Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
People wonder why anthropogenic global warming is a politicized issue. Here’s one reason among many. In a presentation aimed at the holidays that is impossible to parody, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has put up a website called, no kidding, “the Democrat’s guide to talking politics with your republican uncle”.
I loved how they capitalized “Democrat” but not “republican”. And here’s the advertisement for the web page that they’ve emailed out to alert the faithful to the new website:
Me, I’m not a member of either party. I vote for the person not the party, and my general political philosophy is “A Pox On Both Their Houses”. However, I like to stay current with the propaganda from both sides.
In any case, there’s a section of that DNC web page that covers climate. It’s hilarious. Here are all of the different parts of their climate claims:
Climate: 97% of scientists vs. your Republican uncle
Myth
Climate change is just a liberal scare tactic.
Fact
Forgive us for being convinced by the 97% of climate scientists who agree that climate change is real and believe that humans are probably causing it. Republican obstruction on policies to address climate change endangers our environment and hurts our economy.
[Source]
Now, their [Source] is a NASA web page, and it goes to some length to prove that the globe has actually warmed over the last few centuries … but then we all knew that most scientists agree about that. However, in a classic “bait and switch”, it says nothing about whether humans are responsible, much less whether 97% of scientists believe that humans are driving the climate to Thermageddon. In fact, the NASA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once … that’s their evidence for their “97%” claim??? Do they understand what [Source] is supposed to mean?
[UPDATE: An alert reader pointed out below that there is a link on their page to another page which is supposed to give support for the “97%” number … but doesn’t. Instead, what it has are links to meaningless statements from the boards (not the members but the boards) of scientific societies, plus a citation to the laughable Naomi Oreskes study and such. Pathetic. In any case, the appeal to consensus is meaningless. As Michael Crichton said:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Can’t say it clearer than that.]
And alas, even NASA can’t resist the hype. They say:
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Umm … er … no. Not true in the slightest. That claim is the result of splicing the satellite data onto the tidal gauge data, which shows no such rise. See Figure 3 here for details. [UPDATE: See also Steve Fitzpatrick’s comments below.]
NASA also gets all breathless about ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica, saying:
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year … and for Antarctica it’s a tenth of that, only a thousandth of a percent (0.001%) over three years … bad scientists, no cookies. That’s unbridled alarmism from people who should know better.
Setting NASA aside, the “republican uncle” page goes on to say,
Myth
Humans can’t do anything to combat rising CO2 levels.
Fact
Except we already are combating rising CO2. In 2012, the U.S. recorded the lowest levels of carbon emissions in nearly two decades . And by taking steps like improving fuel efficiency, we can do more in the years ahead. Because of new standards, for instance, the average car in 2025 will achieve a fuel economy equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon, nearly double that of cars on the road today. A goal, by the way, that Republicans tried to block.
They say that we “… will achieve a fuel economy…”? I do love the idea that King Barack Canute can order the tides to roll back, or order the average car to get 54.5 miles per gallon ten years from now, and it will perforce happen. The idiocy is revealed by the “.5” in the goal. These are the same fools, using the same kind of “order it and it must happen” idiotic logic who ordered oil refiners to utilize a product that doesn’t exist … but I digress.
More to the point, the reduction in CO2 emissions is NOT from any push, governmental or otherwise, to get off of fossil fuels. It is from the shift to a different fossil fuel, natural gas … the production of which has been widely opposed by Democrats. Taking credit for changes that they opposed … like I said, you can’t parody this stuff.
Finally, whether the US makes any changes in CO2 emissions is meaningless these days. We’re a minor player in the game. Here’s a graphic I made a couple of years ago showing why:
As you can see, the developing nations are now in the driver’s seat. US emissions are already nearly flat. It doesn’t much matter what we do.
Myth
The United States can’t stay economically competitive if we address climate change.
Fact
Climate change itself is taking a toll on our economy. In 2012, climate and weather disasters cost the United States more than $100 billion . And right now, other countries are making huge investments in research and development to confront this crisis with new technologies — which means new industries and new jobs. We can’t afford to fall behind them. The longer Republicans deny climate change exists, the further we fall behind.
The myth of “green jobs” has been exploded many times and places, the latest being Germany and Spain. There’s no cheese at the end of that maze.
And they’re playing fast and loose with the facts by claiming that the $100 billion cost of climate and weather disasters has anything at all to do with climate change. It has to do with weather, but there’s been no overall increase in extreme events … and in fact, the recent year has seen one of the lowest disaster rates in quite a while. Crisis, my okole. See here for details.
Finally, their “source” for the $100 billion number is nothing but another DNC puff piece that has no sources listed, and the figures given are labeled “Estimated” … pathetic.
