If only we were more like China…
Eric Worrall writes:
The Guardian, a green British newspaper, has published yet another green sneer at democracy, with reference to the recent climate agreement between China and America, contrasting the efficient obedience of the Chinese government, with the “difficulties” Obama will encounter, when he faces the democratically elected representatives of the American people.
According to the Guardian,
“While Chinese apparatchiks will, presumably unquestioningly, jump to realize President Xi Jinping’s order to reduce carbon emissions in an ambitious deal with the United States, Barack Obama will come home to a newly elected Congress that will probably tell him to neuter his climate change agenda or be prepared for the kind of knock-down, drag-out fight that could potentially end with a government shutdown.”
This is not the first time greens have expressed open contempt for democracy. Who can forget former NASA GISS chairman James Hansen’s glowing praise of the Chinese way of doing things http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/18/hansen-would-rather-have-us-ruled-by-china/ , or even more blatant calls for anti-democratic extremes, such as Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki’s call for people who disagree with him to be jailed? http://www.nationalpost.com/Jail+politicians+ignore+climate+science+Suzuki/290513/story.html
The utter contempt greens hold for democracy, or for anything which empowers ordinary people to obstruct their ruthless pursuit of their goals, is in my opinion a trait they share with other villains from the pages of history.
A belief in imminent catastrophe is a moral slippery slope – if someone truly believes the world is on the brink of destruction, what wouldn’t that person do to stop their nightmare from being realised? What crime could possibly be more awful than a horrific vision of the whole world dying?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the case of deep greens, that road to hell is paved with their utter, unshakeable belief that they know better than other people what is good for them, and with a totalitarian willingness to override the concerns and rights of others, in a singleminded effort to realise their warped vision of global salvation.
Canada’s Justin Trudeau has a similar admiration of Chinese government:
The Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded: “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime.”
Inside every watermelon is a totalitarian – because they know best.
Source http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/justin-trudeau-s-foolish-china-remarks-spark-anger-1.2421351
Shiny Pony should quit the weed, and start paying attention. Even the Chicoms can’t just afford blowing up their economy by withdrawing excess liquidity, they tried, and shadow banking interest rates shot up to 15%… A big economy has inertia.
I would think that it would normally be difficult to ram through congress an idiotic agreement on climate change, but with record low temps across the country, it might be a tad more difficult. Politicians might be a little sympathetic to people who are freezing to death – or maybe not. They will probably wait until it gets warmer. In any case, the Republicans will get blamed by the media for destroying the planet.
It’s pretty amusing that every leftist newspaper in the USA and in Germany is breaking out in jubilations. Kind of an idiot detector.
Dirk – Gruber WAS referring to some people.
Ideologists of all stripes usually are short term blind and stupid. An Obama supporter will support Obama expanding executive powers without limit, not seeing this expanded power will then be available to the next republican president.
Greens see a totalitarian government good for climate since it can quickly ram though climate related policy, or in this case empty but friendly green words. They are blind to the fact it can declare just as easily AGW theory a threat to the nation and institute laws prohibiting greens from blabbering like idiots as they freely do in a western society.
+1. And that does not begin to cover the truths in you comment.
as Lord Acton said-
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
this is why a democratic system will always be a better system. until such a time that men are not corrupt by nature, then their power over others should be limited.
The amusing thing is: once the greens achieve their totalitarian government, they, as individuals, will be just as screwed by it as everyone else. Meanwhile, the green leaders will live lives of hedonistic luxury as do all despots.
Watermelons anyone?
Nicked this
Cooling in our Time
This morning I had another talk with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. I believe it is cooling for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home, get a nice quiet sleep and don’t worry about anything.
After a week of being humiliated by the Chinese and Putin, this announcement was more like terms of surrender. Did you notice the Chinese showing off their brand new stealth fighter, which looks – gasp – just like a US stealth fighter. Check out the body language in the photos. Not to mention Obama’s and Putin’s classic “I’m going to pretend you are not even in the room and are invisible” routine, with the Chinese premier in the middle like the adult supervisor.
To be pedantic, the word Democracy will not be found in the US Declaration of Independence or within the US Constitution. The founding fathers were all to aware that Democracy, or rule by the majority, was just another form of tyranny. This is why they attempted to set up a representative republic to ensure liberty by rule of law, and spoke out strongly against any form of Democracy.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Ben Franklin
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams
Thanks for helping to expose the democracy delusion, Bruce. Anthony, please take note. Democracy is only as good as the people voting. Look at the people, what do you see?
North Korea is a “democracy”. And their voter participation is impressive. That’s about it.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Who was the idiot that said “what we need is a good dictator. ” Lefty believes there is such a thing despite all present and historical evidence to the contrary.
Very, very occasionally it works out, but its a move of utter desperation to do such a thing – very few people behave themselves in the face of such temptation.
