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.
Okay, now tell me why your answer is “No”. In your own words, preferably.
David,
First, and this is totally without sarcasm, for speaking with me about this and doing so reasonably.
I am skeptical of AGW. I can accept that we are having some impact on our climate. I am not comfortable that it’s only us and not at least in part natural. I see warming.
This is policy, which in my opinion, is based on unsettled science. That, in and of itself, is not good decision making.
Within the policy itself, I see two sections. On the positive side, politically it puts us in the drivers seat relative to other countries. I like us being a leader in the world, but would prefer we lead based on knowns.
On the negative, and for me the most disconcerting (therefore the most weight), I forsee that we have made a pact with an unreliable partner that gives them free reign until 2030 to continue to produce CO2 at whatever level while we “work with them on technology to mediate” when I’m not sure mediation is appropriate and that we’ll provide technology to that unreliable partner who’ll then use it at some point in the future with complete disregard for our innovations and patents. Additionally, I can see that should we implement mediation now, our costs will be increased relative to our partner who is also a global competitor. This will give them competitive advantage with the likelyhood that we’ll: lose jobs, give away technology, and lose competitive advantage (vs. other than China) in addition.
I would much rather we invest in further study to “nail down” the causes to the warming than I see. I understand that many here are against what they perceive as towards support of the “leftist academics” gravy train. But I am okay with further study in most scientific realms if only for the science itself, presuming there is no agenda or cause towards which the science will be oriented. I’m fine with some of my tax dollars being spent on our planet, space, and our universe.
I hope this answers your questions and if I’m capable, I’ll do my best to answer others.
Reasoned discussion is key for me to learn, and forums such as this one, I find helpful. I don’t need everyone to agree with me, as I find differing perspectives make me think more fully about things. This is why I chose to visit here, JC, Realclimate, NOAA, USDA, EPA, National Academy of Science, and many more. I don’t have that many answers, but reading and researching lead me to ask more (and hopefully better) questions. Many have already decided, but as I find the science to be unsettled I am open to possibilities from any direction and I expect the unexpected.
Darn it. Should say “Thanks for speaking with me………………………
Five posts that say little. Why can’t you just shut up for a while? Your opinion isn’t that important. Others are much more interesting.
Danny Thomas November 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm says;
“I see warming.”
Would you be so kind as to show me where the “warming” is in this graph?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Danny Thomas November 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm says;
“On the positive side, politically it puts us in the drivers seat relative to other countries.”
If we are economically hobbled, how is that the “driver’s seat”?
Danny Thomas November 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm says;
“On the negative, and for me the most disconcerting (therefore the most weight), I forsee that we have made a pact with an unreliable partner that gives them free reign until 2030 to continue to produce CO2 at whatever level while we “work with them on technology to mediate” when I’m not sure mediation is appropriate and that we’ll provide technology to that unreliable partner who’ll then use it at some point in the future with complete disregard for our innovations and patents. “
Is this more of that “driver’s seat” you were talking about? I guess I completely misunderstood what “driver’s seat” meant.
Danny Thomas November 17, 2014 at 7:27 pm says;
“I would much rather we invest in further study to “nail down” the causes to the warming than(sic) I see.
Soooo, we are going to use money that we no longer have (hobble economy, remember), when that money could go to much better use on things that are “settled” than to identify the cause of warming that is not really unusual.
I, too, enjoy reasoned discussion. I am not getting that from your post.
David & Db,
I agree with Db (almost) completely. You can provide your cherry picked references and I can provide mine. And the argument circle continues. And we can make it about a silly, make that assinine,ping pong game between us with no winner or we can be open minded and learn from each other.
As Willis said, I give as I get. DB, you poke at me, I WILL poke back. I respect your choice to (mostly :))) to
lift the conversation up. Let don’t make it about me or YOU.
I laid out my thoughts and gentlemen, I look forward to reading yours. Db, my stand was stated and I did so out of respect for your request for me to do so. Please, let’s move on from the ping pong.
The ping-pong game is yours, my friend. It is disingenuous to claim that we both just cherry-pick our references. It goes beyond that.
