Like hermit crabs, climate alarmists scramble to find new ways to hide, when put in a box
Guest essay by Dennis M. Mitchell and David R. Legates
As children playing on the beach, we discovered a fascinating behavioral pattern among hermit crabs. Place a dozen in a cardboard box, and within minutes the crabs exit their shells and try to occupy another. This mild stress-induced response probably reflects their life-long drive to continue growing by repeatedly commandeering larger shells, to protect their vulnerable soft bodies.
Similarly, climate alarmists are now scrambling to find new shelter from the stress coming from a public that increasingly realizes their doom-and-gloom predictions of climate chaos are based on shoddy data, faulty computer models and perhaps outright deception. The alarmist scientists have put themselves in a climate cataclysm box, and are desperate to protect their reputations, predictions and funding.
Despite the absence of warming in actual measured temperature records over the last 16 years, and near-record lows in hurricane and tornado activity, they still cry “wolf” repeatedly and try to connect every unusual or “extreme” weather event to human emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide. (Actually, people account for only 4% of all the CO2 that enters Earth’s atmosphere each year.)
Alarmists used their predictions of climate catastrophe to demand that the world transform its energy and economic systems, slash fossil fuel use, and accept lower living standards, in response to the politically manufactured science. Even as growing evidence conflicted with their dogma, the money, fame and power were too good to surrender for mere ethical reasons.
The impact on energy prices, national economies, jobs and people’s lives has been profound and negative. For example, in response to the unfounded alarmism, Germany moved aggressively toward wind and solar energy over the past 15 years – both politically and with taxpayer and investment spending. It also shied away from more nuclear power and saw its economy contract and energy-intensive companies shed jobs and threaten to move overseas. Now Germany is burning more coal and building new coal-fired power plants, in an attempt to reverse the economic disaster its “green” and “climate protection” policies unleashed, but its actions are still sending shock waves at investors around the world.
In Spain, every renewable energy job the government’s climate alarmist policies created was offset by two jobs lost in other sectors of the economy that were punished by soaring electricity prices. The demise of a Spanish economy so committed to wind and solar power finally caused reasonable people to reevaluate why these decisions had been made, and the renewable subsidies were slashed, just as they have been in Germany.
How does Brazil’s future look with biofuels? As reality finally overcomes media bias and political correctness, the naive excitement of a few years ago – when anything “green” was portrayed as lower cost, clean and superior in every technological sense – has given way to more rational thinking. Brazil is now going more for oil and gas, via conventional drilling and hydraulic fracturing, onshore and offshore.
Why are so many countries deciding to abandon or diminish the fools-golden eggs of green-tech? First, green technology power has been grossly oversold on reliability, cost, capacity, job creation and environmental impacts. A stable economy requires all of these power characteristics. Second, speculative alarmism about CO2 has been exposed by the hard data of the past couple decades.
The NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered-II report presents the facts, so that even non-scientists can appreciate the relevant range of the climate components – and the ways people have been conned into believing we faced a manmade climate Armageddon that hasn’t materialized and was never a threat.
Nevertheless, insisting that “climate chaos” was real, former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson wailed that her agency would need at least 240,000 new EPA employees (each making some $100,000 per year, plus benefits) that she said would be needed just to administer new carbon dioxide regulations – and control nearly everything Americans make, drive, ship and do!
EPA currently employs some 20,000 people at an annual budget of over $8 billion. The new hires alone would cost taxpayers another $24 billion annually – plus hundreds of billions of dollars in economic pain, manufacturing shutdowns and new job losses that EPA’s CO2 regulations would inflict.
Year after year, alarmists have changed their protective shells for more absurd answers regarding where the Earth has mysteriously stashed all the energy that greenhouse gases supposedly trapped. For years, alarmists said ocean waters were storing the missing energy. But when the ARGO project demonstrated that the heat was not in the ocean, at least down two kilometers (1.2 miles) beneath the surface, one prominent alarmist responded, “We are puzzled at the results.” We are not puzzled.
When the data consistently conflict with their hypothesis, reputable scientists revise the hypothesis. Five-alarm climate scientists desperately seek new shells, and new excuses.
The “puzzling” facts triggered the predictable alarmist tactic of attacking the data and claiming the heat was hiding in the really deep ocean. Ignoring the physics of the problem – how the asserted heat was transferred from atmospheric carbon dioxide, through the sea surface, and beyond the first mile of ocean waters, without being detected – they expect us to believe that fluid thermodynamics is akin to magic.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has released its 2013 report Climate Change Reconsidered II. The world finally has a chance to see the actual science – not the kind that’s hidden, massaged and filtered through alarmist shell games.