For example, when the American Revolutionaries asked George Washington to be King, he refused the honour, and chose to become President instead. Washington explained his actions by quoting the story of Cincinnatus, a famous Roman general. Unlike the repulsive Julius Caesar, Cincinnatus assumed absolute power twice in his life, when the Roman Senate begged him to save the Republic, and on both occasions relinquished power the moment the emergency was resolved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
From memory one of the Presidents of Columbia did something similar, assumed absolute power for 18 months to smash the FARC rebels, then relinquished power and held an election which was judged fair by the outside observers he invited. Naturally he won by a landslide – and when his two terms were complete, he resigned the presidency, even when people asked him to stay on, because that is what the constitution demanded.
Make that Colombia… 🙂
Well from what I know about the Peoples Republic of China, which is quite a lot, I suspect that China will not only be overtaking the west with industry and standard of living, but with their whole hearted embrace of capitalism and continuing progress in devolving the function of government to private enterprise we may find that Democracy and Freedom in the PRC will exceed our own diminishing rights.
The chinese government is dead scared of its huge population and can no longer use force to have its way. Instead it is allowing chinese people to obtain all the things they envy in the west. The chinese people are too pragmatic to believe in any religion including that of AGW. Therefore whatever their government says is designed to offend neither the west or their own people.
Actually I believe that they think the west is going insane and that Obama and Merkel are wankers.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
You have to laugh:
The Guardian model of China is that they will magically do what the Guardian wants.
The Chinese model of The Guardian is that they wouldn’t exist.
Greens are not leftists. They are of course not even green. They actually come out more like fascists. What the green/climate obsessed are when it comes to their praising Mr. Obama’s deal with China, however, is stupid. This is not a deal in the sense of two parties taking coordinated joint action to solve a problem. Nothing in this deal is coordinated, much less joint. It is unilateral: The USA, if Mr. Obama gets his imperial will, cuts and cuts and cuts. China does no cutting for over a decade. Nothing in the deal has the US and China working to pressure anyone to cut anything.
But more importantly, we know that the amount of CO2 being reduced, even if we grant that Mr. Obama’s deal might actually cut CO2, will do nothing to impact climate in any significant way: No weather is attributable now to CO2 increases. None will be when and if any CO2 cuts are actually achieved. Mr. Obama’s foolish obsession with cutting CO2 is only matched by the lack of respect for his fellow Americans and his deficit in critical thinking skills.
Mr. Obama, with no scientific training whatsoever, and apparently no street smarts or common sense, much less critical thinking skills, has been played by his science adviser in an historically spectacular way.
Politically naive Guardian children can’t conceive of the possibility that this is yet another example of Obama being exploited by national leaders who know how to get what they want at his expense.
Any one-sided CO2 suicide pact Obama may have agreed to with China still needs to be ratified by 67 Senators.
Since the GOP now holds 55 Senate seats (including Louisiana which is a lock) there is absolutely no way this treaty gets ratified. Period! (TM)
This meaningless treaty was just a posturing by Obama aimed at Green activists to assure Green campaign donations (aka watermelon juice) flows into the coffers of DEMS for 2016 presidential elections…
BTW– Keep your eyes on Elizebeth Warren (aka Fauxcohontus). Hillary is not trending well and DEMS need a new rock star following their rout last week.
Always interesting to listen in to the take on ‘greens’. Hunter (just above) is right though – these ‘greens’ are not green, nor I they ‘left’, nor I they ‘fascists’ (yet). There is a need for a new lexicon but also some understanding of the phenomenon upon which to base it. At present, all I can do is offer the following:
– I have witnessed strong anti-democratic tendencies bemoaning that local district councils are a block to getting ‘green’ technology (mostly wind turbines) sited – they are pushed through by appeal to central government;
– I have personal experience of ‘green’ activists trying to prevent me speaking, putting pressure on editorial boards to prevent me publishing, and have had dark warnings of ‘we know where you live’….;
– There is clearly a cadre of mostly professional activists in Europe (estimated budget from foundations and the EU of $200 million/year) that would happily collude with the banking sector, the IMF and World Bank in spending tax-payers monies without any inconvenient democratic oversight – note that Obama pledges 2.5 billion dollars of taxpayers money into this system. The UK has already allowed a substantial part of its aid budget to be sequestered for climate change spending (could easily be two billion pounds out of six billion total by now);
BUT
to label this cleptocracy ‘marxist’, ‘fascist’ or even ‘green’ does not help to understand them, nor to combat their influence – instead think laterally:
– China is a capitalist country (just as Russia is), and its expansion has been financed by global capital – it long ago gave up Marxism (just like Russia did). It is an extension of America and Britain and Germany and others…its industries and markets are totally interconnected with ‘ours’, and like all such markets, it is determined to compete and expand its share…just like any corporation; so think ‘China is us!’ or ‘Now is the China of everywhere’;
– it is the location of choice for manufacturing (try finding something in a European shopping mall that is NOT made in China……the other day I did find an Italian-made pillow but it cost £150), because wages are extremely low, worker protection poor and environmental quality standards utterly basic;
– And look to what is happening in America and Europe with regard to freedom and civil liberties, look to the prosecution of resource wars and creation of ‘enemies’ and the extension of global power that fighting them legitimises;
– Look at Obama as serving these financial and corporate interests, whilst having to appear to be serving the people…and the majority of democrats have bought the scary climate story, hence he has to respond to that whilst not actually doing anything that would damage corporate interests….
