwards cause my glassware to unbreak?
Sorry for the presumed knowledge of American history (George III was the British king during the US revolution).
The point was the USA decided a couple of hundred years ago that we chose to conduct our public affairs as a representative democracy, as opposed to unilateral decisions by an unaccountable king. These representatives are located in the US Congress (House & Senate), not in the Executive branch.
Thus the US constitution requires the Senate to provide “advice & consent” regarding foreign treaties. Hopefully, Obama’s agreement will not pass muster.
That should clear up my feelings about unilateral executive action; however, I’m in total agreement on the value of a Yoko Ono concert.
Chip,
The Constitution, like all agreements, contracts, and laws, is just an old manuscript if the people sworn to protect and enforce it instead disregard it or (mis)use only those parts that they find useful. The population of the USA is so poorly educated on The Constitution now that most could not tell you what it was or why it was written, So the country can be easily mislead by glib politicians trying to feather their own nests and fill their own wallets happy in the knowledge that if they attractively bait every hook the low information voters will vote for them. The result is that what The Constitution was intended to prevent: government by fiat, has returned and every section of The Bill of Rights is under threat.
It is not only the USA that is under this threat, the same is happening in Europe where politicians are building a Eurocracy that is unaccountable to the people. The same authoritarian approach is also being taken by the UN in many areas including the invented claims of ‘Climate Change’ to allow authoritarian treaties.
Meanwhile the low information populace watches ‘reality’ TV and MTV in ignorance of what is going on around them.
That’s an adolescent interpretation of history.
Better than being lied to and called stupid.
Of course, evidence indicates the lies were directed toward the Democrats, who voted for hell care hook line and sinker.
They’ve still not been told.
Rainbow Six
Tom Clancy
1998
When I first read that book so many years ago, I thought Clancy was off the mark with his portrayal of certain rabid environmentalists. After listening to the rantings of the activists over the years since, it seems that Clancy’s portrayal was rather moderate.
They wouldn’t blink an eye at the thought of the death of 7 billion humans just to “save the planet” … especially for the enjoyment of the activists.
Nothing changes much in the cast of the human theatre. It is just he same in Chesterton’s brilliant, and brilliantly funny, masterpiece: “The Man Who Was Thursday”, written more than a hundred years ago, with a glorious description of the hunger for radical action in the meek middle classes, where the villains are the global anarchists, or terrorists, as we would call them today, but the typology has not changed.
Our next Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau (may God have mercy on all Canadians) when asked which country he most admired, replied: China, for the same reasons espoused by the Guardian.
The election is next year.
If the Empty Suit wins, the good news is, he’ll make Obama look like a winner.
Oh sure, tank Canada just so the big zero doesn’t look quite as bad…
No thanks.
If Trudeau looks like he might actually get close in the next election, the flight of capital from the western part of this country will send us into a recession just like his father caused with his NEP, designed to kill the economy in the west and improve the economy in the Quebec and Ontario. I will be one of the people fleeing. Maybe go south if the Obaminator is replaced by a decent leader.
Oh no please god no!
This guy got his degree in drama , dropped out of second year engineering and taught snowboarding up at Whistler. His suit is not only empty, its a vacuum.
I thought the Chinese hadn’t actually set any reduction levels but merely stated that they will reduce them. Given the pressures on China, India and Germany to produce cheap energy, I doubt there will be any real reduction in the next few decades. The future for these countries is coal!
You got it almost right. They never said they would reduce anything, at any time. They just said they will (may) stop INCREASING CO2 in 2030. About the time the massive hydo projects are in full operation and the 600 megawatt coal plants every 10 days for the next 10 years, (each with a 40 year life) come on line, they just MIGHT consider leveling off.
Jonova is running with this.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/why-did-china-pick-2030-oh-look/
If the US drops out of the CO2 race, we’ve got to have somebody willing and able to feed the biosphere!
Quite a bit smarter than us.
The problem is China has agreed to NO reductions. So they are actually saying that anyone will agree to no reductions, but free people balk at arbitrary burdens of witchcraft.
China has agreed with itself that INCREASED emissions is quite all right for the next sixteen years. Or thereabouts. On my turf, the MSM is remarkably silent about this supposedly break-through deal. “Nothing to see here, move on please”.
The world will be free to follow the Chinese example next year in Paris, city of nuclear-powered light.
There is one more detail hiding back in the corner. Note that Xi,s statement makes no agreement to reduce emissions once the future cap is put in place. All they are committing to is a future cap. I noticed that China is now emitting 30% of the global total emissions. If I remember right it was only a year ago where China was listed at 28% of the total. If the US and Europe reverse their co2 output, then China,s share of total emissions will skyrocket perhaps as high as 50% of the global total.
Yup. A very concise demonstration of them being smarter than us.
But, seriously folks, if you’ve ever been to Beijing on a “normal” pollution day, you’d understand they’re all going to choke to death before they die from global warming.
Correction – Not “us”, Obama.
Always loved this…
http://youtu.be/DGscoaUWW2M
This video, in light of the flurry of recently-released videos of the ObamaCare architect bragging about taking advantage of voter stupidity, is painfully prescient.
I also love it….so true! We play all the DVDs from time to time; they never date.
Ah, thanks for this, Big Jim. One of my favorite T.V. programmes.
Commands respect. š
Eamon.
Yes, there is a certain slight yearning for the Chinese way of decision-making in the article, but in general it looks like a very sober -and, for the greens, sobering- description of the obstacles the Republicans can put int he way of Obama’s climate policy. Rather a subdued tone. Is the Guardian finally waking up to the fact that the game is up?
Any form of government is a good one if I’m in charge.
Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government…..except for all the others.
Thinking about it…
For Europe, this deal means greater diplomatic pressure to raise our cost of living and, relatively, harm our industry.
This deal is a definite victory for the USA and China against the EU. It costs them nothing (as they haven’t agreed to do anything) and costs us a lot.
what planet are you from?
UK – Earth. Just wondering what you didn’t understand?
The US Senate will block any action in the West. China has no intention of doing anything in the East.
And we will be hoist by our own petard and thus bounced into committing to raising our energy costs.
That’s a good result for our competitors, China and the USA.
I kind of agree with MC.
Why don’t you? Because you don’t really say.
Smokie, MCourtney, the EU doesn’t need adversaries to sink itself.
DirkH, Only economic failure will sink the EU.
It has a cultural vitality that can draw in most people… unless they are hungry, scared or angry.
No-one wants conflict; togetherness is nice.
MCourtney, the EU is a bureaucratic tyranny. It is already a political failure. Failure of the rest will follow.
It’s beyond me how a vigorous independent-minded society like the UK could have ever ceded its independence to a bunch of continental upper-crust self-serving twits.
How it remains a controversy in the UK about whether to ditch the EU, or not, is also beyond my understanding.
Better to live in modest freedom than in opulent slavery.
On the other hand, it is a great helping hand to the EU from America and China, effectively letting the EU off its self-imposed hook of emissons reductions. Which only are supposed to be binding if other nations make similar promises. It will be very hard to convince even the most gullible greens that the world’s two largest emitting nations have agreed on anything remotely close to the EU’s commitment. So the Union can shrug and say “sorry we tried our best, but the nasty foreigners have betrayed the planet”, and be very, very relieved.
As for the others, India (thanks for this info, WUWT) wants to INCREASE or even double its coal production in the next five years, Brazil, Indonesia, Korea all want business as ususal, that is, growing, and the Russians will worry about a boycott of their 2018 soccer world championship.
I hope you’re right but I fear that any commitment from the USA and China will push the EU to hold firm to its foolish commitments.
Not Poland nor other eastern EU countries, of course, and France has nuclear so… but Germany, Italy and the UK have influential green fear-monger groups.
dbstealey, what?
I thought we had agreed to disagree on political or religious issues.
Maybe, I’m wrong….
You’re right for a change! āŗĀ
How’s your dad doing? I miss his commentary.
RichardSCourtney is doing OK. But he’s not really up to stress. And commenting here, with the political views he expresses, is not always conducive to a mellow debate. In some ways he is less emollient than me.
MC – I’m glad he’s doing OK. I too miss his input. I do not agree with his politics but where’s the point in debating only with people whose views you espouse? Anyway, we cider drinkers are always emolient!
Please pass on my best wishes to him. Thanks.
Sneering at democracy? The incriminating quote is just a statement of fact – and a rather accurate one. What’s wrong with it?
I can’t really see the sneer against democracy either in the quoted paragraph;
“āWhile Chinese apparatchiks will, presumably unquestioningly, jump to realize President Xi Jinpingās order to reduce carbon emissions in an ambitious deal with the United States,”
But it is misleading to say that they will “jump to reduce”, unless the Guardian thinks it takes sixteen years of preparations to make this “jump”.
If you didn’t leave out the following part of the quote, which is the part that takes a swipe at U.S. democracy, you would see the sneer much easier:
“Barack Obama will come home to a newly elected Congress that will probably tell him to neuter his climate change agenda…”
The implication is obvious. A dictatorship is better for the climate than a democracy because it’s easier for such governments to force people to do what they don’t want to do in order to supposedly save the planet. Never mind that China actually agreed to increase their emissions for the next decade and a half before they even attempt to limit them. The Guardian is deliberately ignoring reality and pretending that China is going to act quickly just so they can take a swipe at the slow and purposely deliberate U.S. democracy. Greens love dictators because they love telling the rest of us what to do.
āBarack Obama will come home to a newly elected Congress that will probably tell him to neuter his climate change agendaā¦ā I consider this very likely; I’ll bet 10 to 1 on it. Where is the sneer? Do you somehow see anything wrong with it? For me, that’s how democracy is supposed to work.
the sneer is in the lie they tell before talking about the americans. they say that china are jumping to reduce emissions, which is just a total load of crap in any logical sense. first, they NEVER agreed to reduce emissions, and second 16 years is not jumping at something. the lie is the basis for the comparison being made.
I was taught we live in a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Most of our processes are democratic although there are checks and balances to limit that, e.g., THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. And three (3) distinct branches of government, or at least there are supposed to be. Unless we have a TYRANT in the White House preempting the legitimate process of WE THE PEOPLE. That’s why we have a SECOND AMENDMENT which the UN and OBAMA are trying to usurp. That’s why I decide to administer a dose of TRUTH SERUM, which is appropriate.
The agreement Obama made with China allows China to continue its ways for the next 15 years, while the US must immediately begin reducing its carbon emissions. From a political perspective, the deal is DOA even before Obama presents it to the Senate. There is no way there is 2/3rds of the Senate in Obama’s bag. And this agreement cannot be implemented via Executive Action. The enforcement costs alone will run into the millions, and only Congress can give the President the money.
The President got exactly the kind of agreement he wanted in order to tar the GOP in Congress. But, after last week’s drubbing, there probably isn’t a dozen Senators willing to sign this ridiculous agreement
Obama will most likely give the agreement to the EPA and tell them to implement it.
Congress needs to pull the plug on finances and stop the EPA.
Anything Obama does by edict can be undone by the next POTUS.
Although I don’t know of any executive orders that have been ended by a new POTUS.
How ironic that the Guardian does not even realize that printing this kind of article would be forbidden under the Chinese government, perhaps even ending in the disappearance of the author.
And forbidden even more so in Turkey, which has about 150 reporters in jail at present. And Turkey is supposed to be the new frontier of the ever-expanding EU.
Over my dead body.