Unencumbered by political pressure and mega-lobbyists, this 1,018-page review by 50 serious and highly accomplished scientists has exposed the alarmists’ fraud. These real scientists have also exposed as illusory the alarmists’ mystical “tropical hot spot.” This sacred cow turns out to be as fanciful as planetary warming hidden in the deepest ocean, or the infamous hockey stick of Michael Mann’s hidden data and secret computer codes.
Have we forgotten that 1998 was to be the “tipping point,” after which Earth would warm uncontrollably? The 1988 hearing in Washington one hot summer afternoon was dominated by the always sly James Hansen, who wiped his brow furiously, in a room made stifling by Senator Tim Wirth’s cheap trick of turning off the air conditioning. Politics, theatrics and manipulation had replaced honest science.
Because Al Gore switched his CO2 and temperature curves to make it look like rising carbon dioxide levels caused planetary temperature increases – when in fact increasing temperatures always preceded higher CO2 – shouldn’t he have corrected his mistake, returned his ill-gotten millions, and shared his 2007 Nobel Prize and money with Irena Sendler, who should have gotten it for saving 2,500 Jewish children during World War II? Shouldn’t his accomplice, IPCC director and pseudo-Nobel Laureate Rajendra Pachauri, be held accountable for trumpeting made-up stories about melting Himalayan glaciers?
But when you’re an alarmist, being wrong, lying, cheating, misleading the public and killing jobs simply does not count against you – even when the alleged human-caused global warming stopped in 1996.
We literally laughed aloud at a so-called “documentary” that’s about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting public. It’s called “Do the Math: Bill McKibben and the Fight over Climate Change.” For McKibben and his comrades, “doing the math” is really a matter of “counting the cash” the alarmists rake in.
The serious money has always flowed to alarmists, guilt-ridden environmentalists and control-seeking regulators, whom the world’s taxpayers are generously and unwittingly funding. That’s also the real meaning of the “green” movement and “green” energy.
###
Dennis Mitchell, CPA/QEP has been professionally involved in environmental and tax compliance, monitoring and education for over 40 years. David Legates, PhD/CCM is a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware and has been studying climate and its changes for 35 years. A version of this article originally appeared in the 10/18/2013 Investor’s Business Daily.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Say what! Feedback mechanism for climate changes caused by other causes…? You lost me there.
I’m also lost about this “…Nature is a net sink of CO2…” stuff. You need to check your facts. Plant begin to die off with low atmospheric levels of CO2. You can google your own version of that level, but I last read it as being 160-180ppm. At 250-300ppm, some plants may have been struggling to respire efficiently. An issue highlighted by greenhouses that are taking advantage of plant response by elevating CO2 levels within greenhouses. Higher CO2, then think about those nice red tomatoes groceries sell still attached to vine strands.
There never is nor was a ‘constant’ level of CO2. Atmospheric CO2 has been reducing for eons as the oxygen content rose. The high atmospheric oxygen content is one reason why mammals are so successful right now. A situation that would quickly change if CO2 levels ever drop below plant requirements.
ATheoK says:
October 19, 2013 at 12:04 am
I’m also lost about this “…Nature is a net sink of CO2…” stuff.
Of course nature is a net sink for CO2:
Humans currently add 9 GtC (~4.5 ppmv) per year. The measured increase in the atmosphere is ~4 GtC/year, thus nature is a net sink for ~5 GtC/year:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
The historical CO2/temperature ratio over the past few million years, since the recurrent ice ages started is about 8 ppmv/K, based on ice cores and foramins.
Some 60 million years ago, the earth’s CO2 levels were much higher and started to decrease since then, leveling at about 20 million years ago around the temperature fluctuations. Except in the past 160 years, which is visible in ice cores, firn and direct measurements:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
together with a decreasing 13C/12C ratio, both in lockstep with human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
There is a theoretical sideway that humans may not be responsible for the increase in the atmosphere (but still nature as a net sink), if there was a huge increase in CO2 circulation through te atmosphere (currently estimated at around 150 GtC in and out per year), about a threefold, in lockstep with human emissions, but that violates about all known observations like residence time, 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratio,…
Besides that, in the article stands:
Actually, people account for only 4% of all the CO2 that enters Earth’s atmosphere each year
That is a non-argument. All natural CO2 is removed by natural sinks + a part of human emissions. Thus the natural CO2 is simply circulating through the atmosphere. The 4% human emissions are additional…
“But when you’re an alarmist, being wrong, lying, cheating, misleading the public”
And themselves….
wiki
“Roger S. Pulwarty is a scientist from Trinidad and Tobago and contributed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 jointly held with Al Gore.[1][2] He is the director of the US National Integrated Drought Information System at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado.”