The last point doesn’t make sense, then, as so many people argue that what he is doing will damage corporate America? I think we have to look more closely at who benefits from his policies – where the money goes. As far as I can tell, he is expanding oil and gas and has an eye for nuclear, as well as renewables. None of these can currently compete with either subsidy or high oil prices (watch what happens to fracking gas and shale oil, tar sands and the like, when oil drops below $70 per barrel). All Obama is doing is shuffling the deck of some very big industrial interests and trying to appease the real greens – those people who unfortunately cannot yet see that science institutions are corrupted, look to the UN for global aggreement on global issues, care about their childrens’ future and vote Democrat. He cannot criticise China because American capital is at stake. European politicians are in the same boat.
As for the Guardian – this paper is beyond my understanding. I read it daily as a University student. It has sold out – but the sell-out is not easy to describe. The only understanding I have came when a friend pointed out that most newspapers had become campaigning newspapers. That is also what happened to environmentalism – it went from grass-roots opposition to dangerous practices to global corporate organisations with professional media-savvy staff. The effects are pervasive: meaningless targets replace real change. More scare stories are invented (note the parallels with the creation of military enemies). These people have to have a mission in order to exist – hence the propensity for religious zeal and intolerance.
But fear not America! We in Britain have a new kind of revolutionary – a comedian. All we have to do now is get him on side!
Peter,
I see an apparent leaning in your post as being specifically anti Obama, and in some regards he’s earned that. But to cherry pick a particular note:”And look to what is happening in America and Europe with regard to freedom and civil liberties,” The single most civil liberty striping piece of legislation (U.S.) “The Patriot Act” did not occur under his watch, but instead came about under the opposing party.
I keep hearing how this is a science site, and yet when politics comes in it only has one direction. All that is wrong with the world and the U.S. is not a result of one orientation, but instead is as a result of bad leadership.
Just an attempt to bring some balance to the discussion.
Danny Thomas, the vast majority of media outlets in the west are left biased, yet you feel the need to “bring balance to the discussion” here. Give me a break.
David,
If you could observe me you’d know via empirical evidence that my goal is in fact NOT to bring” balance to the discussion ” here. My goal (and I know I’m tilting at windmills as OTHERS choose not to remove politics), is to just bring balance to the discussion. I speak no differently here than I do on Real Climate (until I self banned) or J.C. or with my CAGW friend or anywhere.
As some choose to rail against the left, and some choose to rail against the right, I choose to rail for communication and until the politics is removed, that cannot occur. My burden to bear and it’s okay.
It amazes me that the science is unsettled, yet where are the scientists? They’re divided in to teams and that makes zero sense. They won’t even get on the same playing field. Just as has happened in our politics in this country we despise each other, and that we’re doing the same in science now says much about us. IMO
David Ball is right. If you sort scientists by those employed and/or seeking grants, vs those retired or otherwise not affiliated with any rent-seeking activities, you get a very clear picture.
Astronauts are a good example. Mostly retired, and otherwise not seeking to profit from the man-made global warming scare:
http://oi53.tinypic.com/do6g74.jpg
D. Thomas asks: “…yet where are the scientists?”
They are everywhere, from the 32,000 OISM co-signers, to those like Lindzen, Spencer, Watts, Eschenbach, etc., to U.S. astronauts, who are all hard science professionals.
Then you have chumps like Nutticelli, Gore, Schmidt, Mann, and so on. Take your pick of which side you want to listen to. Because both sides can’t be right. One side is wrong. Everyone can decide for themselves which side of the debate is right, and which side is on the wrong track.
Hi db,
I can’t discern “which side is right” without looking at the evidence. No one (that’s not predisposed) can. The hardest part, for me, is to try to filter out what is ONLY politics, and some of it is ONLY politics. To me, it would make so much sense to have Spencer and Mann, et al, in the same room with Watts, Eschenbach, et al. But is that gonna happen? I’d pay to see it and I’d be willing to wager that you would to. The only “team” I’d choose to root for would be for the “science” team. I don’t care if one is left or right. I’m here about the climate topic. And as evidence that I speak with both sides the same, I posted this to an AGW’er on another site:
(I would appreciate your reasoned criticism. If we can cut through the politics and get to the science I believe we can progress.)
“I’m no scientist. I’ve read much on the climate change topic. And I have a perspective that I hope you don’t mind me sharing with you.
I don’t see a black and white discussion. I see a scale from AGW to Denier with skeptisism somewhere in between.
