I’m sure that many will dismiss this because, well, ‘he’s a game show host”. But, most people don’t know this, but Pat was the TV weatherman for KNBC-TV in Los Angeles before being recruited by Merv Griffin for “Wheel of Fortune”. He also served in Vietnam, working in the Armed Forces Radio Network. So, he knows something not only about weather and climate, broadcasting, and human nature when money is involved as well. His background is not unlike mine.
Maybe he can teach these guys something?
This excerpt from Pat Sajak’s essay on Ricochet.com yesterday, h/t to Planet Gore
Manmade global warming, like so many other social and economic issues, has become hopelessly politicized. Each side has dug in its heels and has accused the other of acting irresponsibly and dishonestly. For the believers, the other side has become the equivalent of Holocaust deniers; and for the doubters, the other side has become a cult intent on manipulating mankind to remake the world in some sort of natural Utopian image.
The divide has become so great, it seems virtually impossible to bridge the gap. However, I’m not writing for Ricochet merely to outline problems; I’m here to offer real solutions. And I’m not just blowing carbon dioxide.
Let’s assume that a third of the world’s population really believes mankind has the power to adjust the Earth’s thermostat through lifestyle decisions. The percentage may be higher or lower, but, for the sake of this exercise, let’s put it at one-third. Now it seems to me these people have a special obligation to change their lives dramatically because they truly believe catastrophe lies ahead if they don’t. The other two-thirds are merely ignorant, so they can hardly be blamed for their actions.
Now, if those True Believers would give up their cars and big homes and truly change the way they live, I can’t imagine that there wouldn’t be some measurable impact on the Earth in just a few short years. I’m not talking about recycling Evian bottles, but truly simplifying their lives. Even if you were, say, a former Vice President, you would give up extra homes and jets and limos. I see communes with organic farms and lives freed from polluting technology.
read the rest here
The same people who believe in AGW also believe that there are 4 billion more humans than the planet can take. So wouldn’t it be appropriate for them to biodegrade themselves and save the planet? Having said that, the author of this proposal, (a warmist himself?) has pulled the rug from beneath the warmists’ feet.
How is it that al gore’s book of lies and misinformation can be recommended reading for fourth graders?
http://www.wvec.com/news/local/Parent-concerned-that-Al-Gores-book-on-summer-reading-list-for-Norfolk-fourth-graders-99257174.html
When the Arabs make videos encouraging their kids to become martyrs, there is outrage everywhere. And yet this bullshit science is used to brainwash our kids, here, in the land of the free. Parents should be calling their school principals to make sure this junk science never reaches our kids.
I love this. We’ll see the believers’ true colors now. I mean, who can hate Pat Sajak? But, they will.
Despite Pat Sajaks disclaimer on the numbers right at the beginning, I suspect his initial 1/3 of the population figures are a long way out.
350 million potential believers in North America.
500 million in greater Europe.
150 million in Russia.
Plus throw in another 100 million or so to cover any wealthy upper classes from other global regions who may worried about global warming / climate change and you have the grand total of roughly 1.1 billion souls who may be AGW / CC believers and that cop an earful about global warming / climate change on a daily basis.
That then leaves about 5.5 billion folk on this planet who couldn’t give a damn about global warming and climate change. They are too skeptical to believe in the spin or the scam or most of them are just too busy trying to make a living or are just trying to survive against all the odds.
Now we know from the polls that only about half the populations listed above as potential believers are seriously or partly concerned about AGW / CC so those polls suggest that only about 550 million, nearly all wealthy westerners, are concerned or maybe have some concerns about AGW / CC .
And that 550 million of the most blest of believers comprise just under 8.5 % of all of humanity.
And a minority of that 8.5 % wants to set about changing and destroying the lives, the hopes and aspirations of the other 91% of humanity just to satisfy their own ideological cult like beliefs.
Of course if push came to shove as in big increases in living and work expenses due to new government Climate Change tax depredations, the polls also suggest that 8.5 % of AGW / CC believers would be whittled away very quickly to numbers likely to be even less than 3 % or 4 % of the global population.
So Mr Sajak’s suggestion that those believers who comprise that 8.5 % of the global population lead by example in living a frugal lifestyle is very fitting, although with those low numbers I’m not sure any of the other 91 % who are trying to climb to the living standards that the most blest of believers enjoys, would take any notice whatsoever.
Come to think of it, if this proposal is truely taken up by the warmists, the price of fuel, electricity etc will fall sharply and my heating/cooling bill will be much less than present. Please warmists, nike it and just do it.
I dunno why everyone harangues Al so much. Don’t they realise he’s a Gore – he’s been bred to live life surrounded by limousines and luxury; he’s genuine American aristocracy.
So do as he says, not as he does – because, dammit, he’s a gentleman and he knows best.
/sarc
But it’s much less fun cutting down yourself if nobody else does it. In fact some recent research tends to show that people would rather be poor if everyone else is poor than be moderately well-off if everyone else is rich. Making alarmists cut down on their energy use while the rest of us go on having a good time will just make their resentment even bigger and nastier than it is now.
Because of Pat Sajak’s current job, he might be easy to underestimate. However, he is intelligent, experienced, and dedicated. As a Board member for Hillsdale College, he has taken some strong and well-founded positions on other issues as well. His writing in the present case is right on point and very well expressed. Thank you, Pat! Keep on what you’re doing!
We need to focus on CAGW,, being Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. That is the answer.
You rip the wind from the sails of a Warmenist if you totally agree with the concept. However, you don’t agree with the models, you don’t agree with the frantic, irrational belief system. Attack the “Catastrophic” side of things, because that is the sole argument upon which they can rationally rely!
YES, there is climate change. There has been for a few years. In fact, there will always be climate change. Why are we the “Deniers”?