In reply to:
Johannes Herbst says:
October 18, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Hi,
I’m a German and I don’t belive in Global warming. I’m also somehow angry about the tendency of the media to sell it by ignoring the real facts.
But there are also some wrong statements here in this post. Germany isn’t loosing jobs or production through the “Energiewende”. All high-energy production is exempted from surcharge for renewable power to have the same energy cost like in the intenational market. Of course, average people have to pay more, but we are not suffering from it. We just use less. Our electricity bill didn’t rise much during the last years.
William:
You are confusing ‘facts’ with myths. You appear to be implying that wasting money on green scams is the reason for the low employment in Germany which is not true. Germany’s low unemployment has nothing to do with the green scams which are called “Energiewende” in Germany.
Germany has exported its unemployment to the rest of Europe. If Germany had kept the mark and the other countries in the EU had kept their own currencies, due to trade imbalances the mark would have increased in value, making Germany goods too expensive which would have moved production to other countries in the EU. Germany economic success comes on the backs of the other members of the EU. Logic to support that statement is the record unemployment in the EU as a whole, the stagnant economic growth in the EU as whole. The EU is failing. One of the reasons the EU is failing is the high cost of energy in the EU and irrational policies such as the banning of fracking and the anti nuclear movement. Those pushing the extreme AGW agenda have hidden the engineering and economic reality concerning green scam energy. Wind and solar are intermittent sources. Intermittent power sources require energy storage to significantly reduce CO2 emission (beyond 10 to 15% reduction) which will increase the cost of “green” energy by an order of magnitude, if CO2 emissions must be reduced by say 50%. Ignoring engineering reality does not change engineering reality.
To significantly and actually reduce CO2 emissions on a world basis (say 50%) would require a massive change to nuclear power and wartime like reductions in standard of life and wartime like restrictions, such as the end of air travel for tourism, the end of private homes, and so on.
The other fact that has been hidden is the developing countries (China, India, the African countries, and so on) have demanded that developed countries pay for their cost to build an economy using the mythical zero carbon energy source. The developed countries are deeply in debt, are running yearly deficits, the developed countries do not have surplus funds, cannot pay for their current programs, and hence cannot send funds to developing countries to construct nuclear power plants.
Actual reduction of world CO2 emissions by say 50% would require the threat of military action and a massive worldwide bureaucracy to enforce the madness.
When it comes to the Global Warming Industry and the likes of the IPCC and the EPA, we must never forget these organizations are parasite bureaucracies only interested in their own self-perpetuation and growth.
And, therefore we should never, never forget:
The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy:
Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one’s political opponents.
Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”
Completely off topic but it is amusing.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/beachcomber/436712/96-years-old-and-STILL-completely-chilled-out
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: October 19, 2013 at 1:43 am CO2 concentrations
Thank you for the graph at http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
The sudden lift off about year 1800 is perplexing. First, the flat CO2 before 1800 (if ice cores are accurate) does not correlate with population growth reconstruction.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/worldpop.jpg
I have a concept that for centuries, people cooked, used fires to keep warm and so on. Before 1800 one might expect there to be a CO2 increase in proportion to global concentration, but there seems no graphical evidence for it. Presumably, human emissions before 1800 (and their continuation after 1800 if they used the same fuel mix), would not affect existing patterns of isotopes of carbon very much.
After 1800, the old carbon with its isotope signature appears, (does it?). The rise seems greater than the population shift. This is understandable, given the greater availability of energy derived from fossil fuels. I would have expected an increase, but not nearly as large as your graph shows.
Seems to me that you have to admit to the possibility of a fundamental, natural change in CO2 behaviour about 1800. How to investigate it? Pretty hard to separate natural CO2 cycles from man-made ones. People don’t even seem to agree on CO2 residence time in the atmosphere.
“Why are so many countries deciding to abandon or diminish the fools-golden eggs of green-tech?”
Because it does not have the political value of yesteryear. As sad as simple.