I see sufficient evidence to support that our climate is changing, my quest is to discover why. I can’t do the physics myself. Matthew R. Marler is on a quest for discovery relating to a new paper in Science about the warming caused increase in lightening strikes. My understanding of his concern is that there is not sufficient evidence that the increased energy leading to the increase in lightening strikes cannot also manifest in increased warming. This is one example. The “hiatus” heat transferring to the oceans is a recent theory. Examples like these lead me to the conclusion that the science is not settled.
I see that even the so called AGW “consensus” cannot state emphatically that it’s CO2. The terminology is “likely”. So within the black and white debate lies the policy discussion of spending huge amounts of money for CO2 abatement when it’s “only” likely that CO2 is the cause.
I’ve read papers that show the “potential” costs if we delay. But those papers do not account for “likely” technological advancement.
I see equally logical debate that natural variability is at least partially responsible for warming.
My unsupported supposition is that it’s likely a bit of both.
So, for me, I’d prefer that the science be settled more fully prior to spending those dollars as “potentially” those dollars could be misdirected. Do we not have time for further study, and would that approach not be “prudent”?
Please let me know if you consider this to be wrong minded and why, if so.”
D. Thomas,
I don’t want to get into an interminable discussion over this, because it’s pretty cut and dried. You say:
I can’t discern “which side is right” without looking at the evidence.
Fine. Let’s cut to the chase: Post a measurement of AGW. Just one will be fine. That’s the “evidence”.
Make sure it is a testable, empirical measurement quantifying the man-made portion of global warming, out of the total. That’s the evidence we need to make an informed decision.
What’s that you say? There are no such measurements to be found anywhere?
Well then, the entire ‘man-made global warming’ conjecture is nothing more than a baseless opinion. If you can’t decide if the catastrophic AGW believers — or even the AGW believers — have an argument worth listening to, then you are one of those people who will dither incessantly because you can’t decide anything.
Be decisive. Or dither. Your choice. Me, I’ve decided: alarmists got nothin’. Never did have anything. The whole cAGW scare is a giant head fake. Fall for it, or don’t. Your choice.
DB,
I do not for the life of me understand why you read things in to what I write that I don’t say. I didn’t say I had evidence to support AGW. I said I had evidence to support GW. Big difference. I tried to select a source that is apolitical. So in choosing one, I chose Arbor Day. I’ll look forward to your reasoned criticism of that choice, but here’s the link: http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm. Growing seasons are expanding. First average frost date is later and last average frost date is earlier and that equals an expanding growing season. I’m trying to not be a hypocrite by siting a politically oriented source.
Did you not read that I’m asking the AGW supporter why more study of causes is not prudent? I can see that it could very well be good old mother nature and not man (or somewhere in between as those much more knowledgeable than I profess :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I’m not falling for anything. I’m not falling for AGW based on the evidence at hand (until proven otherwise when I believe we’ll all stand shoulder to shoulder). I’m also not falling for you reading in to my words something that I DID NOT SAY.
There is by perception, and even stated by Dr. William Happer in another WUWT posting that warming is occurring. Are we cherry picking that we’re okay with him supporting warming to not be caused my man and ignoring that he said warming is occurring? The majority of the discussion is cause. Where am I wrong?
I look forward to your reasoned response, but only after you read my words and sans your assumptions.
D. Thomas says:
I do not for the life of me understand why you read things in to what I write that I don’t say.
That is exactly what you are doing. You wrote:
I said I had evidence to support GW. Big difference.
Who denies that there has been global warming?? Name one credible person. The planet has been warming in fits and starts since the LIA, and since the last great stadial before it.
So changing the discussion to “global warming” is simply misdirection. Rather, the debate is about:
a) whether catastrophic AGW is happening, and
b) if AGW exists, whether it is significant enough to alter government policy.
But when the discussion is changed to the vague “global warming” deflection, it is the same as changing it to the even more vague “climate change”. Both are misdirection: “Look over there! A squirrel!”
The claim is that AGW is a problem. Prove it. Or at least, post even a single quantifiable measurement showing the fraction of global warming supposedly attributable to human emissions. So far, no one has produced any such measurements. Doesn’t that bother you?
Next, your Wikipedia link is a bunch of crap edited by William Connolley, who doesn’t seem to have an honest bone in his body. They left out the 32,000 co-signers of the OISM Petition [all of whom have degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s], which greatly helped to scuttle the Kyoto Protocol. Foolish people rely on Wikipedia to support their world view.
Finally, let’s reel you back to the original reason for my first comment:
I can’t discern “which side is right” without looking at the evidence.
I asked you to post evidence in the form of empirical measurements, quantifying the amount of man-made global warming [AGW] out of the total global warming observed over the past ±century.
Naturally you ignored that. Because if you can’t post a measurement of a physical process, we must assume that either the physical process is so minuscule that it is down in the noise, and thus is too tiny to even measure, or… AGW simply doesn’t exist. Either way, the climate alarmist crowd loses the argument.
You do not seem to understand how the Scientific Method works: the onus is entirely upon those who claim that AGW is a problem. But so far, they have not been able to show any global harm due to human emissions. The onus is not on skeptics, because skeptics have nothing to prove. The burden is entirely on the proponents of the man-made global warming conjecture, but they have failed to produce the necessary evidence. In fact, they have no evidence, only their conjecture; their opinion.