When a reference or link is posted, that reference must withstand scrutiny. It must prevail over falsification by skeptics, or it is worthless. That is the Scientific Method in action. Whatever remains standing after the smoke clears is accepted as current knowledge [always subject to revision, of course].
In addition to posting evidence, the warmist crowd must also overcome a few basic questions, or their conjecture crashes and burns. For example, I have been asking for years now, for measurements quantifying the % of human-caused global warming, out of the total ≈0.7º of global warming.
But to date, no one has ever posted a single empirical, verifiable and testable measurement of AGW. Thus, the entire AGW conjecture is mere speculation [as always, I feel I must state that I accept that AGW exists. But the real world shows that it is simply too small to matter].
Based on the complete failure of the alarmist crowd to find any evidence to support their belief, skeptics win the man-made global warming debate hands down. If it didn’t work that way, witch doctors would still be in charge.
Let’s boil down the basic debate to it’s central question: are human CO2 emissions causing global warming? So far, that question has never been answered with verifiable facts. It is still nothing more than a conjecture; an opinion.
Until and unless the CO2=AGW claim is supported by testable, empirical measurements, agreed to by most scientists, quantifying the specific percentage of global warming caused by human emissions, the alarmist side loses the debate.
It really is that simple, and constantly worrying at the question like a dog on a bone will not change things. It just keeps the ping-pong going, frustrating those who want answers. Only verifiable facts will change things, and as we see, the warmist contingent has lots of words, but very few supporting facts.
Stop lying. My words were “I see warming.” The bulk of your post is what you’re trying to portray that I said, but is not what I said, so I will ignore that.
I post this as support that I see warming due to expanded growing seasons. It is one piece of several, but you’ll probably not accept it so I’m choosing to not spend any more time on this. I did not say anthropogenic.
http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
Db,
I’ve gone back to your immediate prior post and we are just not that far apart. If we remove the tone of our relationship that got off on the wrong foot. I’ll ask you to please look at this and tell me where we differ.
My stand is “uncertain”. Please just forgive that, and listen to the following. I’ve declared myself as skeptical because I do not buy in to the AGW argument that CO2 is causing warming to a level that raises extreme concern. Please keep reading.
I think that you are seeing warming too. Just not enough for concern and you’re not satisfied that it’s all CO2. I see warming. I see extended growing seasons. Ice is melting (more than growing). But can that be attributed to man? I don’t yet see that but I’m open to proof (and it appears you are also as you try to discern science vs. propaganda). I perceive that you could accept that (assuming warming) it’s nature to at least some extent. Let me know if I’m correct in that perception as this is exactly what I’ve been saying. Using the LIA as a starting point leading to today could indicate we’re just in a warming cycle. I cannot cite geologic history from memory. Give me time.
And part of the missing evaluation (to me) is what about deforestation (Amazon?). Could that have an impact? What about our monoculture oriented agriculture? What about the way we stifle wildfire leading to changes in vegetation? What about the sun? What about aerosols? What about methane? What about ……………..There are others (you likely know them better than I).
So let’s define warmist. If warmist is one who states they have sufficient evidence that warming is occurring then put me in that box. From your statement regarding .7C I’d say you’re there also.
If warmist is one who runs around screaming ‘the sky is falling’, I’m not in that box. In fact, a good portion of the reason I’m here (and everywhere) is due to my 30+ year friend who insists the sky is falling and I just don’t see it.
When I check: American Physical Society, IPCC, National Academy of Science, et al I see terms such as: likely, potentially, and other synonyms of “maybe” regarding CO2. I understand that “likely” has a bit of a different meaning when used in scientific publication but it’s not strong enough for me. I’m looking for more certainty.
It make no sense to me for all the scientists on the AGW side to risk their personal credibility if they did not have the evidence to support AGW. Similarly, it makes no sense to me that the 54 equally renowned scientists (sorry it’s a wiki but it’s consise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
that clearly have a differing view. So why would they risk their credibility? I cannot do the physics, so I can’t dispute EITHER side personally. I cannot accept “some guy on the internet” on some blog without credentials. But I can see folks like Dr. Brown (Duke) that do.
