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
Coat-rack much Gail?
(Geez … a one-track mind.)
.
Blogged about at TreeHugger.com
Came across your Alexa post earlier today, and started clicking around …
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/07/pat-sajak-says-manmade-global-warming-simple-to-solve.php
Günther Kirschbaum says: July 27, 2010 at 2:35 pm
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.
Günther: I just can’t believe you people taking every point Pat made so seriously. He was extracting the urine for goodness sake. Lighten up you guys. But then maybe Günther I misjudge you too – perhaps with your last comment – ‘Will you all come and visit my strawbale passivehouse next year and eat a home-made meal from my permaculture garden?’ you too are extracting the urine?
Doug
Sajak definitely has a point that many, many environmentalists and AGW-proponents are hypocrits. They suffer from the same ailment as the people who are in psychological denial: they do not want to change their habits. They think that by making their habits/addictions green everything will be OK. And this makes them a) exploitable (by people like Gore), and b) a hindrance to real solutions that should eventually lead to a more sustainable society.
But active spreading of disinformation isn’t the answer. It is not constructive. AGW is a real problem and it is worrying to see that the conservatives offer no solutions whatsoever to solve it, because I believe conservatives could develop much better policy than liberals to mitigate the consequences of AGW. More government will not lead to a sustainable society. What is needed is transparency and decentralisation.
Günther Kirschbaum says:
July 27, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“[…]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.”
Consuming less energy naturally pays off. It’s called economics. That’s why i drive an LPG car. Yes, it pays off. Now i could sing the praise of climate chancellor Angela Merkel and her infinite wisdom; or i could simply look at the scientific evidence for CO2-caused climate change independently of my money- and CO2-reducing decisions.
What i’ve been seeing is an angry Gavin Schmidt, an angry Joe Romm, people like Al Gore with his carbon offseting business and Dr. James Hansen with his books. I’ve seen how Michael Mann distorts statistics.
Günther, you could enjoy your passivehouse and its economic advantages without stopping to think.
Will you all come and visit my strawbale passivehouse next year and eat a home-made meal from my permaculture garden?
DirkH says:
July 27, 2010 at 3:37 pm
“Will you all come and visit my strawbale passivehouse next year and eat a home-made meal from my permaculture garden?”
Sorry, the last sentence was of course an editing error. I’m not living in a passivehouse yet. The EU will enforce that standard from 2012 or so on anyway.
The EU will enforce that standard from 2012 or so on anyway.
Ah, if only they would. No, we’ll be building obsolete houses for a while to come.
But it’s interesting, isn’t it? The fiercest alarmists and pseudo-skeptics have one very important thing in common: they both don’t want to change the status quo, or only superficially.
Smokey says:
July 27, 2010 at 4:40 am
But Smokey, surely you recognise the authority of the Prophet Monckton (of the “Explaining misconceptions on “The Greenhouse Effect””thread) on the subject??
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 23, 2010 at 9:13 am
I am delighted that this simple and clear but authoritative statement of the reality of the “greenhouse effect” has been posted here. Too many inaccurate statements to the effect that there is no greenhouse effect have been published recently, and they do not deserve to be given any credence. The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is), nor about whether additional atmospheric CO2 causes warming (it does), nor about whether CO2 concentration is rising (it is), nor about whether we are the cause (we are), but about how fast CO2 concentration will rise …
Günther Kirschbaum says:
July 27, 2010 at 3:25 pm
“[…]But active spreading of disinformation isn’t the answer. It is not constructive. AGW is a real problem and it is worrying to see […]”
If you say that pointing at the deficiencies of the science – the fact that current models cannot even model cloud formation, let alone small-scale features like thunderstorms correctly; or the fact that they ignore Miskolczi’s statement that according to measurements by radiosondes the optical density of the atmosphere has stayed constant over the last 6 decades – is spreading disinformation, then i can’t help you.
Andrew W,
Lord Monckton isn’t a prophet, he’s simply a realist and a skeptic. If you want a prophet, Professor Gore is available. Just don’t send a masseuse to interview him.☺
I agree with what you quoted from Monckton: “The true debate in the scientific community is not about whether there is a greenhouse effect (there is), nor about whether additional atmospheric CO2 causes warming (it does), nor about whether CO2 concentration is rising (it is), nor about whether we are the cause (we are), but about how fast CO2 concentration will rise…”
We may have our own way of saying it [eg: “measurable”], because we each arrived at our conclusions independently. But I agree with everything in Monckton’s parentheses.
The debate in the blogosphere is a little different, since most commentators are non-scientists. Some of them still believe, against all the real world evidence, that catastrophic, runaway global warming will happen due to an increase in CO2. That will not happen because it can not happen. Further, any incidental warming due to trace gases is most welcome, since the benefits of a 1°C rise in temperature are enormous: a healthier biosphere, more arable land, more rainfall, fewer deaths from cold, etc. There will be no 3° – 6° increase that the IPCC claims. They are simply selling an unscientific scare for their own aggrandizement.