R
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
That darned democracy keeps getting in the way of our Intellectual Betters (all bow) by giving the plebes a voice. As the article reminds us, Progressives, such as the NYT’s Tom Friedman, often wish we were more like China. Thank Heaven we’re not.
Here is an honest-to-God quote from the New York Times today: “President Obamaās landmark agreement with China to cut greenhouse gas pollution is a bet by the president and Democrats that on the issue of climate change, American voters are far ahead of Washingtonās warring factions and that the environment will be a winning cause in the 2016 presidential campaign.”
Given what happened just a week ago in West Virginia, and Kentucky, and Louisiana, and in every other energy producing area where Obama’s actions have driven long time democrats into the arms of the Republicans – this thinking is absolute insanity!
It’s one thing to have said this before the election – but to say this a week after Tom Steyer’s $75 million vanished without a trace??? Unbelievable! It does let you know that the left is NEVER going to change its stripes for any reason on this; they are going to go down with this ship if its the last thing they do.
Just speculating .. maybe the Democrats are giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves on in time for 2016 elections. What a remarkable strategy – including a gambit.
The ship will go down, but in the nick of time, the rats will have abandoned it for another ideological vessel, threatening us with yet another global disaster which will happen “Two days before the day after tomorrow”. All skeptics; this South Park episode is a must.
Oddly in the last presidential election it was a none-issue , so what has changed ?
You know, I think I finally understand this. It’s a simple domino chain that goes like this:
1) Our progressives in the U.S. are conditioned to unthinkingly accept and cheer anything the media gives them regarding climate treaty news. The lights have been off upstairs for a long time when it comes to reading climate change news anyway.
2) Our media in the U.S. are conditioned to unthinkingly praise anything Barack Obama tells them is admirable.
3) Barack Obama has proclaimed this an historic diplomatic victory for the environment.
put it all together, what else could have happened really.
If that’s what the greens want, then I say we should act like China and increase our GHG emissions without limit for the next 15 years. At that point, we can talk about trying to keep our emissions level by not exceeding the new maximum. Isn’t that what China agreed to do? And isn’t that what the Guardian is praising them for doing?
One of China’s 20th century environmental changes was to collectivize agriculture in the 1950s. They deliberately starved to death 20-30,000,000 of their own citizens.
Just saying…
Keep in mind, the official story is that the starvation during the Great Leap was that it was from natural causes. They don’t even admit it was done by the government. China is also behind most of the studies in “sustainable agriculture.” For example, Rio +20 was led by Chinese communists who hate the US. And here is an example of attacks on our domestic agriculture by the UN, and foreign operatives in NGOs:
So why are the EU and the US DOAg signing organic agriculture agreements with Maoists to destroy our agriculture?
Nobody was supposed to notice that.
The article does not bother me nearly as much as the Comments on the article.
The story was written by one person and published in a newspaper that is fully invested in the theory, but I would have hoped that at least a few people would have commented on the other side.
Or maybe those comments were remvoved?
Interesting point; I have noted that there has been a marked increase in skeptical comments on climate issues in the Guardian lately. A few years ago, there were hardly any dissident voices. But the comments on this article seems to have become more of a Republican-bashing venue, than a climate discussion. Maybe the more liberal-minded sceptics are staying away.
As a sceptic who is left-wing and comments on the Guardian often… this article has very little attraction to me.
It is not about the climate – neither China nor the USA are going to act on this stated intention.
It is a little about the games of the great powers. But that is not as important a round as Ukraine or the Middle East or even Africa.
But mainly, this article is click-bait to enjoy a rant at the US right-wing.
I don’t agree with the US right-wing either.
But I’d rather talk to the US right-wing directly about why I disagree than rant behind their back in a close-minded echo chamber.
MCourtney
So why don’t we put it to a vote and see what the citizens think?
So, the Chinese will continue with the status quo till 2030 and Obama says he will reduce GHG’s, effectively tighten the noose on the U. S. economy and hail it as a breakthrough achievement. It’s no wonder the village Obama left knows they have rid themselves of their idiot.
“āWhile Chinese apparatchiks will, presumably unquestioningly, jump to realize President Xi Jinpingās order to reduce carbon emissions” the may do but his given no such order , its only a Green dream that he has. China is carry on has before.
All they have to do is stay their present course. CO2 emissions were going to peak in 2030 anyway because they are going nuclear. China made no concession at all. Obama’s short term play is to put a price on CO2 emissions. The rest is noise.
obama the anti-American president trying to do as much damage as he can. He is doubtless jealous of the control the communist party has over the Chinese people.
Let’s not forget that the Anthropocene Age Paradigm is a scientific paradigm. In this model, all human activities trigger “tipping points” in natural systems, on a “fragile earth.”
This scientific paradigm shift began in the 60’s. In her book Apocalyptics, Edith Efron revealed the early science which began with the assumption that all chemicals are guilty carcinogens. This includes 10,000 chemicals used in modern applications, which are being studied solely for the purpose of convicting them of causing cancer or harming the environment.
It is only natural that this scientific paradigm has now fingered carbon dioxide from power generation, methane from cattle, nitrous oxide from crops, and various refrigerants, etc. as harmful to the environment.
The imagined, fantasy scientific results of the harm of chemicals we have used also does not respect dose; in other words, if a chemical can be proved to be harmful in high doses, then it always must be reduced to zero exposure by environmental policy. That is the science.
Again, this scientific paradigm shift has been a long time in the making, and has nothing to do at all with religious people, who in most cases are the victims of these endless abstracts of pot-smoking hippy drivel, and in any case can be demonstrated to be vigorously excluded and slandered by the practitioners who have been developing this paradigm. I would advise the Anthropocene Age is more a poster for paradigm shifts, as Kuhn envisioned them in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions. AGW and ghg is only a subcomponent of this scientific paradigm shift. It extends to all of agriculture and many harmless substances used to protect plants and domestic animals.
Religion is not to blame for this. Why don’t you look at the history of top down scientific paradigm shifts such as Lysenkoism and eugenics, and agricultural disasters in China started by government scientists, and be honest about the real history of science? Then people might benefit from the discussion. Recatagorising this as if it is religion is cute. It is also not the case. Not to pick on E. Worrall, who is using spiritual terms such as “salvation” to describe the Science of the Anthropocene Age. A lot of people here are committing this same misattribution.
+97
The agreement, is that China does not have to reduce emissions until “around” 2030, 16 years from now, while the US severely cuts carbon emissions, by 28% by 2025 (from 2005 levels).
Kerry says the new, clean energy that will replace fossil fuels will create jobs and grow the economy.
Like global climate models that are based on a theory that hasn’t held up in the real world, the replacement of fossil fuels with expensive, unreliable energy will also fail miserably.
We live in Indiana, where 84% of our electricity comes from coal fired power plants.
It is an absolute certainty, that shutting down coal fired power plants will impose great and painful costs………to the economy and especially the poor.
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IN
Facts:
“Indiana ranked seventh among the states in coal production in 2012, and coal-fired electric power plants provided about 84% of Indiana’s net electricity generation in 2013.”
“Indianaās industrial sector, which includes manufacturers of aluminum, chemicals, glass, metal casting, and steel, consumed more energy in 2011 than the residential and commercial sectors combined.”
Incredible that the country which has the worst pollution problem is doing the least and the country that has made great progress in severely cutting REAL pollution of the last 5 decades is doing the most………..and the opposite of what it should do, which is to provide more, not less CO2 to benefit life on this planet.
I believe that China will be spending the next 16 years working on cutting their real pollution, not the beneficial CO2 stuff. Unlike many countries led astray by the completely false, CO2=pollution scam, China clearly knows better.
It’s clear that they will be the clear, number 1 world power in short order.
Not that I care, other than wanting my country to make wise decisions that help its citizens to do well and at the same time, practice good stewardship of the planet. Wasting 10’s of billions fighting a beneficial gas that could be spent fighting real pollution in the air, water and soils is a ruinous policy for all creatures on this planet, especially the humans.
lest we forget:
PoliticalHumor.about.com: Funny Audio Clips of Classic Bushisms
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” (LAUGHTER)
President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000…
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-dictatorship.htm
in 2011, NYT claimed Obama said similar, but it was never sourced, tho it attracted a lot of MSM coverage. research suggests an anonymous aide said he once said it to “aides”:
NYT: Obama Seeks a Course of Pragmatism in the Middle East
By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPER
Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, āNo one is scrutinizing Hu Jintaoās words in Tahrir Square.ā
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/africa/11policy.html?_r=0
With Obama and the green mafia making a deal with China I can help but think of the old poker adage. ” if youāre at the table and you donāt see a sucker, itās you.” From the comments on the gordian it’s as if they live in some alternate universe.
NYT Graphics: Charting carbon emissions targets pledged by President Obama & President Xi Jinping of China
https://twitter.com/nytgraphics/status/532626387468050433/photo/1
12 Nov: Reuters: UPDATE 2-China, US agree limits on emissions, but experts see little new
“The statement is a upbeat signal to motivate other countries but the timeline China has committed to is not a binding target,” said Li Junfeng, an influential Chinese climate policy adviser linked to China’s state planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission…
Li, the climate policy adviser, said Beijing was not expected to make any significant new commitments next year, adding that it would also be wise not to expect too much of the United States.
China will not look to America to take action against climate change, he said…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/china-usa-climatechange-idUSL3N0T21YK20141112
US is on the trend anyway, if not lower š
Yahoo also report a lack of substance.
“China’s top climate change negotiator on Friday defended the vagueness of Beijing’s target to peak carbon emissions “around 2030”, suggesting developed nations may need to make more ambitious cuts.
China, the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide which scientists say causes global warming, has resisted pledging to cut emissions but this week announced a rough date by which it aims to stop them rising.
“The state of our economy in 2030 is still uncertain, so as a responsible country we also need to make responsible targets which we can be sure to meet,” Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China’s powerful National Development and Reform Commission, told reporters in Beijing.
Xie added that the target, announced on Wednesday during a visit by US President Barack Obama, was not yet legally binding and would have to be approved at five year intervals by China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress.”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/china-climate-negotiator-defends-flexible-carbon-target-073210530.html#lod5SNx
All greens should move to China. Not in the major cities but out in the rural areas where they can learn first hand what it’s like to live without all the modern conveniences they currently enjoy.
I don’t think the ChiComs are looking for more citizens.
Especially citizens that feel compelled to speak out against their government in nasty ways.
Look at what china is actually doing. Heavy investing in ALL types of energy. They lead in renewables recently but also continue to do so with coal. Is this energy security or a green mindset? Well air pollution and water pollution barely register there so the much more transient co2 driven warming surely doesnt either. 670k humans die there a year from air pollution Ive read.
they are making the worlds biggest carbon trading scheme! Except the goal of it is to lower carbon per unit of GDP. If you look at the data, then they are close to the worst on this stat, and the literally could continue to use more coal for decades and if they continue to gain wealth at the expected rates they will MORE THAN meet this target even though they expect to continue to close to double use of coal in the next 15 years. Its smoke and mirrors. Heck if they had a true compulsion to meet this stat and otherwise failed they could just inflate their currencies value and meet it that way if they wanted to. It is interesting to note the US is pretty good on this stat in global terms, meanwhile carbon per capita is much much higher then most places here. In fact it is unlikely china EVER matches us in this stat, even though per person they are very unlikely to ever come close to matching us. WUWT should run the numbers on all that, I have, its very clear propaganda.
