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
Mindbuilder says: “Reducing CO2 output by 1/3 would still mean increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and therefore supposedly increasing temperatures. Since they don’t claim to know the effect of CO2 within 30%, there would be no way to know if the 1/3 reduction did any good or not…”
But it would become readily apparent that a 1/3 reduction in man-made CO² has zero effect on atmospheric CO² trends, thus tossing greenhouse gas pseudoscience into the trashcan.
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 27, 2010 at 8:00 am
I don’t think either you or Pat Sajak have a clue how most people who think AGW is a real threat are living their lives. And in any case, Al Gore could be using tire fires to heat his personal jacuzzi and it wouldn’t change the science. Pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t make the science any more or less correct.
You thinking that we don’t have a clue doesn’t make it so. Al Gore is the poster boy for CAGW and we know how he fails to walk the talk. Reading the Climategate emails is relevant because the “climate scientists” can hardly carry on a coherent correspondence with each other because they are too busy chasing off to climate conferences all around the world. And we know how the John Kerry and other politico’s and strident celebrities carry on. We are also blessed with eyesight, literacy and certain powers of observation. These all tell us that the “little people” are doing little more than their hypocritical leaders. There could be an underground swell of lesser known CAGW believers that walk the talk that Pat and I don’t know about, but I haven’t noticed it. I know that congregations get mighty upset when their preachers are found to living below their stated principles. My guess is that the adherents to CAGW are not much better at walking the talk than their leaders or they would be ranting and raving against them.
On the issue of the science you are absolutely correct. The earth’s climate will not be influenced by what we think or believe. But Sajak’s point is that those who profess CAGW policy seem to think that we can influence the climate by our behaviour. So why don’t they do it? Those of us unconvinced about this may not want to change our behaviour, but surely those who are better enlightened, if they truly believed it would change theirs? This brings into question whether the leadership of the CAGW movement can be trusted as to how they describe the science to us. One of the important revelations of the climategate emails was that the scientists had some questions and doubts that they shared among themselves but would NEVER share publicly. Further hypocrisy? Or a manifestation of the same hypocrisy I suppose. Not only do they not walk the talk, they modify the talk according to the audience. What is the best description of the true science then? What they say to the public, what they say to each other, or how they act? Inquiring minds want to know.
My own opinion is that CO2 concentration does not control the climate in any meaningful way. If I thought it was that sort of pollutant and that global warming was not a good thing anyway, I would be looking to reduce my carbon footprint in a responsible, even exemplary, manner. And I don’t mean just purchasing indulgences and carrying on as I pleased. I do some farming and I’m very appreciative of the increased yields that come from higher ppm of CO2. A little more heat would be a big help for me. If it gets any colder I’m in great trouble. I wouldn’t be doing anything to promote global cooling, even if I understood that was possible.
Jesus said do as I do.
Progressives say do as I say, not a I do.
That’s 2000 years of progress.
Anybody in the climate business is considered to be a nobody by the alarmists if he will not attend the IPCC Climate Conference at Bonn in Germany this summer ..
The German organisation will surely not make the same mistakes as the ones from Copenhagen during last december , when limos had to be hauled from Hamburg and Berlin to give the high , wise and handsome the minimal status signs . All of which signifies nothing when compared to the life of a celebrity in the spotlights , right MR Al Gore ? When asked directly he will ascertain that he can do without limos , but then he will be expecting from the organisation at least a space shuttle , which Mr. Barak Obama would be glad to put at his disposal . Just for the cause and without strings attached .
I will do my part.
For those who own ocean front property, I will buy your property for pennies on the dollar. I am being extremely generous. As we all know, these properties will be worthless once the oceans rise. Instead of having your property be worthless and 10 feet under water, sell it to me at ridiculously discounted prices and I will give you at least some value for the property.
By Jove!….. I think he has found the solution!
It has been within the power of the AGW catastrophists the whole time. Who woulda thunk it!