But if I cut through the politics (and how is that done?) and read the perspectives plus the tons of sources that “some guy on the internet” provides it helps me think and ask better questions.
Please put yourself back to the days that you had not already made up your mind and consider that my journey is there. I sense, but cannot yet define, that the answer is in the middle. Heck, I may be closer to “accurate” that the scientists on the fringes on both ends.
I perceive, rightly or wrongly, that we’re dealing with an incredibly complex chaotic system that frankly we just don’t understand and we may never. I support scientific research for the sake of enlightenment as it has a value independently. I wish it wasn’t so oriented toward the grant process, but it is and I can’t fix that. I wish it was as simple as an apple falling on Newton’s head, but it’s not.
Please recognize that your initial perception of me was off base. I’m not an AGW’er. That is subject to change. I’m not a “denialist” (I despise that term due to the negative twist from the AGW side but as a stand alone it’s fine). I am an answer (truth?) seeking skeptic.
No, Danny Thomas, I do not think the planet is still warming.
The most accurate global temperature measurements are made by satellites, which show conclusively that global warming has stopped.
You seem to be looking for something that is simply not there. After more than thirty years of searching for empirical evidence of AGW, there is zilch. Question: at what point would you finally throw in the towel, and admit that the climate alarmist crowd is unconvincing? When there has been no global warming for 25 years? For 30 years? When glaciers a mile thick cover Chicago again? When, exactly? It seems to me you have already made up your mind, and you are desperately searching for anything that confirms your bias.
Next, your Appeal to Authority, as exemplified by your citing of Wikipedia, is about as lame as that fallacy can get. They completely ignore the 32,000+ American scientists and engineers who stated, in writing, that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. The fact that Wikipedia completely ignores those tens of thousands of professional scientists — every one of them with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhDs — shows the incredible, deceptive bias of one William Connolley, who does not have an honest bone in his body IMO.
If we include the OISM co-signers, the alarmist clique is a paltry handful of rent-seekers by comparison, who are riding the grant gravy train. They are outnumbered by more than 100 : 1 by skeptics. It’s easy to see where the real ‘consensus’ is.
Finally, neither you nor anyone else has ever posted a single measurement of AGW. That doesn’t bother you, even a little bit? No rational person would listen to someone trying to sell an idea like man-made global warming without one iota of evidence. Well, maybe they would; Elmer Gantry made a good living selling nonsense to the rubes.
Note that by ‘evidence’ I mean raw data. Because there is no data that quantifies the putative human contribution to overall global warming. Without any measurements, all you have are self-serving modern day witch doctor charlatans who are trying to sell you a pig in a poke. The fact that you’re even willing to give them the time of day says a lot.
You are correct that I’m looking, but not for anything in particular.
Answer this, please. Does a scientist stop in the middle of their research with a conclusion? Or does a scientist not have a target (theory) that they attempt to prove? Then try to disprove, then put out for others to replicate/falsify/so on. You say I’ve made up my mind even thought I’ve told you numerous times that I have not then you tell me you have. Does that make sense?
Please stop superimposing. I’m in the middle of my research so I have no conclusion. If you indeed are a scientist how can you not respect that? I don’t know you. I don’t know your background, career, expertise, resume. You don’t know mine. You insist that you do or that I have an agenda, but I’m simply not where you are.
You mention that temps have stopped. Do you expect them to stay where they are? What’s the next direction? Warm, cool, static?
Did you read the wiki? It’s not an up to the minute source and only documents a moment in time. Simple question and the reason I asked is the scientists vary:
Scientists that question the accuracy of IPCC climate projections. You and I both do, correct?
Scientists that argue that global warming primarily caused by natural process. Do we agree that’s likely for the warming that has occurred so far?
Scientists that argue the cause of global warming is unknown. Do we agree that that’s likely for the warming that has occurred so far?
Scientists that argue that global warming will have few negative consequences. Do we agree that that’s accurate for that warming that’s occurred so far?
Look at it in a historical context, and read “based on the warming so far”. Don’t presume (unless you’ve read each and every reference…..I haven’t) that they are stating we’ll have warming going forward. Take them at face value of the categories in which they (the scientists) are listed.