If you were decisive, you would have made up your mind by now, based on the complete lack of evidence produced by the alarmist crowd. It is telling that you keep trying to fence-sit.
So you’re stating unequivocally, that global warming is in no way possibly caused to any extent by man?
You are correct, that I did not provide evidence that AGW is occurring. The reason I didn’t is that I cannot provide evidence that I do not find. I, however, being open minded have reason to believe that the science is not settled. It is not settled either way, as yet. Man cannot yet be ruled out as at least a part of the cause, just as man cannot as yet be ruled in as the cause.
I did indeed read in to your post asking me to provide proof about AGW as an indicator that you believe that I BELIEVE that AGW is occurring. Do you, or do you not believe that? Be specific and show proof whichever you chose. I tell you I am not convinced that man is causing global warming. I state clearly that my take is that the science is not yet settled. No squirrels there. Do you see one?
I didn’t change the conversation from global warming to climate change. Others did. I used the terminology.
The Wiki link has within it a link to the wiki about the Oregon petition. If you read, and didn’t assume, you’d see that. Do I need to show it to you? It also links to the Heartland Institute. And within those links they discuss the issues in support and against those surveys. Now if we’re not cherry picking, there are links to Dr. Curry, Dr. Happer, and others. Throwing it out as a “load of crap” therefore necessitates either cherry picking or rebuking it in entirety.
I cannot discern who is right as I perceive the science is as yet unsettled. So, if you see it otherwise I’d love to see your data and not your opinion.
Juxtaposing me as an “alarmist” is wrong minded of you. If you believe me to be so, please provide evidence as proof from my words. Can you not bring down your hackles and use a rational evaluation of the evidence I presented sans your assumptions, or are you of a religious bent much the same as those on the CAGW side? Your answer to the first question posed to you above, and my request for evidence will tell much. Am I speaking with an biased, unscientific fanatic, or a reasoned, evidence supported scientist?
I’m agnostic, and in discovery mode.
D. Thomas says:
So you’re stating unequivocally, that global warming is in no way possibly caused to any extent by man?
STOP IT.
Skeptics have nothing to prove.
Those making the alarmist conjecture that man-made global warming is happening have the onus, not skeptics. But they have failed to produce even a single measurement of AGW.
Why do you keep trying to turn the Scientific Method on it’s head? The burden is entirely on the alarmist crowd. But they have failed to support it. Thus, they lose the debate. QED
Just like standing behind the 97%. Skeptics have nothing to prove is easy.
I took a stand as you suggested I do. I supported mine.
I agree that AGW is unproven, but there is evidence in debate.I do not agree that skeptics stating that there is nothing to prove is acceptable either. If warming is occurring, and that’s agreed, what is the source? Evidence, please. We’re asking the AGW side to provide evidence leading to proof. Evidence has been supplied and is in debate. Evidence has been supplied that nature is the cause of global warming. You’ve made a declaration. I’m asking for your proof.
I also notice that this reply is deflecting from the other specific questions I asked. You chose to point out where I “ignored” your questions so I responded to those questions. I’m respectfully asking you to respond to mine. Should you chose to ignore mine, that says much.
Just saying!
D. Thomas,
I asked you to post evidence. Instead, you started asking more questions. You are deflecting again.
I pointed out to you that skeptics have nothing to prove. That is an absolute fact. You don’t like it, I get that. You just don’t agree with the Scientific method. I get that, too.
This has nothing to do with the 97% nonsense, either. A conjecture has been put forth: CO2=cAGW. Human CO2 emissions cause [or will cause] runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. That is the conjecture being debated [it is not that AGW exists; AGW probably does exist, but if it is so tiny that it doesn’t matter, then the debate is over].
Scientific skeptics are under no obligation to prove anything. You don’t like that fact. You want to put skeptics into a box of your own choosing. But you don’t get to decide. It is accepted in science that the job of skeptics is to tear down a conjecture, because that advances knowledge: whatever remains standing after the smoke clears is accepted as current science. Complain all you want, that will not change the fact that the onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd.
Next, you assert:
Evidence has been supplied that nature is the cause of global warming.
That is the default position, which has now been challenged by the AGW conjecture. The only evidence we need is a verifiable, empirical, quantified measurement of AGW, showing the percentage of global warming caused by human activity. But neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide such evidence. Thus, your conjecture is on the ropes. It is going down for the count.
I have explained to you before that scientific “evidence” is not pal reviewed papers, or computer climate model output, etc. Evidence consists of verifiable empirical observations, and/or raw data. Evidence consists of empirical facts.
Measurements are data. Post a measurement of AGW, or you are just whistling Dixie. Without measurements, you have nothing. Zero. Zilch. You are pointlessly arguing, because your fragile ego will not let you admit that you have no evidence to support your Belief.