For those who have followed the debate here for the last few years, that is a preposterous belief based on emotion. It does not help that the UN/IPCC perpetuates that ridiculous model canard vs reality in order to preserve their income stream and their rapidly eroding status.
It is very telling that the U.S. is always made out to be the bad guy, with China and other heavy emitters given a FREE PASS.
Now why would that be? Can you explain it to u$?
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/john-kerry-yacht-sales-tax-rhode-island/2010/07/27/id/365777?s=al&promo_code=A5D4-1 made me laugh after Sajak’s idea.
Excerpt:
Sen. John Kerry on Monday snapped at reporters and tried to dodge questions about his new $7 million, 76-foot yacht.
On Friday, the Boston Herald reported that the Massachusetts Democrat had berthed his yacht Isabel in Rhode Island and suggested he was seeking to avoid paying about $437,000 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of around $70,000 that would be levied if he berthed the vessel in Massachusetts.
Rhode Island has no sales tax on yachts.
Following his first public appearance since the story broke, Kerry tried to dash off to his SUV but was intercepted by reporters who asked about the yacht controversy.
I’ve always thought like Pat Sajak does concerning this issue but with one twist: On the next census form have a pointed question which would identify you as a warmist or a skeptic, then use that info to drastically curtail gasoline, heating fuel and electricity to the warmists for one year. And when they scream like banshees and try to take it out on you just tell them that it’s been decided by higher powers that they have to live the lifestyle they would like to impose on us all, then to really salt the wound, inform them that they should consider themselves heros and that they should actually be thanking us instead of squawking.
At the end of that year of exile they will be welcomed back to humanity with open arms with the explanation that some tough love was needed to bring them to their senses and it’s hoped that from now on they will actually think things through before imposing their false ideology on the rest of us.
Coalsoffire says:
July 27, 2010 at 2:07 pm
“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. ”
All I see is you making arbitrary rules and then criticizing people for not following them…
“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. ”
…and then going on to show why it would be foolish for those people to adopt your rules in the first place.
“But when the CAGW team relentless circles the globe in an endless course of climate conferences, ”
There’s no evidence of anyone of the CAGW team going to the extremes you’re implying here.
“That Copenhagen thing was obscene by any measure of consumption, let alone emissions.”
Again, I don’t see how the actions of politicians and celebrities can be used to make assumptions about the decisions others make.
“This doesn’t, in and of itself prove that the science is spurious, but it does show that the promoters of it are.”
Certain promoters anyway. In any case, I’m glad to see you admit it proves nothing about the science.
“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. ”
In your opinion. And again you’ve no proof that what you describe is the typical way those who “believe in CAGW” actually behave.
“Lord Monckton isn’t a prophet”
Sorry, in which sense are you using the word “Lord”? I fear I may have under-ranked him 😉
I don’t know how the benefits vs costs of AGW will stack up over the next hundred years, this is because I don’t personally have the maths and science skills to reasonably make such an assessment. All I can do is make the judgment on the best evidence available. The IPCC without doubt provides the best science available evidence.
But I’m also well aware that scientists are human too, and that with the best will in the world their personal assessments can make them the victims of confirmation bias.
While I’m no climate expert, I’ve seen claims being made, and repeated Ad nauseam, by both sides that are certainly false; volcanoes produce more CO2 than Man, there’s no greenhouse effect, H2O contributes 95% of the GH effects, and claims about possible sea level rise of several meters this century, mass extinctions from climate change, (and of course, one of your favourites) Most of the rise in CO2 is due to the Earth’s emergence from the LIA.
I lack your certainty, I think it’s probably because I lack your hubris.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
A passage like: “Now why would that be? Can you explain it to u$?” does nothing to advance your argument, it’s just the same claim the CAGWers make about big oil,
nor does pointing out that some countries are increasing GHG emissions faster than others, you can whine that the Chinese should be doing more if we’re doing our bit, but that’s not relevant to the science, the consequences of any particular level of GH gas emissions will be entirely dependent on the physics, not on the politics or which country produces the emissions. rationally you can only fit policy to science, it’s irrational to try to make the science fit the desired policy.
(1) “But when the CAGW team relentless circles the globe in an endless course of climate conferences, ”
There’s no evidence of anyone of the CAGW team going to the extremes you’re implying here.
(2) All I can do is make the judgment on the best evidence available. The IPCC without doubt provides the best science available evidence.
Where have you guys been for the last 8 months?
FOIA’s for the travel records of the Hockey Team should be interesting reading.
Wasn’t Tahiti mentioned in one of Phil’s emails?