As I’ve told you before, there is a link to the Oregon petition embedded: “There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,[8] the Oregon Petition,[9] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,[10] all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.[11][12][13]” This is 15 lines down from the top.
I’m not using this wiki as a scientific reference, and I told you I used it only because it’s concise and provides several listings of “skeptical” scientists. There are probably over 100 links within it.
These posts are already huge so I don’t want to repeat the questions asked in the previous post, but please go back and answer those and the ones above.
I really do appreciate your effort. I hope you can appreciate mine even if you chose to not agree.
Db,
Just to be clear on the wiki, two of those included under the:”Scientists that question the accuracy of IPCC climate projections.” are Dr. Curry, and Dr. Lindzen.
And under those arguing that GW is primarily natural includes Dr. Happer (whom we just had the thread on here on WUWT).
Only wanting to provide further detail to provide you a clearer image as to why I used the concise source. I could have listed them individually, but that would make my long post even longer. (Which I guess this kinda does anyhow).
I agree with D. Ball about reasoned discussion.
My apologies to D. Thomas for my getting fed up with his constant reluctance to take a stand. I was not nice to him. This is why I’m frustrated:
The arguments are all here at WUWT. All the alarmist/warmist arguments, and all the skeptical responses. Everyone else seems to be able to make their minds up, and take a stand. Why not Mr. T?
We can argue vague hair-splitting points all day long, but for what? The basic debate is pretty clear: is human activity causing global warming? If so, then show us, using verifiable, testable evidence. Everything else is hand-waving.
It appears that some folks just like to see their name in lights. They like to be the center of attention, instead of trying to either be convincing, or to deconstruct bad arguments. So they endlessly argue peripheral points, never taking a definite stand. In other words, they like the discussion to be all about them.
Like most folks, I would like to resolve the ‘climate’ question rationally. If a particular argument cannot be overcome, concede it and move on. That’s how science is supposed to work. So let’s decide whether the CAGW/AGW conjecture has enough meat on its bones to be worth spending any more public resources on it. That’s a yes-or-no question right there.
Don’t always try to be the center of attention. This is about a pretty much baseless conjecture that is costing immense resources, while only benefitting a very few at the expense of everyone else. Stopping the “carbon” scam is my goal, and I get frustrated when the focus becomes a person, rather than the problem
Danny Thomas,
“You’re talking a lot, but you’re not saying anything”- David Byrne
P.S.- I am NOT referring to your responses to dbstealy’s posts at all. Only your responses to me. There goes your “tribal behaviour” postulate.
Happy to re-engage. Please refresh and repose.
David, I have nothing against you, DB, or anyone here. I’m learning, reading, asking questions, and responses and non responses tell one much.
There is one who’ll probably jump all over me as “me wanting to see my name in lights” just because I respond to you, and he won’t say a word to you. I recognize a bully, but a bully doesn’t recognize this is the internet.
Actual behavior tells much more than silly words. In hindsight, I should have come to this site not in deference but instead in bluster like others. My approach was misread as weakness. But I’ve learned and won’t take his crap or yours if you wish to continue with it.
It got dead silent after my last posts, and since none of the questions I posed were addressed I had the answers I needed.
Actually, being polite gets more respect in the long run.
Unless you’re a main author (Willis).
M. Courtney,
I really do appreciate that. I’ve vacillated between deference and firmness. I’ve tried humor. And maybe, just maybe, I’m really bad at all. But here, no matter what I try, I get ““You’re talking a lot, but you’re not saying anything”- David Byrne coming from David Ball.
You’ve read what Db has posted wrongly about me. You’ve read what I’ve responded. So, and I’m a big person I can take it, please compare and contrast DB and David and my tone. I’m new so folks, I don’t know, protect the pack or test the new guy? I get it. But in an honest evaluation, when I look at how things have gone I can see some things I could have done better, but I can see where others could also. Please, please correct me if I’m wrong. I mean this sincerely. You and I have difference but have communicated respectfully.
Folks are kind enough to point out when I’m off track, but I don’t see anyone who’s a member of the pack (IE DB) called out for being a jerk when they’re being a jerk. I’ve tried to be respectful and commit to you and this forum to got back there, but only if the personal stops. I can continue either way.