Here’s a challenge, DT: quit waffling, and make a decision. Pretend you have to decide right now, based on all available information. Which is it? Is the alarmist crowd right, or are scientific skeptics right?
It can’t be both. So decide. Or, waffle. Your choice.
Db,
You asked me to post evidence for AGW. I tell you that I do not have evidence to support AGW (at this time) therfore I have no evidence to provide. What is unclear about that? Your method in describing that I have stated, postulated, or whatever is the furthest thing from Science possible. If you disagree, prove where I said it. Stop blowing smoke, deflecting, being intellectually dishonest and take the challenge head on. Provide evidence.
The scientific method defined as: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
skep·ticˈnoun
1.
a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
synonyms: cynic, doubter; More
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Note: The scientific method is designed to be questioned. I question AGW. I also question your declaration that global warming is not caused by man. If you chose to not post evidence, then you must not have evidence to post. Or, you don’t not believe what you said.
I never said CO2 causes global warming. You, at our first “meeting” put those words in my mouth. I challenge you to provide evidence that I (ME) did.
My choice, and I stand by it and am supported by many, many, many folks much smarter and more educated than I is that THE SCIENCE IS UNSETTLED. (see the Scientific method definition above–I am in pursuit of knowledge). You say that I don’t get to decide about putting skeptics in a box. They (and I) do that for themselves. I am skeptical of AGW until proven otherwise. I am equally skeptical of a total lack of man caused climate change/global warming (you chose).
You don’t get to decide who has to decide what and when. You are a “false authority” if you think otherwise.
Oh, do you see that squirrel over there?
Stop deflecting, and address the questions head on. I’m happy to wait. Or continue to provide evidence that you are no where near a scientist.
You deign to tell me from “on high” that I can’t put “skeptics” in a box and in the next breath you tell me that you want me in one by stating:”quit waffling, and make a decision. Which is it? Is the alarmist crowd right, or are scientific skeptics right?”
Hyp*crite much?
Like Willis Eshenbach said:”I give like I get”.
D. Thomas says:
You asked me to post evidence for AGW. I tell you that I do not have evidence to support AGW
So it’s your belief, then. Got it.
Belief can’t be argued. For me, I’ll go with the Astronauts.
Well, well. We can agree on something. One cannot argue with your beliefs.
False authority, deflection, and intellectual dishonesty. Db, others may respect some of what you say as that’s been shared with me. But I respect you not knowing you only say you’re a scientist on a scientific site and yet you provide only evidence to the contrary.
I see what you really are, and it’s not very appealing. What is it Steve Mosher says? Tribal behavior.
Still not one answer to any of my questions. Quite the scientist. Quite the scientist.
[Snip. Ford-Grouse-juan-beckley etc., you are no longer welcome here, after you dishonestly posted pretending to be another commenter, and after numerous sockpuppet posts. ~mod.]
D. Thomas,
How did you get so far off track? Now you’re just going ad-hom, like every other cornered alarmist.
Now, what do you think my beliefs are? Whatever you think they are, they do not matter. The evidence matters. You claimed to have evidence. You didn’t and you never posted any real evidence. Your whole M.O. is based on confirmation bias and cherry-picking. The fact is that there is no real world evidence quantifying AGW [which I still think exists, but it is too tiny to measure].
Also, I am not debating politics. I never mentioned Obama; you did. This is not tribalism, at least from my side.
Next, I am not trying to debate America vs Europe. Or the Patriot Act; you brought that up. I’m not arguing civil liberties, either, or ‘all that is wrong with the world’. That’s your misdirection. I just want someone to quantify AGW. That’s all. Give me a testable measurement. Just one. I originally replied to David Ball, who criticized your claim that you want to bring balance to the discussion. As if.
I know exactly why you are upset: I am holding your feet to the fire, and you don’t like it. I get that. You don’t like the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove. You are looking for a way to legitimize your belief that AGW is a problem. Since you can’t find one, you go on the attack. That is the universal response of the alarmist crowd. I’ve been on that receiving end for twenty years now.
If you were a stand-up guy, you would simply admit that there is no testable, empirical scientific evidence showing that AGW is any kind of a problem. It would then follow that the country should promptly cease wasting tax money on the AGW wild goose chase. With no evidence of global harm, that is the only reasonable position for honest folks to take.
Keep misdirecting and criticizing my questions and responses, it’s water off a duck’s back to me. Every day that global warming remains in abeyance, the alarmist crowd loses more support. I am doing my part to help that along. I’ve made it my mission. You are doing your part to keep flogging that dead horse. If we both do our parts, we will see how it all shakes out in the end.
ad hominom is not okay and deflecting, intellectual dishonesty, lying, and false authority is? Just want to know the rules.
You have shown me nothing but contempt since my first posting. What I get, I give. You’re showing hypocritical behavior by saying I can’t put skepics in a box and then telling me you want me in one.
Answer my questions, so called scientist. If you cannot do that then admit you’re incompetent as a scientist. One or the other, if you’re a stand up guy. That’s no attack on you, but it is an attack on your methods. I directly answered your questions. Can you not come down off the pedestal (false authority) you’re on and answer direct questions?