The analogy in the article is quite delicious. Well done.
(Are hermit crabs edible like the soft-shell crab you get in restaurants, or are they more crunchy?)
“Germany’s Green Energies Lead To Skyrocketing Electricity Prices – Feed-In Rates Increase More Than 10-Fold!”
The future is German?
“Germany’s Green Energies Lead To Skyrocketing Electricity Prices – Feed-In Rates Increase More Than 10-Fold!”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/18/germanys-green-energies-lead-to-skyrocketing-electricity-prices-feed-in-rates-increase-more-than-10-fold/
The future is German?
Excellent article. I believe it’s really this bad, and perhaps worse.
To the guy who says Germany isn’t losing jobs, please realize that Spain claimed much job growth in their economy because of “green” energy. Germany may actually have some job growth, but it’s less growth than would have otherwise happened, because resources were committed to unproductive use. If you can’t understand that, well, watch the U.S. economy in the next few years in the health care sector to see how unproductive thrashing and spending on political correctness ends up costing jobs and harming overall productivity.
page488 says:
October 18, 2013 at 9:49 pm
I don’t think I’m going to worry about this stuff, anymore. When the full width, depth and breadth of the Obamacare fiasco actually starts to have real effects in a month or two, CAGW will be the least of anybodies’ worries.
=====
unfortunately, I think you’re right
I visted the beautiful Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick recently, between 6 am and noon the temperatures rose from -2C to 17C, and the tide rose 7.5 meters. All the local residents and visitors took it in stride, yet in tne nearby schools children are being told that 2C and 30 cms of sea level rise will be tragic over the course of decades. How do we explain that the 7500 cms of sea level change in 6 hours is normal and related to the moon, yet 30 cms in 30-100 yrs is deadly and related only to a trace gas? Also the 19C rise in temp. In 6 hours was due to the sun, but the deadly 2C change in a century is due to the same trace gas. If you see children looking at us like we are idiots, this might be one reason.
Attack-of-the-crab-monsters — one of my favorite B-grade sci-fi movies of the 50s.
http://classicscifi.blogspot.com/2008/09/attack-of-crab-monsters.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/19/steven-schneiders-1992-argument-against-balance-in-science-reporting/#comment-1083265
A Lovell says: September 20, 2012 at 12:09 am
More quotes from politically motivated CAGWers.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
_______________
Thank you A. Lovell – well worth reading, along with http://www.green-agenda.com
_______________
I really dislike conspiracy theories, but the above references provide overwhelming evidence, in the words of the co-conspirators, of their objectives, strategies and tactics.
Their objective is political power; global warming alarmism is their strategy; and viciously smearing any dissenters and enforcing media bias are their “green-shirt” tactics.
Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.
The extremists have obviously succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Leading scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and many use aliases for fear of retaliation.
When this worm turns, and it will, we can expect the RICO (anti-racketeering) laws will be put to good use.
As we confidently stated in 2002 at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist “
Earth has not warmed for 10-15 years. Continued absence of global warming or global cooling will finally put an end to global warming hysteria, after trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered…. and then the wheels of justice will begin to turn… Watch for early signs of climate rats leaving their sinking ship.
__________________
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
Michael Hart,
I made the awful mistake of eating hermit crab, an appetizer in Japan. It tastes like Playdoh, unbelievable, never do it!!! The body has no shell of its own of course, which is why they must appropriate shells from other creatures.
Non-native English speakers: there is no such word as “defendable.” Let’s try “defensible” please.
Can the reforestation of the Northern Hemisphere be causing the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Maturing forests should become net carbon emitters the amount of biomass respiring and decomposing must be huge. A huge amount of agricultural land is being turned back to forest, even suburban plots are becoming forested with a canopy over time.
John says:
October 19, 2013 at 7:26 am
Can the reforestation of the Northern Hemisphere be causing the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Maturing forests should become net carbon emitters the amount of biomass respiring and decomposing must be huge. A huge amount of agricultural land is being turned back to forest, even suburban plots are becoming forested with a canopy over time.
==========
I don’t think that is a significant contributor, however, I think deforestation in South America and Indonesia (for coconut farms) is a significant contributor. Conversion of forest to agricultural uses has all kinds of climactic effects, change in wind patterns, increased regional temperatures, more CO2 released into the atmosphere, changes in atmospheric water content, etc, etc. Benjamin Franklin did some writing about the conversion of the American forest in the colonies to cropland and the effect he observed on local weather/climate.