So if anyone thinks china is doing good? My take is they are either lying and want to end the argument that we have no reason to act when others wont, OR this isnt about the environment at all and they just like chinas authoritarianism. Otherwise pretending china is on a green track when they are 50 plus years behind the US with basic obvious enviro controls like legitimate air or water pollution, just doesnt add up.
“670k humans die there a year from air pollution Ive read.”
Jostein Nygaard (World Bank) says it is more like 850,000 but in both cases the figures are based on linear extrapolations with tiny exposure causing a few whole deaths.
But is there a sting in the tail? Suppose a price is put on emitting CO2 and China is emitting the most, and the USA is cutting the most. It means China has to pay the US, maybe by cancelling some of the national debt. Maybe this is a way to deal with the Federal debt crisis.
Fortunately there’s no way President Obama can get the 2/3 vote in the Senate he needs to adopt this thing. Even the outgoing Senate has only 52 Democrats out of 100 members.
The Guardian has it wrong again.
US is an oligarchy, not a democracy. That’s what peer reviewed science says.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
So it is not necessary to convince the American people or Congress, but only the Neocon oligarchs.
That can only be done by proving that action against so called climate change will hurt “our” so-called enemies, such as Russia, Iran Syria or South American countries (who, in a democracy, would actually be our natural allies).
Linda2001
November 13, 2014 at 1:59 pm
“So it is not necessary to convince the American people or Congress, but only the Neocon oligarchs.”
99 year old David Rockefeller would object to describing him as anything “Neo”.
The US constitution (assuming it matters after this president) defines the US as a “representative democracy”.
The Federalist Papers were published in newpapers by authors of the draft constitution to educate the public and encourage ratification of the constitution; they go to great lengths to explain the differences between a “democracy” and a “representative democracy”.
Yes,let’s definitely go with the settled science of two obscure professors who’ve made a career out of publishing leftist screeds decrying income and influence inequality.
Here’s a free tip: when someone does a ‘scientific study’ to ‘prove’ a nebulous theory that they’ve already published either academically or worse, commercially, as fact, then it’s prudent to regard that study with a boatload of skepticism.
As rants go, that was a pretty good one.
No wonder Scotland wanted to get out of Britain with the Guardian around.
MCourtney,
I am much with you minus the left-wing part. Socially, I’m quite liberal, but fiscally almost 180 degrees the opposite. I self declare as an “independent”. Having said that, when I need feedback or wish to discuss issues to garner others perspectives, I find it of no value to be in a room with those who think like I do. I find it much more educational to get a “feel” for what’s behind the thinking as opposed to the just the “thinking”. Sometimes I find just vitriol, but often I find substance. For me, this applies on both sides of the climate discussion, and I think you and I are exceptions.
It would be refreshing to get the “scientists” in the same room, remove the chairs, put up a white board and have them go at it. This, it seems, would bring us closer to settling the unsettled science.
I don’t think this would work. As long as we have people in the green camp, who seriously argue that we should accept the CO2 theory as the default argument, even though there is a much simpler theory – natural variation – which can easily accommodate climate shifts of the magnitude which have been observed, the two sides are not even speaking the same language.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/22/occams-razor-and-climate-change/
We are speaking the same language.
They just have to define Occam’s Razor. And then we do also.
Then we start talking about risk.
Danny Thomas, I’m actually quite socially conservative (as the traditional family has a proven track record of bettering the lot of the next generation) but fiscally a Marxist. And I do find that material dialecticism is a helpful approach to issues.
So I guess we ain’t that alike in opinions.
But testing our opinions is the first step towards knowledge. I truly respect your humility and courage in seeking debate on “foreign turf”, Awkwardly, this means I acknowledge you are smart and yet I still disagree with you. Hmm.
Helpful humility forced all round – Huzzah!
MCourtney,
Hmmmm. Diametric opposites, in the same room? All we need is that white board! Socially I’m more from the “I don’t care what you do and you shouldn’t care what I do, as long as we don’t injure each other” camp. Fiscally, it’s “don’t spend it without good reason” but then who’s the arbiter of “good reason” eh?
Eric doesn’t think this would work. But maybe we’ve shown that it might. Even if coming at it from two opposite political ends, it appears our methods are similar. Interesting.
Danny Thomas, it seems we aren’t as far apart as we thought.
Socially Iām also in the āI donāt care what you do and you shouldnāt care what I do, as long as we donāt injure each otherā camp but also the “Nuclear families work best and should be presented as the first to be considered before alternatives” camp. From my personal experience that even people who have gay lifestyles don’t wish homosexuality for their grandkids’ parents.
Completely agree.
Yet, I think enabling more opportunities allows most potential benefits. And the poorest in society benefit most per Ā£ they have to spend – most new opportunities given. As an optimist about people’s goodness I like progressive taxation (although my fiancĆ© prefers less so).
To me, transferring opportunities to the poor is the best reason. As resources provide opportunities.
Oh, I am very left-wing. Perhaps we are as far apart as we thought.
This white board seems to be a fairly effective communications tool. By removing the labels, we seem to indeed be finding common ground. My “nuclear” family was a bit disfunctional. But my siblings and I are reasonable contributors to society. My extended family has folks of all sorts from traditional, to gay, to bi-racial and on. And I love them all.
I also believe we should assist those less fortunate by helping them lift themselves up, but part of that is selfish in that I see in it a benefit to us all.
Maybe we should implement this white board experiment elsewhere? It would be interesting to observe the results.
MCourtney
November 13, 2014 at 2:48 pm
“To me, transferring opportunities to the poor is the best reason. As resources provide opportunities.”
You mean transferring money. Well I try to maximize my effectiveness. Meaning Marxism has turned me into a slacker. (The German tax system is Marxist. Progressive taxation was one of the 10 demands in the Communist Manifesto.)
Oh aye; helping my fellow man helps me, yes I know.
Nothing wrong in being that selfish.
I want to help others I love too.
Glad your family are doing OK. Good luck to them, and to all.
DirkH, Yes. Progressive taxation is required by the Communist Manifesto. And also by me.
Opportunities without requiring money would be the alternative. That loses the efficiency of a shared currency. Their punishment is failure – harsh (meh).
Would people having and wasting the opportunity be an objection?
Not in my opinion.
The mean average result will be people having and making the word a better place, as they seek to grab it. They could just cling to the life raft and never seek to reach the tropical island beaches… but why would they?
I believe the best about people.
Anybody notice how China is stealing our military technology but not our clean air technology? Yes, I am sure our air was once as bad as China’s, but we hadn’t yet figured out how to clean it up. China has three options. They can steal the technology, they can buy the technology or they can live in pollution. They have decided on the third option because that is how a dictatorship functions.
In a free country you are free to protest bad living conditions but most often it’s taken care of by the election process. In China you have Tiananmen square.
The US “clean rtechnology” was exporting dirty industries to China.
China can continue to open one coal fired power station per week until 2030. By then they could have enough breeder reactors producing power to stop increasing and even close some old CO2 producers.
Any senator not in a liberal bastion who would vote for this “deal” should expect to loose his/her job in the next cycle.
A veto proof senate would be nice.
And what total RUBES the US, the State Department and Ohbombus are! The Chinese will sign anything, say anything, and turn around and do WHATEVER IS BEST FOR CHINA. (Which, of course, means burning as much “fossil fuels” as it takes to run their country, USA be damned or ignored.
Someone I know well, with a 20 year career at Motorola (retired 10 years ago) has kept me apprised of the
fact that in about 2004, what was left of Motorola (1996 – 270,000 employees, 2006, 15,000 employees, bye bye MOT) sued their Chinese contractors in World Court for $2 Billion in damages. “You took all our intellectual property and used it for your own purposes…” They (MOT) whined. The world court AGREED WITH THE CHINESE: “Trade Secrets, Patents, actual lithography masks for semi-conductors, methods, production equipment..you sent/gave us all of them.” We gave you the production you contracted for, but the fact is you GAVE IT ALL TO US, and we intent to use it.” Morality? OUR “standards” of “fair play”, regulations, etc. SO SORRY, not the way we work.
This in NO WAY means the Chinese cannot do good production. Cannot be trusted on work, say, maintaining jet engines (their engines are maintained at the same facilities). BUT it’s like, “YOU GIVE US THE FARM, WE ARE GOING TO FARM IT…” How can I make it more clear. They’ll “agree” to anything. (FOR FACE AND SHOW.) What they will do, is ONLY that which net benefits them. Ohbombus has
given them the FARM and all the equipment with it. They are going to PLANT and HARVEST…and laugh at US while we are starving
I alway though it was a bad idea for Apple to move it’s production to China and I see they now agree. My next computer will be made in another country – Texas.
Actually, it was Russia who guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Curious George, non sequiteur..
But, on the irrelevant subject, it was the UK who guaranteed Israel’s territorial integrity.
Is the UK going to send a column into Jerusalem and (think about this generally) why not?
Wasn’t it the Soviet Union. (A Wall Street creation)
I thought we were discussing how much we should trust governments.
You refuse to argue? That means I win.
Max; the deal was always, if you want to play in China you enter a joint venture with the Chinese state and China gets 51% of the shares.
So, what do you or Motorola complain about? Why would anyone who wants to keep control enter such a contract? The Chinese have not broken their word. They told you beforehand that they’ll have control.
BTW, don’t wear light colored clothes in Beijing.
Jo cut right to the chase with respect to 2030. Once again proving the US has a vacuum of leadership!
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/why-did-china-pick-2030-oh-look/
America always does the right thing – after exhausting all alternatives. (W. Churchill)
There were no pictures during this recent foray abroad, which showed Obama in a deep bowing posture before the Chinese President. However, in light of the measures which Obama willingly agreed to subject the US citizenry, it is certain that he bent over.
The hard core AGW ,we’re cooking , just you wait , reminds me of California preacher Harold Camping predictions of it all ending . It staggered from one failed date to next and i suppose it did end for him ,eventually .
VERY WELL SPOKEN! And they think that communism is the way to achieve their goals, their own version of communism, of course.
Thanks, Eric Worrall. This is sad.
The Guardian, of what?
Country’s concern with AGW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
It’s not the Chinese obedience that surprises me, it’s that they have such powerful Jedi mind skills over the US President to make him give away the farm in return for symbolic gestures.
Steven Goddard shows how absurd Obama’s “deal” was, in chart form.
KTM
November 13, 2014 at 2:58 pm
“Itās not the Chinese obedience that surprises me, itās that they have such powerful Jedi mind skills over the US President ”
Probably not mind tricks but simple clout. They own JP Morgan’s headquartes (and 60% of Manhattan commercial real estate) (and maybe you should consider renaming the Fed to the People’s Fed…)
Not only will the new Congress use this ridiculous agreement for toilet paper, the lame duck Senate is desperately trying to drop a Keystone Pipeline authorization on Obama’s desk in order to save a single Louisiana senator.
Once again I do not blame democrats for acting like politicians, I blame organizations such as the WaPo and NYT for pretending for generations to provide journalism instead of naked advocacy. If there is blame to be heaped, look no further than our 4th estate.
I had the impression that China was applying their very much needed air pollution correction as a hedge against the West’s green agenda, which is very clever indeed. Of course if the U.S. and Europe even discern this, it will still be politically spun to support the Greenies.
Canada’s Justin Trudeau has a similar admiration of Chinese government:
The Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded: “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.”
Inside every watermelon is a totalitarian – because they know best.
Source http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/justin-trudeau-s-foolish-china-remarks-spark-anger-1.2421351
Shiny Pony should quit the weed, and start paying attention. Even the Chicoms can’t just afford blowing up their economy by withdrawing excess liquidity, they tried, and shadow banking interest rates shot up to 15%… A big economy has inertia.