But I have learned that if one stands up to the B.S. the piling on is reduced. That’s why when I responded the way I did a moment ago.
I would truly appreciate your honest evaluation and from what I’ve seen you’ll be nothing but honest. I respect that and you.
The pack isn’t that large but they are vocal and verbally violent.
And also quite unpersuasive. Don’t worry about them.
They are clearly here mainly for the politics and only a few of them follow the science at all. You may have noticed which are which. That doesn’t mean they are stupid; it means they aren’t very interested in the wider debate.
Remember, observers make up far more people here than the commenters. Why stay dumb and be thought a fool when commenting can prove it? The observers (lurkers) can see who is “winning” by vehemence, bluster and numbers and who is calmly presenting their view. Now, who do you think gets the most respect from the observers – the majority? Even if the observers agree with the majority, who do you think they respect?
The Tea Party guys here are no worse than the political feminists on Jezebel or the DC fanboys on Comic Book Resources. Every site has them.
My way is to be calm, don’t lower the tone to name calling without pointing out my own (or my own side’s) faults as well. And above all I walk away.
After a while thread dies except for one or two remaining conversations with no observers. At this point, evaluate; are you in a Monty Python “This is an argument, no it isn’t, yes it is” loop or are you learning and progressing with new arguments, ideas and evidence being presented?
Are you here for the last word? Are you here to evangelise? Or are you here, like me, to partake in the debate, to learn and to have a bit of fun. If it’s the latter there comes a point where you can, sensibly, walk away – with honour.
M Courtney,
Not intended to “have the last word”. Your point is well presented and well taken. I have taken the bait and behaved poorly. For this I apologize.
I wish to thank you for taking your time with me.
Respectfully,
Danny Thomas, obfuscation is a form of rudeness. My response to your rudeness is justified. You have brought nothing at all to the table that even remotely substantiates your position, so one can only conclude that you are not adding clarity to the discussion. What is your motivation for such behaviour? Nothing good.
Science has to have predictive value. Nothing presented by the establishment “climate scientist” has occurred as predicted. What part of that don’t you get?
What does respecting someone have to do with science? Stop making it personal.
M.Courtney, nice generalization. Has DT presented anything of substance?
When he first came here he defended, very well, the viewpoint that the USGS should not be destroyed in a rage against Climate alarmism. He has been a rare proponent of moderate positions in most things since then.
It isn’t easy to be moderate when attacked.
So yes. He has presented things of substance.
You may not agree with them. You may not agree with his arguments.
But he has been dignified.
It’s hard not to read that in Alan Rickman’s voice. Did you mean to sneer? Because that tone is what is conveyed. DT has a reason to feel aggrieved.
You have not been welcoming. You have not been polite. And that leads to pointless echo chambers.
M.Courtney, as far as politics is concerned, I look at evidence there, too. Let’s compare Canada to the U.S. economically: The U.S. has a socialist leaning leader, and is in trouble economically (don’t try to blame Bush, as too much time has elapsed for that to be valid). Canada has a conservative leader and has weathered the global recession better than the vast majority of countries. In fact, the 2 provinces that are supporting the rest of Canada economically are conservatively lead provinces. Hmmmm. The rest of the provinces are starting to see the light.
The evidence that is right in front of you supports a conservative stance. Capitalism has been smeared by those who disagree with it as being “greed based”. This is a straw man. It is an intellectually weak argument, not dissimilar to the arguments presented by warmists. Governments need to be run as a household is run, with a budget that is realistic. You cannot “borrow to get out of debt” to put it simplistically.
Your appearance as a “neutral party” and the epitome of polite discussion is unnecessary and unwarranted. I say that with zero emotion attached. Stop playing “Switzerland”. Danny Thomas’ posts are as empty as Obama’s suit. He is merely trying to hang with the big kids, and failing miserably.
The fact that DT can post his vacuous meanderings here completely refutes your “echo chamber” assessment. The fact that I can respond here, but not be allowed to post on warmest sites, blows it right out of the water. Get some perspective, please.
Funny that you see a “direct hit” as being rude.