A “visual broadside”, so to speak, in a short but sensible and entertaining video. This is based on Roy Spencer’s work and it is a must watch. I highly recommend sharing this video on every blog and website you can.
A debunking of the left’s global warming agenda, from Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert. For more on this topic, purchase his new Broadside, “The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda” by clicking here: http://amzn.to/jYWzEH.
h/t to Jo Nova down under. Speaking of Australia, John Cook of Skeptical Science works out as a cartoonist (and blogs “faux skepticism” in his spare time) , but he’d never be able to produce anything like this.
He left out the fact that if we turn off the economy that the maximum global population that can be sustained is about 1 billion. Getting back to that level in a couple decades will redefine nasty, brutish, and short.
Alvy Singer in Annie Hall:
Much of the argument in this video is of the food-is-terrible-and-such-small-portions variety. Especially the bit about how dreadful and short human life was/is without the consumption of carbon-based fuels. MOST of that suffering human population has occurred in the industrial era and indeed the numbers can be attributed to the uneven distribution of the fruits of carbon-fueled industrialization. So does this film present an argument for more equality of income distribution? Hardly.
It is smug to acclaim the benefits of carbon-fueled industry without acknowledging the costs. But it is hypocritical to pretend that those costs accrue to a pre-industrial way of life when they are in fact the underbelly of industrialization.
Without any further improvements in technology ( I doubt this is the case) we will run out of fossil fuels that took millions of years to accumulate. It is as if there are those who proclaim that there is nothing left to improve upon.
Once our modern world degenerates, it is gone for good. It is man who is in danger, not the Earth. We have in our not too distant future the Next Ice Age to survive.
Do we have the will for survival, or have we lost it?
“The “socialist” impulse (at least, outside the US, where the word seems sadly to have become little more than a general purpose insult) is not about enforcing absolute authoritarian power from the centre – as is, precisely, the dark force behind all this, the NWO project. It is about designing a social system in which the people who actually do most of the (heavy, dirty) work in the real world are treated with respect, given some say on how things run, and not reduced to slavery, as so easily tends to happen under a free market system. (Read up on the Victorian conditions Marx himself was actually reporting on, and weep.) Certainly that’s what the British trades union movement was all about, and they founded the Labour party to work for those principles.”
Bravo Steve C!
Socialism is oposite of enforcing absolute authoritarian power.
Stated so well. Many thanks Anthony, and Dr. Roy Spencer for the work.
Socialism is turning over control of the economy to expert socialists. Who immediately begin building themselves dachas.
Until they run out of other people’s money.
Which is why I thank God you’re not allowed to vote here.
What??!! In what universe did this occur? Ending the practice of child labor in the US is less than 100 years in the past. The use of antibiotics is less than 75 years old. Life, around the world, prior to the invention of the steam engine was hellishly brutish. To claim otherwise is either disingenuous or ignorant.
Have a look at world historical population tables and poverty statistics, TomB. There are more people living in poverty today than there were total people alive at the time the steam engine was invented. Even back then, whether or not life was “hellishly brutal” depended on cultural circumstances and the distribution of local resources. There were indeed aspects of life — such as infant mortality — that today we would be horrified by but that were accepted as facts of life in the past. The conditions of people often worsened considerably as the result of wars of conquest, which were enabled by relative material surplus. Speaking of hellish brutality, the wars of the 20th century ran on petrol.
What’s this “to claim otherwise is either disingenuous or ignorant” nonsense? I suspect I’ve studied more history than you. I’ve written a book dealing with history of the industrial revolution. There’s a lot of my interpretation of the historical record that you might dispute — and that’s fair enough. But don’t assume everyone you disagree with is a stupid liar or you’re likely to become one yourself.
Speak for yourself, not for me!
DaveE.
The poverty rate, much to the chagrin of the UN & Friends, has crashed worldwide, halving in half the time it was to have. Have you seen?
And what was the average life expectancy prior to machine power and the industrial and electric revolutions?
It’s of those writers like yourself that it was well said (Huxley?): “History is a trick we play on the dead.”
I stopped watching at 1:27 because there is no such thing as fossil fuels.
This is a myth that must be eliminated.
Why must such a wonderfully truthful website as this only deal with ONE truth?
Do we have to go to another website to discuss Abiotic Oil?
This is one of the very few websites where stating that ‘CO2 is not pollution’ does not get your post deleted..
.. but does that mean that other controversial scientific truths must be avoided?
Besides.. there must be videos and other materials out there that can be useful in disseminating the truth about CO2 without back-handedly supporting some other false paradigm.
May I suggest the bi-line.. ‘commentary on puzzling things in science’ etc.. is too broad to be truthful. I have had too many posts deleted for that to be the case. As soon as the subject becomes something other than CO2 this site becomes over moderated.
Please Anthony (& mods).. allow this site to live up to its full potential.
Allow us to discuss all things scientific. I guarantee you the people who come to this site can handle it.. By definition the people who come here do not need to be protected from alternative thinking.
They are living it.