I would think that it would normally be difficult to ram through congress an idiotic agreement on climate change, but with record low temps across the country, it might be a tad more difficult. Politicians might be a little sympathetic to people who are freezing to death – or maybe not. They will probably wait until it gets warmer. In any case, the Republicans will get blamed by the media for destroying the planet.
It’s pretty amusing that every leftist newspaper in the USA and in Germany is breaking out in jubilations. Kind of an idiot detector.
Dirk – Gruber WAS referring to some people.
Ideologists of all stripes usually are short term blind and stupid. An Obama supporter will support Obama expanding executive powers without limit, not seeing this expanded power will then be available to the next republican president.
Greens see a totalitarian government good for climate since it can quickly ram though climate related policy, or in this case empty but friendly green words. They are blind to the fact it can declare just as easily AGW theory a threat to the nation and institute laws prohibiting greens from blabbering like idiots as they freely do in a western society.
+1. And that does not begin to cover the truths in you comment.
as Lord Acton said-
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
this is why a democratic system will always be a better system. until such a time that men are not corrupt by nature, then their power over others should be limited.
The amusing thing is: once the greens achieve their totalitarian government, they, as individuals, will be just as screwed by it as everyone else. Meanwhile, the green leaders will live lives of hedonistic luxury as do all despots.
Watermelons anyone?
Nicked this
Cooling in our Time
This morning I had another talk with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. I believe it is cooling for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home, get a nice quiet sleep and donāt worry about anything.
After a week of being humiliated by the Chinese and Putin, this announcement was more like terms of surrender. Did you notice the Chinese showing off their brand new stealth fighter, which looks – gasp – just like a US stealth fighter. Check out the body language in the photos. Not to mention Obama’s and Putin’s classic “I’m going to pretend you are not even in the room and are invisible” routine, with the Chinese premier in the middle like the adult supervisor.
To be pedantic, the word Democracy will not be found in the US Declaration of Independence or within the US Constitution. The founding fathers were all to aware that Democracy, or rule by the majority, was just another form of tyranny. This is why they attempted to set up a representative republic to ensure liberty by rule of law, and spoke out strongly against any form of Democracy.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Ben Franklin
āA democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.ā Thomas Jefferson
āRemember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.ā John Adams
Thanks for helping to expose the democracy delusion, Bruce. Anthony, please take note. Democracy is only as good as the people voting. Look at the people, what do you see?
North Korea is a “democracy”. And their voter participation is impressive. That’s about it.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Who was the idiot that said “what we need is a good dictator. ” Lefty believes there is such a thing despite all present and historical evidence to the contrary.
Very, very occasionally it works out, but its a move of utter desperation to do such a thing – very few people behave themselves in the face of such temptation.
For example, when the American Revolutionaries asked George Washington to be King, he refused the honour, and chose to become President instead. Washington explained his actions by quoting the story of Cincinnatus, a famous Roman general. Unlike the repulsive Julius Caesar, Cincinnatus assumed absolute power twice in his life, when the Roman Senate begged him to save the Republic, and on both occasions relinquished power the moment the emergency was resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
From memory one of the Presidents of Columbia did something similar, assumed absolute power for 18 months to smash the FARC rebels, then relinquished power and held an election which was judged fair by the outside observers he invited. Naturally he won by a landslide – and when his two terms were complete, he resigned the presidency, even when people asked him to stay on, because that is what the constitution demanded.
Make that Colombia… š
Well from what I know about the Peoples Republic of China, which is quite a lot, I suspect that China will not only be overtaking the west with industry and standard of living, but with their whole hearted embrace of capitalism and continuing progress in devolving the function of government to private enterprise we may find that Democracy and Freedom in the PRC will exceed our own diminishing rights.
The chinese government is dead scared of its huge population and can no longer use force to have its way. Instead it is allowing chinese people to obtain all the things they envy in the west. The chinese people are too pragmatic to believe in any religion including that of AGW. Therefore whatever their government says is designed to offend neither the west or their own people.
Actually I believe that they think the west is going insane and that Obama and Merkel are wankers.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
You have to laugh:
The Guardian model of China is that they will magically do what the Guardian wants.
The Chinese model of The Guardian is that they wouldn’t exist.
Greens are not leftists. They are of course not even green. They actually come out more like fascists. What the green/climate obsessed are when it comes to their praising Mr. Obama’s deal with China, however, is stupid. This is not a deal in the sense of two parties taking coordinated joint action to solve a problem. Nothing in this deal is coordinated, much less joint. It is unilateral: The USA, if Mr. Obama gets his imperial will, cuts and cuts and cuts. China does no cutting for over a decade. Nothing in the deal has the US and China working to pressure anyone to cut anything.
But more importantly, we know that the amount of CO2 being reduced, even if we grant that Mr. Obama’s deal might actually cut CO2, will do nothing to impact climate in any significant way: No weather is attributable now to CO2 increases. None will be when and if any CO2 cuts are actually achieved. Mr. Obama’s foolish obsession with cutting CO2 is only matched by the lack of respect for his fellow Americans and his deficit in critical thinking skills.
Mr. Obama, with no scientific training whatsoever, and apparently no street smarts or common sense, much less critical thinking skills, has been played by his science adviser in an historically spectacular way.
Politically naive Guardian children can’t conceive of the possibility that this is yet another example of Obama being exploited by national leaders who know how to get what they want at his expense.
Any one-sided CO2 suicide pact Obama may have agreed to with China still needs to be ratified by 67 Senators.
Since the GOP now holds 55 Senate seats (including Louisiana which is a lock) there is absolutely no way this treaty gets ratified. Period! (TM)
This meaningless treaty was just a posturing by Obama aimed at Green activists to assure Green campaign donations (aka watermelon juice) flows into the coffers of DEMS for 2016 presidential elections…
BTW– Keep your eyes on Elizebeth Warren (aka Fauxcohontus). Hillary is not trending well and DEMS need a new rock star following their rout last week.
Always interesting to listen in to the take on ‘greens’. Hunter (just above) is right though – these ‘greens’ are not green, nor I they ‘left’, nor I they ‘fascists’ (yet). There is a need for a new lexicon but also some understanding of the phenomenon upon which to base it. At present, all I can do is offer the following:
– I have witnessed strong anti-democratic tendencies bemoaning that local district councils are a block to getting ‘green’ technology (mostly wind turbines) sited – they are pushed through by appeal to central government;
– I have personal experience of ‘green’ activists trying to prevent me speaking, putting pressure on editorial boards to prevent me publishing, and have had dark warnings of ‘we know where you live’….;
– There is clearly a cadre of mostly professional activists in Europe (estimated budget from foundations and the EU of $200 million/year) that would happily collude with the banking sector, the IMF and World Bank in spending tax-payers monies without any inconvenient democratic oversight – note that Obama pledges 2.5 billion dollars of taxpayers money into this system. The UK has already allowed a substantial part of its aid budget to be sequestered for climate change spending (could easily be two billion pounds out of six billion total by now);
BUT
to label this cleptocracy ‘marxist’, ‘fascist’ or even ‘green’ does not help to understand them, nor to combat their influence – instead think laterally:
– China is a capitalist country (just as Russia is), and its expansion has been financed by global capital – it long ago gave up Marxism (just like Russia did). It is an extension of America and Britain and Germany and others…its industries and markets are totally interconnected with ‘ours’, and like all such markets, it is determined to compete and expand its share…just like any corporation; so think ‘China is us!’ or ‘Now is the China of everywhere’;
– it is the location of choice for manufacturing (try finding something in a European shopping mall that is NOT made in China……the other day I did find an Italian-made pillow but it cost Ā£150), because wages are extremely low, worker protection poor and environmental quality standards utterly basic;
– And look to what is happening in America and Europe with regard to freedom and civil liberties, look to the prosecution of resource wars and creation of ‘enemies’ and the extension of global power that fighting them legitimises;
– Look at Obama as serving these financial and corporate interests, whilst having to appear to be serving the people…and the majority of democrats have bought the scary climate story, hence he has to respond to that whilst not actually doing anything that would damage corporate interests….
The last point doesn’t make sense, then, as so many people argue that what he is doing will damage corporate America? I think we have to look more closely at who benefits from his policies – where the money goes. As far as I can tell, he is expanding oil and gas and has an eye for nuclear, as well as renewables. None of these can currently compete with either subsidy or high oil prices (watch what happens to fracking gas and shale oil, tar sands and the like, when oil drops below $70 per barrel). All Obama is doing is shuffling the deck of some very big industrial interests and trying to appease the real greens – those people who unfortunately cannot yet see that science institutions are corrupted, look to the UN for global aggreement on global issues, care about their childrens’ future and vote Democrat. He cannot criticise China because American capital is at stake. European politicians are in the same boat.
As for the Guardian – this paper is beyond my understanding. I read it daily as a University student. It has sold out – but the sell-out is not easy to describe. The only understanding I have came when a friend pointed out that most newspapers had become campaigning newspapers. That is also what happened to environmentalism – it went from grass-roots opposition to dangerous practices to global corporate organisations with professional media-savvy staff. The effects are pervasive: meaningless targets replace real change. More scare stories are invented (note the parallels with the creation of military enemies). These people have to have a mission in order to exist – hence the propensity for religious zeal and intolerance.
But fear not America! We in Britain have a new kind of revolutionary – a comedian. All we have to do now is get him on side!
Peter,
I see an apparent leaning in your post as being specifically anti Obama, and in some regards he’s earned that. But to cherry pick a particular note:”And look to what is happening in America and Europe with regard to freedom and civil liberties,” The single most civil liberty striping piece of legislation (U.S.) “The Patriot Act” did not occur under his watch, but instead came about under the opposing party.
I keep hearing how this is a science site, and yet when politics comes in it only has one direction. All that is wrong with the world and the U.S. is not a result of one orientation, but instead is as a result of bad leadership.
Just an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion.
Danny Thomas, the vast majority of media outlets in the west are left biased, yet you feel the need to “bring balance to the discussion” here. Give me a break.
David,
If you could observe me you’d know via empirical evidence that my goal is in fact NOT to bring” balance to the discussion ” here. My goal (and I know I’m tilting at windmills as OTHERS choose not to remove politics), is to just bring balance to the discussion. I speak no differently here than I do on Real Climate (until I self banned) or J.C. or with my CAGW friend or anywhere.
As some choose to rail against the left, and some choose to rail against the right, I choose to rail for communication and until the politics is removed, that cannot occur. My burden to bear and it’s okay.
It amazes me that the science is unsettled, yet where are the scientists? They’re divided in to teams and that makes zero sense. They won’t even get on the same playing field. Just as has happened in our politics in this country we despise each other, and that we’re doing the same in science now says much about us. IMO
David Ball is right. If you sort scientists by those employed and/or seeking grants, vs those retired or otherwise not affiliated with any rent-seeking activities, you get a very clear picture.
Astronauts are a good example. Mostly retired, and otherwise not seeking to profit from the man-made global warming scare:
http://oi53.tinypic.com/do6g74.jpg
D. Thomas asks: “…yet where are the scientists?”
They are everywhere, from the 32,000 OISM co-signers, to those like Lindzen, Spencer, Watts, Eschenbach, etc., to U.S. astronauts, who are all hard science professionals.