PROVE that it will be “Catastrophic”!
Yes, there is global warming. There has been for a few years, up to 2001 or so.
Agree with them, and you confound them. They have to take their tentaive philosophies sliding step by step along the long and slender branch of public ridicule.
In a few years, the Warmenists will be utterly unwilling to acknowledge their youthful folly.
‘Utopians Need to Lead by Example’ — Six simple words that say so much.
Some of my friends are global warming believers by default, they subscribe to the Washington Post and believe everything in it. Their total footprint is not like Gore’s with lots of airline flights, but they are constantly wasting energy and using their A/C double to undo the energy wasted in the house. Examples are obsessive clothes washing and full drying, half full dishwasher run daily, large oven used to cook one serving of chicken nuggets, high wattage incandescent bulbs on everywhere (they don’t like the CFL light), A/C set too low with little use of natural cool air, etc. I go there and nag all the time about the waste, but they just expect their politicians to tax businesses to deal with global warming.
The futility of Mankind trying to control climate
On average world temperature is +15⁰C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33⁰C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18⁰C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into ⁰C:
• Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C
• Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = ~1.24⁰C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%:
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C:
So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 ⁰C?
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
If this is really so, then the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades.
And now Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.
So start Tweeting each other and get the ball rolling. We’ll anxiously await results. See, I told you I had the solution. My work here is done. 😉
“….buy a Prius, drive it around for a while, and give it to the maid….”
Heh – Pat Sajak has been writing political stuff for a while now. Unfortunately, a certain group who consider themselves “tolerant” (while actually being the most intolerant people on the planet) pretty much made it impossible for him to continue.
Take a wander around his site, starting at:
http://www.patsajak.com/message-from-pat/
There used to be a whole page of links to political essays, but I can’t find it anymore.
Pat just doesn’t quite get it!
Look at ALL the science and not just what is reported through the media as science.
Has science figure out how an “ICE AGE” can be generated like clock work?
Science fluffs off anyone that is not in their prestine group of “intellectuals” meanwhile there are many researchers being kept out the have some very important knowledge to share.
Physicists have locked in our idea of how motion should work while failing to understand what centrifugal force is and in doing so deemed it a psedo-science.
What confuses scientists is that the planet is 3 dimensional, yet rotation is 2 dimensional. You weigh less at the equator due to centrifugal force, yet this is not included in the study of the sun. The energy at the equator of the sun is stronger and deminishes as you move towards the axis. PLANETARY DRIFT is the planet moving horizontally at an slow angle through the equator of the sun and cooling when it moves towards the poles of the sun and coming back through the hottest trail in a pattern.
Ops, sorry, I guess this is just an opinion and not actual research.
Ed says:
July 27, 2010 at 3:43 am
“Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into ⁰C:”
“• Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C” – Right
“• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C” – Wrong
“• Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C” – Wrong
“• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = ~1.24⁰C” – Wrong
“• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%:” – Wrong
“• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C:” – Wrong
“So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C. " – Wrong
Ed, this “ Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect” meme is very popular in some circles, have you got a link for it?
Brilliant article, as some people say Pat owes me a keyboard as I laughed tea all over mine.
He does miss the point though as AGW is not about affecting the rich as they can simply buy Carbon credits, the main push is to get the poorest of the world staying in the stoneage (without the fires).
Since research by individuals is not considered…
Why does our planet not drift away?
The suns strong magnetic field on this hunk of iron tries to keep the planet in place by exerting it’s influence.
Oh goody.
Colder winters – more ice – shorter summers – slower growing plants – less rain – bigger glaciers – less crops – bigger deserts – um – frolicking – ah – polar bears – er – cool. I suppose.
What was the problem with global warming again?
Lead from the front. It’s the oldest solution in the book, even Michael Jackson called for us to “Change the man in the mirror”.
When they do it then I’ll join them. Until then I won’t trust those who say one thing and practise another.
Andrew W says:
“Wrong… Wrong… Wrong.”
Who elected Andrew W the Authority?
Just as one example, human CO2 emissions are but a tiny fraction of all CO2 emissions, per the UN/IPCC.
And the University of Oslo falsified the canard that CO2 from fossil fues use can be distinguished from all other CO2.
As an Authority on the subject, Andrew should be aware that CO2 causes no measurable warming, making his own presumed judgements on Ed Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.
Most of the rise in CO2 is due to the Earth’s emergence from the LIA. Rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature on all time scales. The insignificant warming from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, which is far in the future and probably will never occur, is so minor [<1°C] that it is insignificant.
CO2 is a minor trace gas. It does not drive the climate, and never has. Once that fact is accepted, it is easy to understand that natural variability completely explains everything being observed.
Alexander Feht wrote:
“your joking right”
No I wasn’t joking. What was it about what I said that made you think I was joking? What do you think was incorrect about it?
Here in Melbourne Australia we have a ritualised quasi-religious football game named Australian Rules. On a typical weekend 8 games are played between 16 teams, before crowds that would reach a cumulative 200,000 people, typically.
We are talking about game shows, so try to imagine the impact if this game show of football was to be declared a “social poison” by the EPA, because of the fuels used to get people to the game, the labour productivity waste, the cost of several huge stadia (up to 100,000 people in one of them), the whole misapplication of the huge administrative structure, the money lost on gambling, the social disintegration of children missing parents at the game – you get the picture.
Who can make a case that if we want a greener world (and I emphatically disagree that we do) then we should ban all large sporting games before we ban coal fired power stations? The effluent GHG is probably similar on a per capita basis, but it would be against the will of God to do an econometric comparison.
I’d rather play marbles, just to remind me I still have them.
The planet might just look like a global warming bomb went off by 2016-17… keep on talking!