Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Fewer cartoons today, I presented my paper (which was well received) and there were fewer sessions. The Conference is over now, it was very successful. Lord Moncton gave the closing address in his inimitable style. I started to draw him but soon realized that nothing I could say would be nearly as funny or entertaining as his speech. It will be posted up on the web, along with my and all the other presentations.
And finally my thanks to Joe Bast and all of the hardworking folks from the sponsors, the Heartland Institute. Can’t say I agree with some of their politics, but they sure know how to throw a good conference. Much appreciated.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This isn’t fair – Willis is way too good at cartoons as well as everything else he does! I am so jealous.
Willis, these are GREAT! As a brother cartoonist/caricaturist, I appreciate how you captured the essence of the subject in picture AND words!
Maybe WUWT will evolve into something like this?
http://xkcd.com/
Nice work, Willis. Now, how about a Josh-Willis (Willis-Josh) Face off? Give ’em both the same topic and let ’em draw! I see a very nice annotated and foot-noted coffee-table book here…
Well Helen Roe’s equation leaves out an important factor. It is:
D = P – E + Ws + M
where P = Precipitation, E = Evaporation,
Ws represents the *spilt Whiskey* which of course is negligible (dammit! we’re talking Irishmen here!)
and M represents Micturation (well we couldn’t call it Pee could we? We already used that letter!)
and of course, generally, M = Wb, where Wb is the amount of Whiskey in the bottle, since you only *rent* alcoholic beverages and Ws is subsumed in Wb, so combining and collapsing we get:
D = Wb -E +P, (since you always start with the Whiskey and end up having to P! )
Excellent post Willis. Water in the whiskey, isn’t that a mortal sin!
Dyspeptic Curmudgeon, instead of M, I think the more scientific letter would be U. It means the same as P and hasn’t been used yet.
Current coverage about the 4th ICCC:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/05/18/climategate-2010-the-inconvenient-facts-about-global-warming/comment-page-1/
Willis, you say you do not agree with their politics? What is it about Personal Liberty and Economic Freedom do you not subscribe to?
I don’t know what it has to do with climate change, but (as a geologist) I sort of understood your caption for Plimer. And I also understood why no one listens to them (but I think I have a sample of an ophiolite somewhere). 🙂
Poptech says:
May 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm
An example might be better than theory. Dr. Harrison Schmidt (the astronaut and the geologist) gave a speech on the Constitution and global warming. He listed a bunch of things that he thought were unconstitutional, including the EPA under Article 1 Section 8, and was roundly cheered.
I do think that the government is involved in many areas which are unconstitutional. However, Article 1 Section 8 says:
Now, I’d hold that keeping people from say pumping smog into the air or putting poisons into the river clearly falls under the “general Welfare” clause. We all jointly depend on the health of the rivers and the air which we all share. The air and the rivers don’t obey the boundaries of the several States, so I don’t see how it can be a State responsibility.
So I disagree that the EPA is unconstitutional. I would say that I generally agree with the direction of the Heartland policies, but not with the distance that they are trying to stretch them.
I don’t want this to devolve into a political discussion, so let me leave it there. I would not claim that my own views are internally consistent. I’m generally more liberal socially and very conservative economically, but I also hold views on certain subjects that don’t fit under that rubric.
My best to you and whatever beliefs you may hold,
w.
Phil R says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Phil, the Heartland folks are going to post up videos of all of the presentations (which is great because I could only attend one of the four breakout sessions going on at any given time). You would likely find Ian Plimer’s talk quite interesting, I know that I did. Much information I didn’t know.
Willis, do you believe the founders thought the Federal government should regulate the environment? Don’t you believe that if that was their intention they would have explicitly said environment. You do understand that the constitution was written in a context you cannot reinterpret based on your opinion but only in the context for which it was written.
I hear the same pollution argument all the time and if it was not for the EPA we would all be dead from said “pollution”. There is extensive evidence that technological advances and not the EPA have contributed more to reducing pollution.
But again the argument is not about pollution but rather the life supporting trace gas, CO2.
For the record I am 100% in support of abolishing the EPA and most of the government (outside of defense and the courts).
Phil R says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:16 pm
“I don’t know what it has to do with climate change, but (as a geologist) I sort of understood your caption for Plimer. And I also understood why no one listens to them (but I think I have a sample of an ophiolite somewhere). :)”
__________________________________________________________________________
I will match that with a sample of pyrite and raise you a sample of Malachite.
I may be a chemist but I thoroughly enjoyed the courses I took in Geo. Everyone is just too focused on the short term to appreciate geologists especially politicians.
Poptech says:
May 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Willis, you say you do not agree with their politics? What is it about Personal Liberty and Economic Freedom do you not subscribe to?
________________________
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 18, 2010 at 5:50 pm
An example might be better than theory. Dr. Harrison Schmidt (the astronaut and the geologist) gave a speech on the Constitution and global warming. He listed a bunch of things that he thought were unconstitutional, including the EPA under Article 1 Section 8, and was roundly cheered.
I do think that the government is involved in many areas which are unconstitutional. However, Article 1 Section 8 says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …
Now, I’d hold that keeping people from say pumping smog into the air or putting poisons into the river clearly falls under the “general Welfare” clause…..”