Then you have chumps like Nutticelli, Gore, Schmidt, Mann, and so on. Take your pick of which side you want to listen to. Because both sides can’t be right. One side is wrong. Everyone can decide for themselves which side of the debate is right, and which side is on the wrong track.
Hi db,
I can’t discern “which side is right” without looking at the evidence. No one (that’s not predisposed) can. The hardest part, for me, is to try to filter out what is ONLY politics, and some of it is ONLY politics. To me, it would make so much sense to have Spencer and Mann, et al, in the same room with Watts, Eschenbach, et al. But is that gonna happen? I’d pay to see it and I’d be willing to wager that you would to. The only “team” I’d choose to root for would be for the “science” team. I don’t care if one is left or right. I’m here about the climate topic. And as evidence that I speak with both sides the same, I posted this to an AGW’er on another site:
(I would appreciate your reasoned criticism. If we can cut through the politics and get to the science I believe we can progress.)
“Iām no scientist. Iāve read much on the climate change topic. And I have a perspective that I hope you donāt mind me sharing with you.
I donāt see a black and white discussion. I see a scale from AGW to Denier with skeptisism somewhere in between.
I see sufficient evidence to support that our climate is changing, my quest is to discover why. I canāt do the physics myself. Matthew R. Marler is on a quest for discovery relating to a new paper in Science about the warming caused increase in lightening strikes. My understanding of his concern is that there is not sufficient evidence that the increased energy leading to the increase in lightening strikes cannot also manifest in increased warming. This is one example. The āhiatusā heat transferring to the oceans is a recent theory. Examples like these lead me to the conclusion that the science is not settled.
I see that even the so called AGW āconsensusā cannot state emphatically that itās CO2. The terminology is ālikelyā. So within the black and white debate lies the policy discussion of spending huge amounts of money for CO2 abatement when itās āonlyā likely that CO2 is the cause.
Iāve read papers that show the āpotentialā costs if we delay. But those papers do not account for ālikelyā technological advancement.
I see equally logical debate that natural variability is at least partially responsible for warming.
My unsupported supposition is that itās likely a bit of both.
So, for me, Iād prefer that the science be settled more fully prior to spending those dollars as āpotentiallyā those dollars could be misdirected. Do we not have time for further study, and would that approach not be āprudentā?
Please let me know if you consider this to be wrong minded and why, if so.”
D. Thomas,
I don’t want to get into an interminable discussion over this, because it’s pretty cut and dried. You say:
I canāt discern āwhich side is rightā without looking at the evidence.
Fine. Let’s cut to the chase: Post a measurement of AGW. Just one will be fine. That’s the “evidence”.
Make sure it is a testable, empirical measurement quantifying the man-made portion of global warming, out of the total. That’s the evidence we need to make an informed decision.
What’s that you say? There are no such measurements to be found anywhere?
Well then, the entire ‘man-made global warming’ conjecture is nothing more than a baseless opinion. If you can’t decide if the catastrophic AGW believers ā or even the AGW believers ā have an argument worth listening to, then you are one of those people who will dither incessantly because you can’t decide anything.
Be decisive. Or dither. Your choice. Me, I’ve decided: alarmists got nothin’. Never did have anything. The whole cAGW scare is a giant head fake. Fall for it, or don’t. Your choice.
DB,
I do not for the life of me understand why you read things in to what I write that I don’t say. I didn’t say I had evidence to support AGW. I said I had evidence to support GW. Big difference. I tried to select a source that is apolitical. So in choosing one, I chose Arbor Day. I’ll look forward to your reasoned criticism of that choice, but here’s the link: http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm. Growing seasons are expanding. First average frost date is later and last average frost date is earlier and that equals an expanding growing season. I’m trying to not be a hypocrite by siting a politically oriented source.
Did you not read that I’m asking the AGW supporter why more study of causes is not prudent? I can see that it could very well be good old mother nature and not man (or somewhere in between as those much more knowledgeable than I profess :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I’m not falling for anything. I’m not falling for AGW based on the evidence at hand (until proven otherwise when I believe we’ll all stand shoulder to shoulder). I’m also not falling for you reading in to my words something that I DID NOT SAY.
There is by perception, and even stated by Dr. William Happer in another WUWT posting that warming is occurring. Are we cherry picking that we’re okay with him supporting warming to not be caused my man and ignoring that he said warming is occurring? The majority of the discussion is cause. Where am I wrong?
I look forward to your reasoned response, but only after you read my words and sans your assumptions.
D. Thomas says:
I do not for the life of me understand why you read things in to what I write that I donāt say.
That is exactly what you are doing. You wrote:
I said I had evidence to support GW. Big difference.
Who denies that there has been global warming?? Name one credible person. The planet has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA, and since the last great stadial before it.
So changing the discussion to “global warming” is simply misdirection. Rather, the debate is about:
a) whether catastrophic AGW is happening, and
b) if AGW exists, whether it is significant enough to alter government policy.
But when the discussion is changed to the vague “global warming” deflection, it is the same as changing it to the even more vague “climate change”. Both are misdirection: “Look over there! A squirrel!”
The claim is that AGW is a problem. Prove it. Or at least, post even a single quantifiable measurement showing the fraction of global warming supposedly attributable to human emissions. So far, no one has produced any such measurements. Doesn’t that bother you?
Next, your Wikipedia link is a bunch of crap edited by William Connolley, who doesn’t seem to have an honest bone in his body. They left out the 32,000 co-signers of the OISM Petition [all of whom have degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s], which greatly helped to scuttle the Kyoto Protocol. Foolish people rely on Wikipedia to support their world view.
Finally, let’s reel you back to the original reason for my first comment:
I canāt discern āwhich side is rightā without looking at the evidence.
I asked you to post evidence in the form of empirical measurements, quantifying the amount of man-made global warming [AGW] out of the total global warming observed over the past Ā±century.
Naturally you ignored that. Because if you can’t post a measurement of a physical process, we must assume that either the physical process is so minuscule that it is down in the noise, and thus is too tiny to even measure, or… AGW simply doesn’t exist. Either way, the climate alarmist crowd loses the argument.
You do not seem to understand how the Scientific Method works: the onus is entirely upon those who claim that AGW is a problem. But so far, they have not been able to show any global harm due to human emissions. The onus is not on skeptics, because skeptics have nothing to prove. The burden is entirely on the proponents of the man-made global warming conjecture, but they have failed to produce the necessary evidence. In fact, they have no evidence, only their conjecture; their opinion.
If you were decisive, you would have made up your mind by now, based on the complete lack of evidence produced by the alarmist crowd. It is telling that you keep trying to fence-sit.
So you’re stating unequivocally, that global warming is in no way possibly caused to any extent by man?
You are correct, that I did not provide evidence that AGW is occurring. The reason I didn’t is that I cannot provide evidence that I do not find. I, however, being open minded have reason to believe that the science is not settled. It is not settled either way, as yet. Man cannot yet be ruled out as at least a part of the cause, just as man cannot as yet be ruled in as the cause.
I did indeed read in to your post asking me to provide proof about AGW as an indicator that you believe that I BELIEVE that AGW is occurring. Do you, or do you not believe that? Be specific and show proof whichever you chose. I tell you I am not convinced that man is causing global warming. I state clearly that my take is that the science is not yet settled. No squirrels there. Do you see one?
I didn’t change the conversation from global warming to climate change. Others did. I used the terminology.
The Wiki link has within it a link to the wiki about the Oregon petition. If you read, and didn’t assume, you’d see that. Do I need to show it to you? It also links to the Heartland Institute. And within those links they discuss the issues in support and against those surveys. Now if we’re not cherry picking, there are links to Dr. Curry, Dr. Happer, and others. Throwing it out as a “load of crap” therefore necessitates either cherry picking or rebuking it in entirety.
I cannot discern who is right as I perceive the science is as yet unsettled. So, if you see it otherwise I’d love to see your data and not your opinion.
Juxtaposing me as an “alarmist” is wrong minded of you. If you believe me to be so, please provide evidence as proof from my words. Can you not bring down your hackles and use a rational evaluation of the evidence I presented sans your assumptions, or are you of a religious bent much the same as those on the CAGW side? Your answer to the first question posed to you above, and my request for evidence will tell much. Am I speaking with an biased, unscientific fanatic, or a reasoned, evidence supported scientist?
I’m agnostic, and in discovery mode.
D. Thomas says:
So youāre stating unequivocally, that global warming is in no way possibly caused to any extent by man?
STOP IT.
Skeptics have nothing to prove.
Those making the alarmist conjecture that man-made global warming is happening have the onus, not skeptics. But they have failed to produce even a single measurement of AGW.
Why do you keep trying to turn the Scientific Method on it’s head? The burden is entirely on the alarmist crowd. But they have failed to support it. Thus, they lose the debate. QED
Just like standing behind the 97%. Skeptics have nothing to prove is easy.
I took a stand as you suggested I do. I supported mine.
I agree that AGW is unproven, but there is evidence in debate.I do not agree that skeptics stating that there is nothing to prove is acceptable either. If warming is occurring, and that’s agreed, what is the source? Evidence, please. We’re asking the AGW side to provide evidence leading to proof. Evidence has been supplied and is in debate. Evidence has been supplied that nature is the cause of global warming. You’ve made a declaration. I’m asking for your proof.
I also notice that this reply is deflecting from the other specific questions I asked. You chose to point out where I “ignored” your questions so I responded to those questions. I’m respectfully asking you to respond to mine. Should you chose to ignore mine, that says much.
Just saying!
D. Thomas,
I asked you to post evidence. Instead, you started asking more questions. You are deflecting again.
I pointed out to you that skeptics have nothing to prove. That is an absolute fact. You don’t like it, I get that. You just don’t agree with the Scientific method. I get that, too.
This has nothing to do with the 97% nonsense, either. A conjecture has been put forth: CO2=cAGW. Human CO2 emissions cause [or will cause] runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. That is the conjecture being debated [it is not that AGW exists; AGW probably does exist, but if it is so tiny that it doesn’t matter, then the debate is over].
Scientific skeptics are under no obligation to prove anything. You don’t like that fact. You want to put skeptics into a box of your own choosing. But you don’t get to decide. It is accepted in science that the job of skeptics is to tear down a conjecture, because that advances knowledge: whatever remains standing after the smoke clears is accepted as current science. Complain all you want, that will not change the fact that the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd.
Next, you assert:
Evidence has been supplied that nature is the cause of global warming.
That is the default position, which has now been challenged by the AGW conjecture. The only evidence we need is a verifiable, empirical, quantified measurement of AGW, showing the percentage of global warming caused by human activity. But neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide such evidence. Thus, your conjecture is on the ropes. It is going down for the count.
I have explained to you before that scientific “evidence” is not pal reviewed papers, or computer climate model output, etc. Evidence consists of verifiable empirical observations, and/or raw data. Evidence consists of empirical facts.
Measurements are data. Post a measurement of AGW, or you are just whistling Dixie. Without measurements, you have nothing. Zero. Zilch. You are pointlessly arguing, because your fragile ego will not let you admit that you have no evidence to support your Belief.
Here’s a challenge, DT: quit waffling, and make a decision. Pretend you have to decide right now, based on all available information. Which is it? Is the alarmist crowd right, or are scientific skeptics right?
It can’t be both. So decide. Or, waffle. Your choice.
Db,
You asked me to post evidence for AGW. I tell you that I do not have evidence to support AGW (at this time) therfore I have no evidence to provide. What is unclear about that? Your method in describing that I have stated, postulated, or whatever is the furthest thing from Science possible. If you disagree, prove where I said it. Stop blowing smoke, deflecting, being intellectually dishonest and take the challenge head on. Provide evidence.