I’ll admit you didn’t mention Obama. If you have the critical thinking and reading ability you’ll see that I responded to another’s post that did. You then, jumped in, in an effort to spin me up. I responded with nothing but a respectful comment and showed how I had addressed an AGW’er as evidence that I’m seeking perspectives from all sides of this discussion. I’m no hypocrite, unlike the behavior you’ve shown.
You want ME to quantify AGW. Not “another” as you’re superimposing your assumptions on me. You did that in the first thread and are doing that again.
My feet aren’t in the fire. I answered your questions. You’ve deflected and did not address a single one that I posed to you except that global warming is occurring. So once you can be the scientist you proclaim so vehemently to be and provide the data to support your conclusion you can’t be taken seriously. Until then, you’re intellectually dishonest. It is what it is.
I currently have no evidence to support AGW. I don’t expect that any is imminent. But if it does come, I, for one, will be receptive to it. I also have no evidence that global warming is anything but natural. But I’m not the one that states I’m a scientist. You declared that there is no way we’re (man) is affecting the climate. I ask again for your evidence. Stating you’re a skeptic and have nothing to prove is deferral. It’s the very definition.
I’m not upset in the least. I showed you and others nothing but deference in my first visit, that is until the tribalism set in. Then you and I stooped to low levels and we both (not just me) were called on it.
So be a big scientist and answer the questions. Or don’t. You and I will never settle this as NEITHER are the experts. Now we can talk about it like adults if you change your tone. You’re showing the lack of balance that I was referring to. I’ve shown evidence that I don’t. If you don’t provide the evidence then I chose to no longer show you any deference or respect as you have earned neither.
If you wish to get back to the discussion I’m in. If you wish to continue the same behavior of showing me contempt and you expect different results ……..well we all know what that defines.
It’s your turn, if you can answer the questions. If not, this is (what’s the term) Climateball and has nothing of value to add. I will continue my journey to knowledge. You already have your answer and obviously your mind is closed.
An accurate statement. Good summary. Nothing more need be said.
dbstealy, Danny Thomas’s non-answer to me could have been left as it stands. I do appreciate you trying to reason with him ( I don’t think that is possible ), but it is clear from his non-answer that there is nothing of any significance going on in his head. Deflection is the typical response as he cannot answer the question head on. I expected nothing more from him than misdirection, and that is what I got. He needs no more rope than that.
Why are you bringing politics into a science site, then complaining about the politics ??
I, for one, don’t care about your political thoughts.
You want balance ?, there are many other sites that need your attention, and they are not hard to find.
They might not have quite the coverage of this site though, always the dilemma, eh.
u.k.(us)
Absolutely fair comment.
A couple observations if I may.
I didn’t “bring” politics, I responded to another that did. That you don’t care about my commentary is fine. But this is a public format. If/when others stop posting on political topics, and policy is political is it not, then I’d agree. Until then, in my country, I’m free to speak in agreement with you or in a different orientation than you.
Is balance a problem on this site, or are those of a particular orientation the only ones welcome? Kinda makes for stale debate, and I’m not aware of that being a rule of WUWT. Please correct if inaccurate. I, for one, am an independent.
If/when Mr. Watts or the mod asks me to leave, I’ll respectfully do so. It’s not my site and it’s a privilege for us all, is it not? I can hope that the respect is/will be mutual but it’s not always. Sometimes my commentary has lacked respect but I’m, by far, not the only one. Call others out, or single me out, it matters not.
“So called scientist”??
Well, I guess we’re done here.
Sorry about all that typing.
This is all about setting the stage for Paris 2015, that’s it.
I’m pretty sure if you want to live in a country like China, you can move to China.
I’m chuckling at that. A number of people moved to the USSR back when, I don’t recall (even if it was reported) how they found living there, if troubled would they even be able to get out again.
A friend claims that a couple of fools from Canada/US went to ISIS-controlled areas to help them, but ISIS did not want them. (Don’t need unreliable fighters, of course it would be easy to arrange for them to be war casualties.)
Back in the days of Soviet Russia, there were a number of folks after a long wait and struggle, were finally “allowed” to emigrate to USA and to other countries. A fair number actually returned to Russia (to the glee and delight of Pravda). Seems they could not handle the many choices they had to make regarding their being after landing in NY. After a lifetime of decisions of where you were to live and work by “someone else” seems they could not handle the basic process of making the decisions themselves, and wanted to go back to their comfort zone in Russia. Appears that is what some folks today want that to happen where the government makes all the decisions for you, and all you have to do is “obey”. That way you can never be blamed for your bad choices in life and you are relieved of the burden of decisions about critical events. This is why consensus “science” becomes so important to them.
David Suzuki‘s ilk are usually very careful not to get their hands bloody.
They fudge wording, and use evasions such as “I can understand why they want to …..”.