I shall suggest this plan to them on every occasion….. Actually I’ll print out his solution and present it to any concerned warmist whenever I meet one…. Then I’ll retire back into my ignorant and dastardly world of hot coffee, warm houses, bright lights and shopping malls….. a trial I know. But someone has to do it. 😉
Coalsoffire says:
July 27, 2010 at 9:22 am
“You thinking that we don’t have a clue doesn’t make it so. Al Gore is the poster boy for CAGW and we know how he fails to walk the talk. Reading the Climategate emails is relevant because the “climate scientists” can hardly carry on a coherent correspondence with each other because they are too busy chasing off to climate conferences all around the world. And we know how the John Kerry and other politico’s and strident celebrities carry on.”
Believing in the infallibility of Al Gore (or John Kerry or any other political leader or celebrity you choose to mention) is not a prerequisite to believing AGW to be a problem.
“There could be an underground swell of lesser known CAGW believers that walk the talk that Pat and I don’t know about, but I haven’t noticed it. ”
There most definitely could be. So far you’ve given no credible argument to the contrary other than ad-hominem ([insert celebrity name] is their leader, thus they must be doing no more than he is) or your own unsupported anecdotal evidence. I stand by my statement that you have no clue.
“On the issue of the science you are absolutely correct. The earth’s climate will not be influenced by what we think or believe. But Sajak’s point is that those who profess CAGW policy seem to think that we can influence the climate by our behaviour. So why don’t they do it?”
Sajak’s point only makes sense if there has been some prior evidence to support the idea there are activities that 1/3 of the population can engage in that are sufficient to counteract the activities of the other 2/3. I haven’t seen/read anything to that affect. I’d be happy to take a look if you or Sajak can offer up some examples, though.
Unfortunately, it is not a voluntary religion they are proposing, it’s a crusade.
Pat Sajak has a great point but, I would like to take it a step further. Do they realize the tremendous harm that would come to the peoples of the third world if their programs are fully implemented. These billion or so people (based on their lack of access to electricity) would loose all hope of ever being able to improve their lives. There is though, an intelligent middle ground position, namely adaptation. Those advocating mitigation are chasing an impossible dream and seem willing to drag the civilized world down the drain with them.
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 27, 2010 at 10:11 am
Sajak’s point only makes sense if there has been some prior evidence to support the idea there are activities that 1/3 of the population can engage in that are sufficient to counteract the activities of the other 2/3. I haven’t seen/read anything to that affect. I’d be happy to take a look if you or Sajak can offer up some examples, though.
============
I understand that the CAGW theory is that man is producing excess CO2 to the extent that it is building up in the atmosphere and that the increase is creating a bit of warming and that this bit of warming is provoking some sort of mysterious feedback that is overheating the earth. Obviously if this is true it is wise to reduce the production of CO2 which will thereby reduce or even perhaps avoid the mysterious feedback. Don’t forget about the even more mysterious tipping point. Can’t have that at any cost. So if you believe that man made CO2 is a virulent force for runaway warming how could you NOT do all you could to reduce your own contribution to the problem? Surely every little bit of reduction helps, or using the famous precautionary principle, even if a little bit won’t help, you should do it because it MIGHT help.
For someone with this belief system to simply behave as normal and not do anything until everyone is forced to do it is worse than hypocrisy. It’s malevolent. Please, please please, all you that believe in CAGW caused by the build up of CO2 follow your conscience and stop producing CO2. Curtail your breathing if you can. Don’t wait for the rest of us to be converted. Because you won’t make many converts if you don’t practice your own religion. What you do speaks so loudly we can’t hear what you are saying. And toss out those spokespersons and scientists who are won’t walk the talk. They are destroying your credibility.
Oh, and if you could offer some scintilla of proof for that feedback mechanism that would help.
I have personally lived that “frugal lifestyle, not as a matter of choice, but because I was a WWII child, living on a 240 acre farm near Sioux City, Iowa. Until REA came through in 1941, farms in that area had no electricity (one farmer several miles down the road had a windcharger).
At the turn of the 20th Century, a great majority, some 95% of Americans, lived a frugal lifestyle, on small farms.