Geoff Sherrington says:
October 19, 2013 at 3:28 am
Seems to me that you have to admit to the possibility of a fundamental, natural change in CO2 behaviour about 1800. How to investigate it? Pretty hard to separate natural CO2 cycles from man-made ones. People don’t even seem to agree on CO2 residence time in the atmosphere.
The d13C decline is either from the increasing use of fossil fuels or from vegetation (more decay/use than growth), all other sources (oceans, rock weathering, volcanoes,…) have a d13C level higher than the atmosphere. Thus while the use of wood (without replanting) and extra releases of methane from rice fields and cattle did increase with population growth, the switch to fossil fuels for the industry (especially steel manufacturing) and heating increased both CO2 releases and the 13C/12C fingerprint tremendously.
The estimated releases from burning fossil fuels is about twice what is observed as increase in the atmosphere and three times what is observed as decrease in 13C/12C ratio. Which makes it quite unlikely that some natural cause is at work.
To make a comparison: to have the same effect on CO2 levels and d13C changes, one has to burn down about half of all land vegetation without replacement…
C.M. Carmichael says:
October 19, 2013 at 6:01 am
Absolutely agree. But to each CAGW preacher, bringing their attention (by way of simple comparison) to how humans can possibly survive natural tidal flow, the earth’s orbit or daily temperature fluctuation is considered blasphemous. I recently made the innocent mistake of asking a devout tree hugging neighbour (with an obvious vested interest in nailing as many solar panels as possible to his roof) “So, tell me, in percentage terms, just how much carbon di-oxide is up there in the sky?” His answer “a lot, you heretic, and it’s all your fault”. When I pointed out that it was only 0.033912% by volume”, he immediately clasped his ears firmly with both palms and began to chant quite loudly some sort of strange prayer along the lines of “La, la, la, la, la, la”.
Peter Miller says:
October 19, 2013 at 2:50 am
Excellent list. Why stop at just seven rules of bureaucracy?
Rule No. 8
Railroad every costly solution to non-existant problems without any reference whatsoever to joined-up thinking, common-sense, logic or fairness. Act as incompetently as possible.
@ur momisugly William Astley
I have a young friend named Adam Smith who is considering writing a book concerning national economies. I wonder if you would mind if he borrowed some of your concepts? (just teasin’.)
William, wonderful job of refuting a lazy argument with basic and sound principles.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At October 19, 2013 at 8:32 am you say
As you know full well, if the 13C/12C change is a “fingerprint” then it exhonerates the anthropogenic CO2 emission as having caused the rise in atmospheric CO2.
The isotope ratio has changed in the correct direction (there is a 50:50 chance that any change would be in the right direction) for it to have been caused by the anthropogenic CO2 emission. However, the magnitude of the isotope ratio change is wrong by a factor of 3.
It is possible to make excuses for why this “fingerprint” does not agree with an assertion that the cause of the ratio change is the anthropogenic emission, and you do. But the most that can be said is that the possibility of such excuses prevents the “fingerprint” from excluding the anthropogenic CO2 emission as being a contributor to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
When most of the ratio change is a result of unknown effect(s) then all of the ratio change could be a result of those unknown effect(s). And the atmospheric CO2 rise could be, too.
Richard
This sentence:
“Have we forgotten that 1998 was to be the “tipping point,” after which Earth would warm uncontrollably? The 1988 hearing in Washington one hot summer afternoon was dominated by the always sly James Hansen, who wiped his brow furiously, in a room made stifling by Senator Tim Wirth’s cheap trick of turning off the air conditioning. ”
Looks odd to me, are we reading about the 1998 El Niño, or the James Hansen’s 1988 Hockey stick presentation to Congress, or both?
Johannes Herbst says:
October 18, 2013 at 10:45 pm
“”Hi,
In this post I see too much white/black thinking. Green energy is not bad, and conventional or fossil or atomic energy is also not bad. It just needs some time to get everything into the right place. Green energy will have it’s place in the energy mix. The global waming hype will calm down. (Actually only one third of the Germans see it as a threat, five years ago two thirds feared it.). But there are other reasons to have Renewable Energy as a part of the power sources.””
Wie gehts, Herr Herbst.
I fully agree with this statement, I agree as long as it is economics and not alarmism or politics that decides which energy sources are used.
Economics, (humans dealing to meet their needs.) will solve most of civilizations woes.
Human compassion will solve the rest.