They predict people will become violent but are careful not to advocate it themselves. And they associate with violent people.
And they spin – after Suzuki’s very clear remark, a spokesperson claimed he did not mean it literally – but Suzuki’s words in the context sure did not sound anything but literal.
Real people, including many living on the streets of Victoria BC, are clearer.
Indeed, when the residence of the mayor of Victoria was vandalized by anarchists trying to do even more for homeless people, street people outside the Our Place shelter condemned the action, but a spokesperson for a group claiming to advocate for homeless/poor people refused to despite repeated pushing by the radio interviewer.
And they are hypocrites.
While Maude Barlow decries “globalization”, she is on the board of directors of organizations in Canada, the US states of CA and WA, and Germany.
Of course to Marxists, which she obviously is given her anti-capitalism rhetoric, contradictions are acceptable (it’s called dialectic logic”).
Another tactic of such activists is misleading names for their organizations. For example, Barlow is chair of “The Council of Canadians”, note the word “Some” is not included (“A Few” would be more accurate).
While Elizabeth may has criticized the Council of Canadians, and officially decries violence, she has often associated with Barlow – effectively giving them sanction.
Chinese apparatchiks aren’t going to jump for anything, as the Guardian misreports what was allegedly “agreed” to (remember, this is NOT a binding “agreement;” it is a plan for future action – Congress would have to approve anything binding, good luck with all that). The Chinese have until 2030 to “top off” their emissions. Sixteen years from now, I predict, Obama will be dead, and the Chinese will go on emitting.
Overheard coming from the inner workings of a Red Chinese Politboro planning session: “Let’s promise the Dufus some horsecrap projections stretched out many nebulous years and maybe he will go away.”
“Yeah, Guys, that’s the plan, right.”
“Agreed.”
“Maybe the idiot will hamstring his economy for a promise.”
“They would never do that. They are sitting on the biggest load of cheap fossil fuels in the world and have enormous competitive advantage with it.”
“You have no idea what a fool we are dealing with.”
“Oh, I forgot that for a minute. What a maroon!”
“Hey, let’s dress him up in an idiotic maroon nightshirt to make it obvious, OK? Think he’ll go for it?” Uproarious laughter follows (After translation)…
Danny Thomas
November 14, 2014 at 9:00 am
While this is the topic of the day, let’s remember that he navigated us through the most challenging financial crisis in recent history. Do we have debt yet to pay? Yes. Do we deserve to have to pay it? You bet. We (via our leadership) allowed the crisis to occur, realized that financial institutions cannot be left to their own devices, and have done pretty much nothing to correct the situation. And this happened through the thread of “leadership” of both parties. So let’s not rely on the “Press” as our guide as depending on which “Press” one consumes, the orientation will vary.
Sooooo he led by doing nothing. Yup, pretty much sums it up.
If we want to talk about details we can, or we can just smear the man because we’re on the other team.
Had an interesting experience when I first chose to post on this blog. I’m not an AGW’er, I’m skeptical, I’m not a denier.
But one here (a rabid skeptic) chose to attack me personally for my policies being responsible for the deaths of “millions of children”. A couple days ago when speaking with a CAGW’er he said to me that by not addressing CO2 now that I was responsible for the deaths of “millions of children”.
Folks, when it gets like that, rational thought has left the building and BALANCE needs to be restored. It’s no longer science, it’s religion.
Then address the issue posted here directly. Is this a good deal for the American people?
David,
First, comment about me to DB is “tribal behavior”.
Second, the last post I saw from you was: David Ball November 14, 2014 at 8:10 pm
Danny Thomas, the vast majority of media outlets in the west are left biased, yet you feel the need to “bring balance to the discussion” here. Give me a break.”
In this I see no question. So if I’ve missed something you directed to me, I apologize and ask that you repost.
Finally, I see this question:”David Ball November 16, 2014 at 9:45 am
Then address the issue posted here directly. Is this a good deal for the American people?”
But since I know not to what it refers, I cannot answer. Is what a good deal.
Thanks,
Just what I expected. Obfuscation. The thread is about a deal with China that Obama had made, remember now?
“Tribal behaviour”. That is a laugh, considering the “tribal behaviour” clearly laid out in the Climategate emails ( there 220,000 more yet.) and the “tribal behaviour” of the MSM. Project, much? You have your fingers in your ears and are chanting “LALALALALA”. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.
I had said that db not need respond as you revealed your inability to grasp even the most simplistic concepts. You did it again.
I cannot wait for your next tap dance,………
David Ball,
Since there are many threads and cross threads within this topic, it was unclear to ME. It may have been clear in your mind, but it just wasn’t in mine. So if your tantrum is over…………………….
1.) Tribal behavior. Sigh, your nonsensical, deflecting response is not worthy of a reply.
2.) So, presuming that your question is (and correct me if I’m wrong): Do I believe the pact with China is a good deal for the U.S.?
No.
So, if you can refrain from piling on, and stand up all by yourself, and wish to ask me a reasoned respectable follow up. I would be happy to respond.