The world population at that time is estimated to have been well less than 1 billion people. That was about all that that frugal lifestyle could support. The poor people of the world have not been able to grow in numbers except through the largess, principally by America, that largess available only because of rapid advancement in farming technology, mostly coming from right here in the US.
The Club of Rome, consisting of liberal intelligentsia, would like very much indeed for the world population to return to that of the turn of the 20th Century, with the great majority of people living on Planet Earth having that same lifestyle as that of the turn of the 20th Century, with the technology of that time. Perhaps even less technology.
Only with the coming of the petroleum age was significant betterment of lifestyle (standard of living) able to occur.
If the huge benefits petroleum still provides are done away with, rest assured that a return to that standard of living will occur, and population numbers of then become the population numbers of the near future.
We have at least 4 Centuries, here in the US, worth of petroleum and equivalent barrels of petroleum in coal and natural gas to maintain our present (and now falling) standard of living in known, and if not prevented by government policies, economical to safely remove deposits of petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
There is not the slightest rational reason for we in the US to rush into an attempted effort, one surely to fail, to solve a problem which will not be a problem for at least 4 centuries, and most likely, a good many centuries after that. New technologies, which will need no financial support of government, only financial support of individual investors, will come to be, if only we don’t destroy ourselves first by most foolish and detrimental government policies.
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
I have never been an environmental activist, protesting and screaming for others to do the work of conservation. How ever I have always been an active environmentalist, doing what I could to lower the pollution and waste of good organic matter, composting tons / year of municipal leaves and grass clipping more than half of my life, participating in community organic garden projects.
I haven’t flown on a plane since I got out of the Air Force in 1971, then spent most of a year, back packing around most of the perimeter of the contiguous USA, just to get to know the lay of the lands than I did not get to see while on duty.
I have lived a lifestyle with little waste, and a closeness to nature with out loss of nutrition or good daily exercise, I have participated in the economy by having productive jobs that improve the basic living standards of those who are the end users of the products or services I have helped to provide, at any point that I could affect the environment in a positive way with out damaging the goals of my employers I have labored to do so. Changing jobs frequently to effect as much technological education from the production floor as possible.
There is not much more I could have done to lower my pollution footprint. Seeing all along that CO2 is plant food and that all life is sustained from the photosynthetic capture of energy by green plants, I cannot believe the hype and BS of the “greens” that have derailed / subverted the true environmentalist movement. We should all be focused on increasing the levels of CO2 and the effectiveness of local agriculture, to increase the total global photosynthetic energy capture. That would be my choice of religion to dedicate myself to.
In my experience many green activists are saving the planet one bath, one bar of soap and one wash cycle at a time 🙂
As a supermarket in the UK says; “Every little helps!”, so please go little easier on them.
Coalsoffire says:
July 27, 2010 at 11:15 am
“I understand that the CAGW theory is that man is producing excess CO2 to the extent that it is building up in the atmosphere and that the increase is creating a bit of warming and that this bit of warming is provoking some sort of mysterious feedback that is overheating the earth. Obviously if this is true it is wise to reduce the production of CO2 which will thereby reduce or even perhaps avoid the mysterious feedback. Don’t forget about the even more mysterious tipping point. Can’t have that at any cost. So if you believe that man made CO2 is a virulent force for runaway warming how could you NOT do all you could to reduce your own contribution to the problem? Surely every little bit of reduction helps, or using the famous precautionary principle, even if a little bit won’t help, you should do it because it MIGHT help.”
Again, if you have evidence, as Sajak is arguing, that 1/3 of the population can somehow counter the affects of the other 2/3 please provide it.
Mindbuilder says: July 27, 2010 at 4:44 am
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?
Mindbuilder: You are having us on! – You must be joking – still. Otherwise I’m afraid that you don’t understand the irony in Pat Sajak’s solution and I can’t believe anyone could be so —–.
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 27, 2010 at 10:11 am
(…)
Sajak’s point only makes sense if there has been some prior evidence to support the idea there are activities that 1/3 of the population can engage in that are sufficient to counteract the activities of the other 2/3. I haven’t seen/read anything to that affect. I’d be happy to take a look if you or Sajak can offer up some examples, though.