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 27, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Coalsoffire says:
July 27, 2010 at 2:07 pm
“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. ”
All I see is you making arbitrary rules and then criticizing people for not following them…
==================
That’s ALL you see? Do you see me publishing a proposal for carbon emission reductions or cap and trade rules or anything like that? Who is making those arbitrary rules? Is it the same bunch of climate scientists, politicians and celebrities that promote CAGW and that jets all around the world from one conference to the next discussing what arbitrary percentage of carbon emissions should be imposed? Hint: yes it is.
Coalsoffire says:
July 27, 2010 at 8:51 pm
“That’s ALL you see? ”
Well, now I see you trying to change the subject.
Cal Barndorfer says:
July 28, 2010 at 4:09 am
Coalsoffire says:
July 27, 2010 at 8:51 pm
“That’s ALL you see? ”
Well, now I see you trying to change the subject.
________________________
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
You suggested that I was imposing arbitrary rules on others. I replied that the CAGW are, in the very act of concocting arbitrary rules (carbon emission limits and cap and trade and tax strategies), demonstrate amazing hypocrisy by jetting about from Kyoto to Copenhagen in a profligate carbon emitting lifestyle . This is exactly on topic. Your accusation that I was making rules is, however, a perfect illustration of someone trying to change the subject. The topic is the hypocritical behaviour of CAGW believers. Which, I suppose we have canvassed rather thoroughly. You have said that it would be fruitless for then to walk the talk until everyone is forced to do it. Pat Sajak and others, including myself, take the position that this is hypocritical. Further you have said that we have no evidence that they don’t walk the talk. Sajak gave evidence, others have too. I say Copenhagen and the climategate emails show a blatant continuous lack of any real effort to walk the talk. Then you say that I am making up arbitrary rules for others to live by. That was more than changing the subject, it was twisting the bounds of logic and common courtesy of discourse. In short, it was a random non sequitur. Go tease someone else as you plainly have nothing to say on this topic.
Don’t you just love it when someone calls out people on their bluff ?
It’s high time these alarmists put their money where their mouths are and set an example for the rest of us ‘non-enlightened ones’… I hear used peddle bikes can be purchased for rock-bottom low prices at your local neighbourhood garage sale.
Kudos to Pat Sajak for calling a spade, a spade.
Coalsoffire says:
July 28, 2010 at 7:19 am
“You suggested that I was imposing arbitrary rules on others. I replied that the CAGW are, in the very act of concocting arbitrary rules (carbon emission limits and cap and trade and tax strategies), demonstrate amazing hypocrisy by jetting about from Kyoto to Copenhagen in a profligate carbon emitting lifestyle .”
I know how you replied, I’m just confused about why. Are you trying to say it’s ok for you to make up rules because others have? Or is it just ok for you? Or are you agreeing with me that it was wrong for you to do so? What does your example of others making up rules have to do with our discussion?
And who was it who was jetting around to Copenhagen and Kyoto? I assume you have names or at least some other method of determining who made the trips and why it makes sense to extrapolate their activities to represent anyone else who believes in AGW.
“The topic is the hypocritical behaviour of CAGW believers. Which, I suppose we have canvassed rather thoroughly. You have said that it would be fruitless for then to walk the talk until everyone is forced to do it. Pat Sajak and others, including myself, take the position that this is hypocritical. Further you have said that we have no evidence that they don’t walk the talk. Sajak gave evidence, others have too. I say Copenhagen and the climategate emails show a blatant continuous lack of any real effort to walk the talk. ”
And now we’re back where we started. I repeat ‘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.’ You’ve yet to show me otherwise…
Just so there’s no confusion the above was written by Cal Barndorfer, not t&kbrunner.
Too many people using one computer here…
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 27, 2010 at 3:50 am
Mr. Meteor, have you noticed too that all Global warming-stuff is removed from Crichtons web-site? That is very sad. He had lots of good stuff.
_Jim says:
July 27, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Gail Combs July 27, 2010 at 2:44 pm
…
Articles on the UN and Global Governance
Coat-rack much Gail?
(Geez … a one-track mind.)
___________________________________________
AND the e-mail AND the person who links them all together. Do not forget that.
Ged Davis with connections to Shell Oil, the UN, Sustainability (Agenda 21) and the IPCC. Follow the money. Follow the political connections. Without the connections the prostitution of science does not make nearly as much sense, with the connections it makes a lot of sense.
Pat makes a good point.
The people who say that we need to change our lifestyles to combat global warming are often those who’ve been jetting from continent to continent for years, traveling in expensive, inefficient cars, purchasing products from the other side of the globe, etc.
Why should they get off scot free while people who have never had these opportunities aren’t allowed to aspire to them?
And I love the idea of people flying to “climate change conferences” around the world.
Ever heard of Skype?
go, Sajak, go!