The scientific method defined as: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
skepĀ·ticĖnoun
1.
a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
synonyms: cynic, doubter; More
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Note: The scientific method is designed to be questioned. I question AGW. I also question your declaration that global warming is not caused by man. If you chose to not post evidence, then you must not have evidence to post. Or, you don’t not believe what you said.
I never said CO2 causes global warming. You, at our first “meeting” put those words in my mouth. I challenge you to provide evidence that I (ME) did.
My choice, and I stand by it and am supported by many, many, many folks much smarter and more educated than I is that THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED. (see the Scientific method definition above–I am in pursuit of knowledge). You say that I don’t get to decide about putting skeptics in a box. They (and I) do that for themselves. I am skeptical of AGW until proven otherwise. I am equally skeptical of a total lack of man caused climate change/global warming (you chose).
You don’t get to decide who has to decide what and when. You are a “false authority” if you think otherwise.
Oh, do you see that squirrel over there?
Stop deflecting, and address the questions head on. I’m happy to wait. Or continue to provide evidence that you are no where near a scientist.
You deign to tell me from “on high” that I can’t put “skeptics” in a box and in the next breath you tell me that you want me in one by stating:”quit waffling, and make a decision. Which is it? Is the alarmist crowd right, or are scientific skeptics right?”
Hyp*crite much?
Like Willis Eshenbach said:”I give like I get”.
D. Thomas says:
You asked me to post evidence for AGW. I tell you that I do not have evidence to support AGW
So it’s your belief, then. Got it.
Belief can’t be argued. For me, I’ll go with the Astronauts.
Well, well. We can agree on something. One cannot argue with your beliefs.
False authority, deflection, and intellectual dishonesty. Db, others may respect some of what you say as that’s been shared with me. But I respect you not knowing you only say you’re a scientist on a scientific site and yet you provide only evidence to the contrary.
I see what you really are, and it’s not very appealing. What is it Steve Mosher says? Tribal behavior.
Still not one answer to any of my questions. Quite the scientist. Quite the scientist.
[Snip. Ford-Grouse-juan-beckley etc., you are no longer welcome here, after you dishonestly posted pretending to be another commenter, and after numerous sockpuppet posts. ~mod.]
D. Thomas,
How did you get so far off track? Now you’re just going ad-hom, like every other cornered alarmist.
Now, what do you think my beliefs are? Whatever you think they are, they do not matter. The evidence matters. You claimed to have evidence. You didn’t and you never posted any real evidence. Your whole M.O. is based on confirmation bias and cherry-picking. The fact is that there is no real world evidence quantifying AGW [which I still think exists, but it is too tiny to measure].
Also, I am not debating politics. I never mentioned Obama; you did. This is not tribalism, at least from my side.
Next, I am not trying to debate America vs Europe. Or the Patriot Act; you brought that up. I’m not arguing civil liberties, either, or ‘all that is wrong with the world’. That’s your misdirection. I just want someone to quantify AGW. That’s all. Give me a testable measurement. Just one. I originally replied to David Ball, who criticized your claim that you want to bring balance to the discussion. As if.
I know exactly why you are upset: I am holding your feet to the fire, and you don’t like it. I get that. You don’t like the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove. You are looking for a way to legitimize your belief that AGW is a problem. Since you can’t find one, you go on the attack. That is the universal response of the alarmist crowd. I’ve been on that receiving end for twenty years now.
If you were a stand-up guy, you would simply admit that there is no testable, empirical scientific evidence showing that AGW is any kind of a problem. It would then follow that the country should promptly cease wasting tax money on the AGW wild goose chase. With no evidence of global harm, that is the only reasonable position for honest folks to take.
Keep misdirecting and criticizing my questions and responses, it’s water off a duck’s back to me. Every day that global warming remains in abeyance, the alarmist crowd loses more support. I am doing my part to help that along. I’ve made it my mission. You are doing your part to keep flogging that dead horse. If we both do our parts, we will see how it all shakes out in the end.
ad hominom is not okay and deflecting, intellectual dishonesty, lying, and false authority is? Just want to know the rules.
You have shown me nothing but contempt since my first posting. What I get, I give. You’re showing hypocritical behavior by saying I can’t put skepics in a box and then telling me you want me in one.
Answer my questions, so called scientist. If you cannot do that then admit you’re incompetent as a scientist. One or the other, if you’re a stand up guy. That’s no attack on you, but it is an attack on your methods. I directly answered your questions. Can you not come down off the pedestal (false authority) you’re on and answer direct questions?
I’ll admit you didn’t mention Obama. If you have the critical thinking and reading ability you’ll see that I responded to another’s post that did. You then, jumped in, in an effort to spin me up. I responded with nothing but a respectful comment and showed how I had addressed an AGW’er as evidence that I’m seeking perspectives from all sides of this discussion. I’m no hypocrite, unlike the behavior you’ve shown.
You want ME to quantify AGW. Not “another” as you’re superimposing your assumptions on me. You did that in the first thread and are doing that again.
My feet aren’t in the fire. I answered your questions. You’ve deflected and did not address a single one that I posed to you except that global warming is occurring. So once you can be the scientist you proclaim so vehemently to be and provide the data to support your conclusion you can’t be taken seriously. Until then, you’re intellectually dishonest. It is what it is.
I currently have no evidence to support AGW. I don’t expect that any is imminent. But if it does come, I, for one, will be receptive to it. I also have no evidence that global warming is anything but natural. But I’m not the one that states I’m a scientist. You declared that there is no way we’re (man) is affecting the climate. I ask again for your evidence. Stating you’re a skeptic and have nothing to prove is deferral. It’s the very definition.
I’m not upset in the least. I showed you and others nothing but deference in my first visit, that is until the tribalism set in. Then you and I stooped to low levels and we both (not just me) were called on it.
So be a big scientist and answer the questions. Or don’t. You and I will never settle this as NEITHER are the experts. Now we can talk about it like adults if you change your tone. You’re showing the lack of balance that I was referring to. I’ve shown evidence that I don’t. If you don’t provide the evidence then I chose to no longer show you any deference or respect as you have earned neither.
If you wish to get back to the discussion I’m in. If you wish to continue the same behavior of showing me contempt and you expect different results ……..well we all know what that defines.
It’s your turn, if you can answer the questions. If not, this is (what’s the term) Climateball and has nothing of value to add. I will continue my journey to knowledge. You already have your answer and obviously your mind is closed.
An accurate statement. Good summary. Nothing more need be said.
dbstealy, Danny Thomas’s non-answer to me could have been left as it stands. I do appreciate you trying to reason with him ( I don’t think that is possible ), but it is clear from his non-answer that there is nothing of any significance going on in his head. Deflection is the typical response as he cannot answer the question head on. I expected nothing more from him than misdirection, and that is what I got. He needs no more rope than that.
Why are you bringing politics into a science site, then complaining about the politics ??
I, for one, don’t care about your political thoughts.
You want balance ?, there are many other sites that need your attention, and they are not hard to find.
They might not have quite the coverage of this site though, always the dilemma, eh.
u.k.(us)
Absolutely fair comment.
A couple observations if I may.
I didn’t “bring” politics, I responded to another that did. That you don’t care about my commentary is fine. But this is a public format. If/when others stop posting on political topics, and policy is political is it not, then I’d agree. Until then, in my country, I’m free to speak in agreement with you or in a different orientation than you.
Is balance a problem on this site, or are those of a particular orientation the only ones welcome? Kinda makes for stale debate, and I’m not aware of that being a rule of WUWT. Please correct if inaccurate. I, for one, am an independent.
If/when Mr. Watts or the mod asks me to leave, I’ll respectfully do so. It’s not my site and it’s a privilege for us all, is it not? I can hope that the respect is/will be mutual but it’s not always. Sometimes my commentary has lacked respect but I’m, by far, not the only one. Call others out, or single me out, it matters not.
“So called scientist”??
Well, I guess we’re done here.
Sorry about all that typing.
This is all about setting the stage for Paris 2015, that’s it.
I’m pretty sure if you want to live in a country like China, you can move to China.
I’m chuckling at that. A number of people moved to the USSR back when, I don’t recall (even if it was reported) how they found living there, if troubled would they even be able to get out again.
A friend claims that a couple of fools from Canada/US went to ISIS-controlled areas to help them, but ISIS did not want them. (Don’t need unreliable fighters, of course it would be easy to arrange for them to be war casualties.)
Back in the days of Soviet Russia, there were a number of folks after a long wait and struggle, were finally “allowed” to emigrate to USA and to other countries. A fair number actually returned to Russia (to the glee and delight of Pravda). Seems they could not handle the many choices they had to make regarding their being after landing in NY. After a lifetime of decisions of where you were to live and work by “someone else” seems they could not handle the basic process of making the decisions themselves, and wanted to go back to their comfort zone in Russia. Appears that is what some folks today want that to happen where the government makes all the decisions for you, and all you have to do is “obey”. That way you can never be blamed for your bad choices in life and you are relieved of the burden of decisions about critical events. This is why consensus “science” becomes so important to them.
David Suzukiās ilk are usually very careful not to get their hands bloody.
They fudge wording, and use evasions such as āI can understand why they want to ā¦..ā.
They predict people will become violent but are careful not to advocate it themselves. And they associate with violent people.
And they spin ā after Suzukiās very clear remark, a spokesperson claimed he did not mean it literally ā but Suzukiās words in the context sure did not sound anything but literal.
Real people, including many living on the streets of Victoria BC, are clearer.
Indeed, when the residence of the mayor of Victoria was vandalized by anarchists trying to do even more for homeless people, street people outside the Our Place shelter condemned the action, but a spokesperson for a group claiming to advocate for homeless/poor people refused to despite repeated pushing by the radio interviewer.
And they are hypocrites.
While Maude Barlow decries “globalization”, she is on the board of directors of organizations in Canada, the US states of CA and WA, and Germany.
Of course to Marxists, which she obviously is given her anti-capitalism rhetoric, contradictions are acceptable (it’s called dialectic logic”).
Another tactic of such activists is misleading names for their organizations. For example, Barlow is chair of “The Council of Canadians”, note the word “Some” is not included (“A Few” would be more accurate).
While Elizabeth may has criticized the Council of Canadians, and officially decries violence, she has often associated with Barlow – effectively giving them sanction.
Chinese apparatchiks aren’t going to jump for anything, as the Guardian misreports what was allegedly “agreed” to (remember, this is NOT a binding “agreement;” it is a plan for future action – Congress would have to approve anything binding, good luck with all that). The Chinese have until 2030 to “top off” their emissions. Sixteen years from now, I predict, Obama will be dead, and the Chinese will go on emitting.
Overheard coming from the inner workings of a Red Chinese Politboro planning session: “Let’s promise the Dufus some horsecrap projections stretched out many nebulous years and maybe he will go away.”
“Yeah, Guys, that’s the plan, right.”
“Agreed.”
“Maybe the idiot will hamstring his economy for a promise.”
“They would never do that. They are sitting on the biggest load of cheap fossil fuels in the world and have enormous competitive advantage with it.”
“You have no idea what a fool we are dealing with.”
“Oh, I forgot that for a minute. What a maroon!”