—————–Reply:
After reading ROM (July 27, 2010 at 2:48 am), I agree that 1/3 of the population is overblown and I submit that it is by an order of magnitude. To whit: “…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 engaging that proportion of the population would make little or no impact, especially considering that China is now or will soon become the dominant CO2-emitting nation, not the US. And it is doubtfut that China would ever consider taking part in such a futile exercise.
Sajak does point out the Warmer’s hypocricy, however, regardless of their demographic weight.
“Sajak does point out the Warmer’s hypocricy, however, regardless of their demographic weight.”
He doesn’t actually. He gives no evidence of the hypocrisy of anyone.
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 27, 2010 at 11:51 am
Again, if you have evidence, as Sajak is arguing, that 1/3 of the population can somehow counter the affects of the other 2/3 please provide it.
+++++++++++++++++
Again you miss the point. Those who believe in a course of action should take the lead and start living it. Maybe the rest of us will be converted by their good example. Maybe the reduction in emissions will help. Maybe it won’t. My own view is that reducing all man made CO2 emissions to zero won’t have any noticeable effect on the climate. So I won’t be doing anything to reduce my carbon footprint. But when the CAGW team relentless circles the globe in an endless course of climate conferences, wailing about how it’s always worse than we thought, it strikes me that they don’t really believe in the junk they are selling. That Copenhagen thing was obscene by any measure of consumption, let alone emissions. And as long as that sort of thing goes on we can know that the promoters of CAGW are disingenuous. This doesn’t, in and of itself prove that the science is spurious, but it does show that the promoters of it are.
If I believed in CAGW I wouldn’t be running around spewing out CO2 and saying I won’t change my behaviour until everyone else does. Or even that I’m waiting until my sacrifice can be proven to make a difference. That would be inexcusable. And that’s why I have made a personal study of this whole issue. Not because I wanted to change others, but because I like to take responsibility for my own actions.
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“Sajak does point out the Warmer’s hypocricy, however, regardless of their demographic weight.”
He doesn’t actually. He gives no evidence of the hypocrisy of anyone.
====================
Actually he gave some examples. But I’ll give you my own one word proof of the hypocrisy of the CAGW crowd:
Copenhagen
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“Sajak does point out the Warmer’s hypocricy, however, regardless of their demographic weight.”
He doesn’t actually. He gives no evidence of the hypocrisy of anyone.
————Reply:
Then I shall point it out. Most Warmers I’m familiar with are hypocrites. They don’t walk the walk even though they are the loudest talkers. Most have taken volcal positions in the Warmer movement for the sake of their personal investments and egos, not because they’re overly concerned with the planet.
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm
“He doesn’t actually. He gives no evidence of the hypocrisy of anyone.”
Cal, that’s because for most of us, it’s common knowledge, gained by firsthand observations on a daily basis. For Mr. Sajek to present evidence, it would be redundant and time consuming. Things like Gore buying oceanfront property this year. The limos boated into the Copenhagen conference. The airline tickets sold as all the conferences. The local loudmouth crying about our impending doom while he engages in the same behaviors as the rest of us. Or even the president of the U.S. Personally, I think its quite humorous. All claim the great guilt of mankind, but take no personal responsibility. It fits quite well with the totalitarian statists among us, more than that, it exposes them for what they really are.
Pat:
You are so right.
I just got my eyes opened over the last 10 days. I have a friend who is a firm believer in AGW, environmentalism, and all of the other ‘isms that go along. I was asked to care for their pets while they flew out west.
While in their house getting instructions I was really chilled. As I and they were leaving to close up the house I went to the thermostat, setting at 72F and went to move it up before the house was left vacant. I was immediately asked, “What are you doing?”. I said they didn’t really want their house 72F with it mid 90s outside the whole 10 days they were gone. Well… yes they did. The poor dog would be uncomfortable and it might stress their lone fish. OK, OK, I’ll set it back down.