__________________________________________________________________________
I think it is the way you look at it. The whole pollution thing should have been handled as “criminal trespass” at the very start. Unfortunately the government and courts were conned into not finding industries guilty because it was “The Price of Progress”
Instead of EPA and all the expense of a bureaucracy the Supreme Court should up hold private property rights. You do NOT have the right to pollute MY property even if you are next door.
The chemical company next door to where I worked sued my company over air pollution and won. That was in 1972 before OSHA and before EPA.
@Willis: These cartoons are quite amusing! I can’t decide which I like best (of the ones I get!)
Gail Combs May 18, 2010 at 7:09 pm:
I agree. Let pollution become an issue as it happens, rather than blanket laws and regulations that might have unintended consequences on the economy and everyone’s lives. Accidents are always going to happen and we can’t prevent them with all this extensive and expensive beauracracy. For example, BP’s leak in the Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez. The regs didn’t prevent them, among many other cases both great and small.
As for the founders beliefs concerning the general welfare… I don’t think this open to interpretation. Pre-emptive legislation on the basis of the general welfare is like saying guilty until proven innocent, and that certainly wasn’t in their philosophy. That said…
I don’t think it at all invasive to require of companies that they release to the court and community the details of their plans, including a reasonable risk-assesment, for the record. There’s not just a right to know, but a need as well. That way, if there is an accident, the court will be prepared to address the problem(s). With everyone in the know, that speeds up the process and leaves no one in the dark (nor allows room for polluters/disaster-causers to wiggle their way around). Of course, that would carry with it things like permitting and court fees, like there are now I suppose. Cost of doing business, and all that.
Man… There is much more I could say but this isn’t the time or the place. Sorry to prattle on like that, folks!
And the Google random ad is for? Scientology… it’s a worry.
Gail Combs says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Phil R says:
Bzzt! The topic at hand was CO2 sequestering rocks and how rock formation has tied up huge amounts of CO2. Pyrite doesn’t have carbon, I forget if Malachite
does (it is a copper mineral, right?)
Climate scientists in general really ought to pay more attention to geologists, but they tend to speak truths that inconvenience the warmists.
I liked his comment something like “the volcanic eruption on Tuesday 456 million years ago….”
At any rate, I’m home, it’s late, and I’m tired. It was really a very good conference, and was certainly worth attending, and not just because Willis was next to me at lunch and I could watch him draw the Helen Roe and Joe Bast cartoons.
Poptech says:
May 18, 2010 at 6:02 pm
As I said, I feel that pollution rules are reasonably included under the “general Welfare” clause, which requires no reinterpretation. They put in general terms like that because they were smart enough to know that there was no way that they could predict future problems and issues.
Unless you want to claim that the government has no right to keep a factory in one state from poisoning fish in another state by dumping poison in a river that connects the two … can’t be handled under state law, the dumping is not going on in the state where the poisoning is happening. You can’t sue, because the fish have no standing in court and no one owns them. What would be your solution, if not the Federal Government?
Poptech (and others), Harrison Schmidt’s speech is available on PJTV (registration required). If you think the EPA should not exist, I think that you will enjoy it. The other keynote speeches (Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, Lord Moncton, and others) are available there as well.
Me, I think the EPA should exist, but that it has gone way beyond what it should be doing, which is using good math, good science, and good research to make rules to keep poisons out of our water, air, and soil. That to me falls clearly under the “general Welfare” clause.
w.
Ric Werme: May 18, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Ref Gail Combs and Phil R —
I will match that with a sample of pyrite and raise you a sample of Malachite
Bzzt! The topic at hand was CO2 sequestering rocks and how rock formation has tied up huge amounts of CO2. Pyrite doesn’t have carbon, I forget if Malachite
does (it is a copper mineral, right?)
FTW — A piece of travertine from the Tigris!
Reply: I keep a jar of Halite around just in case. ~ ctm
Willis, your position is illogical because if the term was meant to be arbitrarily interpreted like that then the framers would have just included that phrase and not bothered with the rest of the powers granted to the federal government in the constitution.
As for resolving a dispute between two states that is what the Supreme Court is for. You don’t need the worthless EPA.
FYI I’ve seen Harrison’s excellent speech live.
Willis does the government have the right under the general welfare clause to make sure I eat healthy? How much of a Nanny should the government be? I mean they have a constitutional right to provide for the “general welfare” of us. You unknowingly support the slippery slope argument under the false assumption that your interpretation can only apply to your subjective opinion.
No mention of the ICCC on the BBC website or anywhere else in the UK media.
Reply: I keep a jar of Halite around just in case. ~ ctm
I buy it by the 50-pound bag when I’m home. When I’m *here*, the only NaCl I need comes in small, 1-gram packets. Insert 1 gram in 1 liter of water when the temps top +50C and consume in copious quantities.
Poptech says:
May 19, 2010 at 5:05 am
OK, Poptech … why did they include that phrase? And what do you think the framers meant by that phrase? If the environment is not included under the “general Welfare” clause, then … what is? Remember, it must be something which is not specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution.
Bear in mind that whatever you say is your interpretation. You seem to think that the meaning of the Constitution is always clear …
This is not a dispute between the states. It is one company poisoning wild fish that don’t belong to anyone.
I put that information out there for everyone, not just you.
Whether you eat healthy doesn’t affect me. While it is part of your “Welfare”, it is not part of the “general Welfare”, i.e., things that affect all of us.
All your Official Agencies should be privatized, that could be done by gradually transferring its services to private companies, so the goal to achieve would be to get all needed services through outsourcing.