“Hey, let’s dress him up in an idiotic maroon nightshirt to make it obvious, OK? Think he’ll go for it?” Uproarious laughter follows (After translation)…
Danny Thomas
November 14, 2014 at 9:00 am
While this is the topic of the day, letās remember that he navigated us through the most challenging financial crisis in recent history. Do we have debt yet to pay? Yes. Do we deserve to have to pay it? You bet. We (via our leadership) allowed the crisis to occur, realized that financial institutions cannot be left to their own devices, and have done pretty much nothing to correct the situation. And this happened through the thread of āleadershipā of both parties. So letās not rely on the āPressā as our guide as depending on which āPressā one consumes, the orientation will vary.
Sooooo he led by doing nothing. Yup, pretty much sums it up.
If we want to talk about details we can, or we can just smear the man because we’re on the other team.
Had an interesting experience when I first chose to post on this blog. I’m not an AGW’er, I’m skeptical, I’m not a denier.
But one here (a rabid skeptic) chose to attack me personally for my policies being responsible for the deaths of “millions of children”. A couple days ago when speaking with a CAGW’er he said to me that by not addressing CO2 now that I was responsible for the deaths of “millions of children”.
Folks, when it gets like that, rational thought has left the building and BALANCE needs to be restored. It’s no longer science, it’s religion.
Then address the issue posted here directly. Is this a good deal for the American people?
David,
First, comment about me to DB is “tribal behavior”.
Second, the last post I saw from you was: David Ball November 14, 2014 at 8:10 pm
Danny Thomas, the vast majority of media outlets in the west are left biased, yet you feel the need to ābring balance to the discussionā here. Give me a break.”
In this I see no question. So if I’ve missed something you directed to me, I apologize and ask that you repost.
Finally, I see this question:”David Ball November 16, 2014 at 9:45 am
Then address the issue posted here directly. Is this a good deal for the American people?”
But since I know not to what it refers, I cannot answer. Is what a good deal.
Thanks,
Just what I expected. Obfuscation. The thread is about a deal with China that Obama had made, remember now?
“Tribal behaviour”. That is a laugh, considering the “tribal behaviour” clearly laid out in the Climategate emails ( there 220,000 more yet.) and the “tribal behaviour” of the MSM. Project, much? You have your fingers in your ears and are chanting “LALALALALA”. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
I had said that db not need respond as you revealed your inability to grasp even the most simplistic concepts. You did it again.
I cannot wait for your next tap dance,………
David Ball,
Since there are many threads and cross threads within this topic, it was unclear to ME. It may have been clear in your mind, but it just wasn’t in mine. So if your tantrum is over…………………….
1.) Tribal behavior. Sigh, your nonsensical, deflecting response is not worthy of a reply.
2.) So, presuming that your question is (and correct me if I’m wrong): Do I believe the pact with China is a good deal for the U.S.?
No.
So, if you can refrain from piling on, and stand up all by yourself, and wish to ask me a reasoned respectable follow up. I would be happy to respond.
Okay, now tell me why your answer is “No”. In your own words, preferably.
David,
First, and this is totally without sarcasm, for speaking with me about this and doing so reasonably.
I am skeptical of AGW. I can accept that we are having some impact on our climate. I am not comfortable that it’s only us and not at least in part natural. I see warming.
This is policy, which in my opinion, is based on unsettled science. That, in and of itself, is not good decision making.
Within the policy itself, I see two sections. On the positive side, politically it puts us in the drivers seat relative to other countries. I like us being a leader in the world, but would prefer we lead based on knowns.
On the negative, and for me the most disconcerting (therefore the most weight), I forsee that we have made a pact with an unreliable partner that gives them free reign until 2030 to continue to produce CO2 at whatever level while we “work with them on technology to mediate” when I’m not sure mediation is appropriate and that we’ll provide technology to that unreliable partner who’ll then use it at some point in the future with complete disregard for our innovations and patents. Additionally, I can see that should we implement mediation now, our costs will be increased relative to our partner who is also a global competitor. This will give them competitive advantage with the likelyhood that we’ll: lose jobs, give away technology, and lose competitive advantage (vs. other than China) in addition.
I would much rather we invest in further study to “nail down” the causes to the warming than I see. I understand that many here are against what they perceive as towards support of the “leftist academics” gravy train. But I am okay with further study in most scientific realms if only for the science itself, presuming there is no agenda or cause towards which the science will be oriented. I’m fine with some of my tax dollars being spent on our planet, space, and our universe.
I hope this answers your questions and if I’m capable, I’ll do my best to answer others.
Reasoned discussion is key for me to learn, and forums such as this one, I find helpful. I don’t need everyone to agree with me, as I find differing perspectives make me think more fully about things. This is why I chose to visit here, JC, Realclimate, NOAA, USDA, EPA, National Academy of Science, and many more. I don’t have that many answers, but reading and researching lead me to ask more (and hopefully better) questions. Many have already decided, but as I find the science to be unsettled I am open to possibilities from any direction and I expect the unexpected.
Darn it. Should say “Thanks for speaking with me………………………
Five posts that say little. Why can’t you just shut up for a while? Your opinion isn’t that important. Others are much more interesting.
Danny Thomas November 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm says;
“I see warming.”
Would you be so kind as to show me where the “warming” is in this graph?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Danny Thomas November 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm says;
“On the positive side, politically it puts us in the drivers seat relative to other countries.”
If we are economically hobbled, how is that the “driver’s seat”?
Danny Thomas November 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm says;
“On the negative, and for me the most disconcerting (therefore the most weight), I forsee that we have made a pact with an unreliable partner that gives them free reign until 2030 to continue to produce CO2 at whatever level while we āwork with them on technology to mediateā when Iām not sure mediation is appropriate and that weāll provide technology to that unreliable partner whoāll then use it at some point in the future with complete disregard for our innovations and patents. “
Is this more of that “driver’s seat” you were talking about? I guess I completely misunderstood what “driver’s seat” meant.
Danny Thomas November 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm says;
“I would much rather we invest in further study to ānail downā the causes to the warming than(sic) I see.
Soooo, we are going to use money that we no longer have (hobble economy, remember), when that money could go to much better use on things that are “settled” than to identify the cause of warming that is not really unusual.
I, too, enjoy reasoned discussion. I am not getting that from your post.
David & Db,
I agree with Db (almost) completely. You can provide your cherry picked references and I can provide mine. And the argument circle continues. And we can make it about a silly, make that assinine,ping pong game between us with no winner or we can be open minded and learn from each other.
As Willis said, I give as I get. DB, you poke at me, I WILL poke back. I respect your choice to (mostly :))) to
lift the conversation up. Let don’t make it about me or YOU.
I laid out my thoughts and gentlemen, I look forward to reading yours. Db, my stand was stated and I did so out of respect for your request for me to do so. Please, let’s move on from the ping pong.
The ping-pong game is yours, my friend. It is disingenuous to claim that we both just cherry-pick our references. It goes beyond that.
When a reference or link is posted, that reference must withstand scrutiny. It must prevail over falsification by skeptics, or it is worthless. That is the Scientific Method in action. Whatever remains standing after the smoke clears is accepted as current knowledge [always subject to revision, of course].
In addition to posting evidence, the warmist crowd must also overcome a few basic questions, or their conjecture crashes and burns. For example, I have been asking for years now, for measurements quantifying the % of human-caused global warming, out of the total ā0.7Āŗ of global warming.
But to date, no one has ever posted a single empirical, verifiable and testable measurement of AGW. Thus, the entire AGW conjecture is mere speculation [as always, I feel I must state that I accept that AGW exists. But the real world shows that it is simply too small to matter].
Based on the complete failure of the alarmist crowd to find any evidence to support their belief, skeptics win the man-made global warming debate hands down. If it didn’t work that way, witch doctors would still be in charge.
Let’s boil down the basic debate to it’s central question: are human CO2 emissions causing global warming? So far, that question has never been answered with verifiable facts. It is still nothing more than a conjecture; an opinion.
Until and unless the CO2=AGW claim is supported by testable, empirical measurements, agreed to by most scientists, quantifying the specific percentage of global warming caused by human emissions, the alarmist side loses the debate.
It really is that simple, and constantly worrying at the question like a dog on a bone will not change things. It just keeps the ping-pong going, frustrating those who want answers. Only verifiable facts will change things, and as we see, the warmist contingent has lots of words, but very few supporting facts.
Stop lying. My words were “I see warming.” The bulk of your post is what you’re trying to portray that I said, but is not what I said, so I will ignore that.
I post this as support that I see warming due to expanded growing seasons. It is one piece of several, but you’ll probably not accept it so I’m choosing to not spend any more time on this. I did not say anthropogenic.
http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
Db,
I’ve gone back to your immediate prior post and we are just not that far apart. If we remove the tone of our relationship that got off on the wrong foot. I’ll ask you to please look at this and tell me where we differ.
My stand is “uncertain”. Please just forgive that, and listen to the following. I’ve declared myself as skeptical because I do not buy in to the AGW argument that CO2 is causing warming to a level that raises extreme concern. Please keep reading.
I think that you are seeing warming too. Just not enough for concern and you’re not satisfied that it’s all CO2. I see warming. I see extended growing seasons. Ice is melting (more than growing). But can that be attributed to man? I don’t yet see that but I’m open to proof (and it appears you are also as you try to discern science vs. propaganda). I perceive that you could accept that (assuming warming) it’s nature to at least some extent. Let me know if I’m correct in that perception as this is exactly what I’ve been saying. Using the LIA as a starting point leading to today could indicate we’re just in a warming cycle. I cannot cite geologic history from memory. Give me time.
And part of the missing evaluation (to me) is what about deforestation (Amazon?). Could that have an impact? What about our monoculture oriented agriculture? What about the way we stifle wildfire leading to changes in vegetation? What about the sun? What about aerosols? What about methane? What about ……………..There are others (you likely know them better than I).
So let’s define warmist. If warmist is one who states they have sufficient evidence that warming is occurring then put me in that box. From your statement regarding .7C I’d say you’re there also.
If warmist is one who runs around screaming ‘the sky is falling’, I’m not in that box. In fact, a good portion of the reason I’m here (and everywhere) is due to my 30+ year friend who insists the sky is falling and I just don’t see it.
When I check: American Physical Society, IPCC, National Academy of Science, et al I see terms such as: likely, potentially, and other synonyms of “maybe” regarding CO2. I understand that “likely” has a bit of a different meaning when used in scientific publication but it’s not strong enough for me. I’m looking for more certainty.
It make no sense to me for all the scientists on the AGW side to risk their personal credibility if they did not have the evidence to support AGW. Similarly, it makes no sense to me that the 54 equally renowned scientists (sorry it’s a wiki but it’s consise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
that clearly have a differing view. So why would they risk their credibility? I cannot do the physics, so I can’t dispute EITHER side personally. I cannot accept “some guy on the internet” on some blog without credentials. But I can see folks like Dr. Brown (Duke) that do.
But if I cut through the politics (and how is that done?) and read the perspectives plus the tons of sources that “some guy on the internet” provides it helps me think and ask better questions.
Please put yourself back to the days that you had not already made up your mind and consider that my journey is there. I sense, but cannot yet define, that the answer is in the middle. Heck, I may be closer to “accurate” that the scientists on the fringes on both ends.
I perceive, rightly or wrongly, that we’re dealing with an incredibly complex chaotic system that frankly we just don’t understand and we may never. I support scientific research for the sake of enlightenment as it has a value independently. I wish it wasn’t so oriented toward the grant process, but it is and I can’t fix that. I wish it was as simple as an apple falling on Newton’s head, but it’s not.