Hour after they left I went back and set it to what my “skeptics” house is in the summer, 81F. Back down to 72F the night before they returned. Can’t wait to see if they actually notice the huge drop in their electric bill. Might not get asked to do that favor again, but that’s fine with me, dog bit me anyway.
So there is a true environmentalist. Always wondered what that really meant, being a conservationalist at heart.
BTW, the fish and dog made it just fine. Brother!! AGW, phooey.
Then, when the rest of us saw the results of their actions—you know, the earth cooling, oceans lowering, polar bears frolicking and glaciers growing—we would see the error of our ways and join the crusade voluntarily and enthusiastically.
I disagree, Mr Sajak. You know as well as I do that selfish people who categorically refuse to think about the consequences of their actions will only assimilate the material consumption that others are relinquishing voluntarily. A variation of sorts on Jevons Paradox.
If the whole AGW debate is showing one thing it is that people will never change out of their free will. No matter how big a looming catastrophe is (and one day there will be one, if AGW isn’t already it in combination with a host of other global problems) people will always find ways to translate their psychological defense/denial mechanisms into actions that will resist unwanted change to the bitter end, until it is forced upon them and everybody else.
This site is definite proof of it. It isn’t so popular because of its talent or its quest for truth. It’s successful because it tells people what they want to hear: that there’s nothing wrong, that They are the enemy and We are the good guys defending our way of life, which is the best and ultimate God-given way of life. Promoting the status quo loving path of least resistance is the easiest thing there is.
All you have to do is set up something akin to WUWT and tell people what they want to hear, ie that they do not have to change their little habits that they are so attached to and that will probably leave their offspring with a world of increasingly complex problems. The irony is mind-boggling.
But I’m implementing Sajak’s solution on a personal level, even though the WUWT army will get its Pyrrhic victory. It’s not that difficult as it seems, on the contrary. After some initial pain (mostly because you’re one of the few who are willing to make the effort needed for working towards a sustainable society) the reward is increasingly paying off. It turns out our God-given way of life is actually a mirage to enslave us to the machine of perpetual and infinite economic growth (which is physically impossible). We need not be addicted to our enslavement.
Will you all come and visit my strawbale passivehouse next year and eat a home-made meal from my permaculture garden?
Ken Hall says:
July 27, 2010 at 1:06 am
….It is this grotesque hypocrisy of the leaders of the “green” movement, or environmentalists, that really annoys me the most…
And they have the gall to lecture and harass me about MY pathetic carbon footprint? When even if I cut MY footprint to absolute zero, their lifestyle in ONE YEAR would offset my lifetime reductions completely.
So, WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL POINT OF ME MAKING ANY MORE REDUCTIONS?
To Al Gore, and all his celebrity acolytes… LEAD BY EXAMPLE OR GET THE HELL OFF THE STAGE!
Sorry for shouting, but this really gets me steamed!!!
_________________________________________________________________
What steams me is the automatic assumption that you and I and the rest of us at WUWT do not give a hoot about the environment, are big polluters, have a HUGH carbon foot print and are in the pay of “big oil”.
Darn it all I was cleaning up the environment, hauling out big bags of trash in the sixties, my vehicle is almost twenty years old and a diesel, I buy most of my things at fleamarkets, auctions and direct from the local farmers.and I do not have children.
For the likes of Al Gore and Maurice Strong to tell ME
“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and `convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”
Is the ULTIMATE in HYPOCRISY. What they want is to reinstate feudalism with us as their serfs.
The ultimate goal of Maurice Strong and his UN buddies is to get rid of “the concept of national sovereignty” and that of “property rights”
The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN’s official policy on land. The Preamble says:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
“Either you have a right to own property, or you ARE property.” – E. Wayne Hage, March 1992
They have made themselves very very clear, we are to become property of our feudal overlords.
Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1)
Obama’s Chief Science Adviser John Holden.’In the 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” wrote of de-developing the United States
Articles on the UN and Global Governance:
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/ggunreform.htm
http://sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm
What are the chances that he will have to find someone to “Take care of that” for him too (since Tipper has left as well)?
.