Please recognize that your initial perception of me was off base. I’m not an AGW’er. That is subject to change. I’m not a “denialist” (I despise that term due to the negative twist from the AGW side but as a stand alone it’s fine). I am an answer (truth?) seeking skeptic.
No, Danny Thomas, I do not think the planet is still warming.
The most accurate global temperature measurements are made by satellites, which show conclusively that global warming has stopped.
You seem to be looking for something that is simply not there. After more than thirty years of searching for empirical evidence of AGW, there is zilch. Question: at what point would you finally throw in the towel, and admit that the climate alarmist crowd is unconvincing? When there has been no global warming for 25 years? For 30 years? When glaciers a mile thick cover Chicago again? When, exactly? It seems to me you have already made up your mind, and you are desperately searching for anything that confirms your bias.
Next, your Appeal to Authority, as exemplified by your citing of Wikipedia, is about as lame as that fallacy can get. They completely ignore the 32,000+ American scientists and engineers who stated, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. The fact that Wikipedia completely ignores those tens of thousands of professional scientists ā every one of them with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhDs ā shows the incredible, deceptive bias of one William Connolley, who does not have an honest bone in his body IMO.
If we include the OISM co-signers, the alarmist clique is a paltry handful of rent-seekers by comparison, who are riding the grant gravy train. They are outnumbered by more than 100 : 1 by skeptics. It’s easy to see where the real ‘consensus’ is.
Finally, neither you nor anyone else has ever posted a single measurement of AGW. That doesn’t bother you, even a little bit? No rational person would listen to someone trying to sell an idea like man-made global warming without one iota of evidence. Well, maybe they would; Elmer Gantry made a good living selling nonsense to the rubes.
Note that by ‘evidence’ I mean raw data. Because there is no data that quantifies the putative human contribution to overall global warming. Without any measurements, all you have are self-serving modern day witch doctor charlatans who are trying to sell you a pig in a poke. The fact that you’re even willing to give them the time of day says a lot.
You are correct that I’m looking, but not for anything in particular.
Answer this, please. Does a scientist stop in the middle of their research with a conclusion? Or does a scientist not have a target (theory) that they attempt to prove? Then try to disprove, then put out for others to replicate/falsify/so on. You say I’ve made up my mind even thought I’ve told you numerous times that I have not then you tell me you have. Does that make sense?
Please stop superimposing. I’m in the middle of my research so I have no conclusion. If you indeed are a scientist how can you not respect that? I don’t know you. I don’t know your background, career, expertise, resume. You don’t know mine. You insist that you do or that I have an agenda, but I’m simply not where you are.
You mention that temps have stopped. Do you expect them to stay where they are? What’s the next direction? Warm, cool, static?
Did you read the wiki? It’s not an up to the minute source and only documents a moment in time. Simple question and the reason I asked is the scientists vary:
Scientists that question the accuracy of IPCC climate projections. You and I both do, correct?
Scientists that argue that global warming primarily caused by natural process. Do we agree that’s likely for the warming that has occurred so far?
Scientists that argue the cause of global warming is unknown. Do we agree that that’s likely for the warming that has occurred so far?
Scientists that argue that global warming will have few negative consequences. Do we agree that that’s accurate for that warming that’s occurred so far?
Look at it in a historical context, and read “based on the warming so far”. Don’t presume (unless you’ve read each and every reference…..I haven’t) that they are stating we’ll have warming going forward. Take them at face value of the categories in which they (the scientists) are listed.
As I’ve told you before, there is a link to the Oregon petition embedded: “There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[8] the Oregon Petition,[9] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[10] all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.[11][12][13]” This is 15 lines down from the top.
I’m not using this wiki as a scientific reference, and I told you I used it only because it’s concise and provides several listings of “skeptical” scientists. There are probably over 100 links within it.
These posts are already huge so I don’t want to repeat the questions asked in the previous post, but please go back and answer those and the ones above.
I really do appreciate your effort. I hope you can appreciate mine even if you chose to not agree.
Db,
Just to be clear on the wiki, two of those included under the:”Scientists that question the accuracy of IPCC climate projections.” are Dr. Curry, and Dr. Lindzen.
And under those arguing that GW is primarily natural includes Dr. Happer (whom we just had the thread on here on WUWT).
Only wanting to provide further detail to provide you a clearer image as to why I used the concise source. I could have listed them individually, but that would make my long post even longer. (Which I guess this kinda does anyhow).
I agree with D. Ball about reasoned discussion.
My apologies to D. Thomas for my getting fed up with his constant reluctance to take a stand. I was not nice to him. This is why I’m frustrated:
The arguments are all here at WUWT. All the alarmist/warmist arguments, and all the skeptical responses. Everyone else seems to be able to make their minds up, and take a stand. Why not Mr. T?
We can argue vague hair-splitting points all day long, but for what? The basic debate is pretty clear: is human activity causing global warming? If so, then show us, using verifiable, testable evidence. Everything else is hand-waving.
It appears that some folks just like to see their name in lights. They like to be the center of attention, instead of trying to either be convincing, or to deconstruct bad arguments. So they endlessly argue peripheral points, never taking a definite stand. In other words, they like the discussion to be all about them.
Like most folks, I would like to resolve the ‘climate’ question rationally. If a particular argument cannot be overcome, concede it and move on. That’s how science is supposed to work. So let’s decide whether the CAGW/AGW conjecture has enough meat on its bones to be worth spending any more public resources on it. That’s a yes-or-no question right there.
Don’t always try to be the center of attention. This is about a pretty much baseless conjecture that is costing immense resources, while only benefitting a very few at the expense of everyone else. Stopping the “carbon” scam is my goal, and I get frustrated when the focus becomes a person, rather than the problem
Danny Thomas,
“You’re talking a lot, but you’re not saying anything”- David Byrne
P.S.- I am NOT referring to your responses to dbstealy’s posts at all. Only your responses to me. There goes your “tribal behaviour” postulate.
Happy to re-engage. Please refresh and repose.
David, I have nothing against you, DB, or anyone here. I’m learning, reading, asking questions, and responses and non responses tell one much.
There is one who’ll probably jump all over me as “me wanting to see my name in lights” just because I respond to you, and he won’t say a word to you. I recognize a bully, but a bully doesn’t recognize this is the internet.
Actual behavior tells much more than silly words. In hindsight, I should have come to this site not in deference but instead in bluster like others. My approach was misread as weakness. But I’ve learned and won’t take his crap or yours if you wish to continue with it.
It got dead silent after my last posts, and since none of the questions I posed were addressed I had the answers I needed.
Actually, being polite gets more respect in the long run.
Unless you’re a main author (Willis).
M. Courtney,
I really do appreciate that. I’ve vacillated between deference and firmness. I’ve tried humor. And maybe, just maybe, I’m really bad at all. But here, no matter what I try, I get “āYouāre talking a lot, but youāre not saying anythingā- David Byrne coming from David Ball.
You’ve read what Db has posted wrongly about me. You’ve read what I’ve responded. So, and I’m a big person I can take it, please compare and contrast DB and David and my tone. I’m new so folks, I don’t know, protect the pack or test the new guy? I get it. But in an honest evaluation, when I look at how things have gone I can see some things I could have done better, but I can see where others could also. Please, please correct me if I’m wrong. I mean this sincerely. You and I have difference but have communicated respectfully.
Folks are kind enough to point out when I’m off track, but I don’t see anyone who’s a member of the pack (IE DB) called out for being a jerk when they’re being a jerk. I’ve tried to be respectful and commit to you and this forum to got back there, but only if the personal stops. I can continue either way.
But I have learned that if one stands up to the B.S. the piling on is reduced. That’s why when I responded the way I did a moment ago.
I would truly appreciate your honest evaluation and from what I’ve seen you’ll be nothing but honest. I respect that and you.
The pack isn’t that large but they are vocal and verbally violent.
And also quite unpersuasive. Don’t worry about them.
They are clearly here mainly for the politics and only a few of them follow the science at all. You may have noticed which are which. That doesn’t mean they are stupid; it means they aren’t very interested in the wider debate.
Remember, observers make up far more people here than the commenters. Why stay dumb and be thought a fool when commenting can prove it? The observers (lurkers) can see who is “winning” by vehemence, bluster and numbers and who is calmly presenting their view. Now, who do you think gets the most respect from the observers – the majority? Even if the observers agree with the majority, who do you think they respect?
The Tea Party guys here are no worse than the political feminists on Jezebel or the DC fanboys on Comic Book Resources. Every site has them.
My way is to be calm, don’t lower the tone to name calling without pointing out my own (or my own side’s) faults as well. And above all I walk away.
After a while thread dies except for one or two remaining conversations with no observers. At this point, evaluate; are you in a Monty Python “This is an argument, no it isn’t, yes it is” loop or are you learning and progressing with new arguments, ideas and evidence being presented?
Are you here for the last word? Are you here to evangelise? Or are you here, like me, to partake in the debate, to learn and to have a bit of fun. If it’s the latter there comes a point where you can, sensibly, walk away – with honour.
M Courtney,
Not intended to “have the last word”. Your point is well presented and well taken. I have taken the bait and behaved poorly. For this I apologize.
I wish to thank you for taking your time with me.
Respectfully,
Danny Thomas, obfuscation is a form of rudeness. My response to your rudeness is justified. You have brought nothing at all to the table that even remotely substantiates your position, so one can only conclude that you are not adding clarity to the discussion. What is your motivation for such behaviour? Nothing good.
Science has to have predictive value. Nothing presented by the establishment “climate scientist” has occurred as predicted. What part of that don’t you get?
What does respecting someone have to do with science? Stop making it personal.
M.Courtney, nice generalization. Has DT presented anything of substance?
When he first came here he defended, very well, the viewpoint that the USGS should not be destroyed in a rage against Climate alarmism. He has been a rare proponent of moderate positions in most things since then.
It isn’t easy to be moderate when attacked.
So yes. He has presented things of substance.
You may not agree with them. You may not agree with his arguments.
But he has been dignified.
It’s hard not to read that in Alan Rickman’s voice. Did you mean to sneer? Because that tone is what is conveyed. DT has a reason to feel aggrieved.
You have not been welcoming. You have not been polite. And that leads to pointless echo chambers.
M.Courtney, as far as politics is concerned, I look at evidence there, too. Let’s compare Canada to the U.S. economically: The U.S. has a socialist leaning leader, and is in trouble economically (don’t try to blame Bush, as too much time has elapsed for that to be valid). Canada has a conservative leader and has weathered the global recession better than the vast majority of countries. In fact, the 2 provinces that are supporting the rest of Canada economically are conservatively lead provinces. Hmmmm. The rest of the provinces are starting to see the light.
The evidence that is right in front of you supports a conservative stance. Capitalism has been smeared by those who disagree with it as being “greed based”. This is a straw man. It is an intellectually weak argument, not dissimilar to the arguments presented by warmists. Governments need to be run as a household is run, with a budget that is realistic. You cannot “borrow to get out of debt” to put it simplistically.
Your appearance as a “neutral party” and the epitome of polite discussion is unnecessary and unwarranted. I say that with zero emotion attached. Stop playing “Switzerland”. Danny Thomas’ posts are as empty as Obama’s suit. He is merely trying to hang with the big kids, and failing miserably.
The fact that DT can post his vacuous meanderings here completely refutes your “echo chamber” assessment. The fact that I can respond here, but not be allowed to post on warmest sites, blows it right out of the water. Get some perspective, please.
Funny that you see a “direct hit” as being rude.