Myth
President Obama wants the United States to stop climate change alone.
Fact
This summer President Obama announced a plan to reduce U.S. carbon pollution 25% from 2005 levels by 2020. But he also knows that climate change can only be solved if the international community works together. That’s why this November, the President announced a groundbreaking agreement to work with China to reduce carbon pollution and to increase the country’s non-fossil fuel energy to around 20% by 2030 .
It was a “groundbreaking agreement” alright, but not for the reasons they claim. It was groundbreaking because never in history have we given up so much in return for so little. It requires the US to take action immediately, but it allows the Chinese to increase their CO2 emissions as much as they want until 2030. Brilliant piece of negotiation, groundbreaking to say the least. The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank … and the myth is absolutely true, Obama is left going it alone.
The best part of the web page, however, is that sprinkled throughout the document are a number of links with the little Twitter tweety-bird symbol next to them. If you click on one, it composes an automatic tweet all ready to go out under your byline, like this one:
#FACT: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and believe that humans are causing it. http://my.democrats.org/yru-climate
And the link at the end, to the website called “yru-climate”? …
Why, of course, that link goes to the website called “your republican uncle”.
Somewhere, the Founding Fathers are weeping …
Best to everyone, whether your uncles are Repuglicans or Demagogues,
w.
PS—If you disagree with someone, please be so kind as to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. That way we can all understand the exact nature of your objections.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When liberal family members, of which I have an abundance, start going on about how only crackpots disagree with the “mainstream scientists”, I just innocently ask “You mean the way crackpots like Galileo, Darwin and Einstein did? That way?”
You got ’em too,eh? On the bright side, we likely have a respite until at least, next Thanksgiving.
What about Easter ?
“Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year …”
Yes. Their statement lacks context, so for the average reader, it is useless. 0.01% per year gives us 10,000 years before it’s all gone. Now we have a time and size scale to grasp to help us understand.
Anyone know of an explanation for 36 cubic miles of ice being melted in three or four years in a cooling environment, or is this a decrease in what was purportedly melting before ? … or is this whole field of endeavor a pile of crap ?
http://i59.tinypic.com/3342b6w.png
The Arctic was still probably warmer than before. When we get cold snap in Winter over the central United States, that is cold penetration south, a roughly equal amount of warmer air heads north. This mixing I think cools more than it warms the GAT, as I think the Arctic is good place for heat to find the TOA. “One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s [Graham, 1994]. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern…” – Tsonis 2007. I am assuming we are back to a wave-3 pattern and I think that’s consistent with what Jennifer Francis has found.
The falling wind speeds around 1998 look to me like more meanders in the jet stream at the right time.
I don’t mind “republican” not being capitalized since I’m a republican but I’m not a Republican.
If your capitalized version refers to the neo-cons, I’m in the lowercase group too.
The 54.5 mpg is based on the idea of 5.5 gallons of fuel rendering a range of 300 miles (the nominal distance expected from a tank of gas).
Below are 2 links, one from this week and one from WUWT almost exactly 1 year ago. Several comments from above mention electric vehicles as though the electricity to charge them is freely drawn from the aether and the components can be whipped up like cotton candy. Christmas is sort of a time for fantasies so that makes it all right.
This week (be sure to read the last 4 lines):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-battery-swapping-station-very-191428316.html
This week last year:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-tesla-battery-swap-is-the-hoax-of-the-year/
Some times before I thought that we Germans are better off with having more parties to choose from than only the two in the U.S.
But as it seems now – as a comedian pointed out – that all the multicolored parties here Germany are trying to sell poop with a variety of different taste. Everyone fears to show doubt on the AGW theory – in fact it is a credo now.
Willis says:
There are some benefits too:
No tailpipe emissions, i.e. no local smog
Very high efficiency. An electric engine has efficiency above 90% while a gasoline car is below 30%. In addition the electric car regenerates braking energy to electricity. As I said, I measure an energy mileage similar to 147 miles /US gallon.
No oil usage. Oil is a scarce resource in the world and the prices will rise in the long run.
Electricity can be generated from many sources of which many are eco-friendly. Look to France for instance, they have almost exclusively pollution free and carbon free sources like hydroelectricity and nuclear plants.
You are right about the attendant losses, but you can make a similar list for gasoline. Oil extraction on the fields (with attendant losses), transport of crude (with attendant losses), refining oil (with attendant losses) transport of gasoline to the gas station (with attendant losses).
Yes, but if we do not plan or push in one direction the economy will be the only drive for change.
If we have luck the current energy sources will be replaced with something both cheaper and more eco-friendly, but should we base our strategy on luck? Unfortunately the cheapest energy source in the long run seems to be coal which is the least eco-friendly source.
Nuclear can be a good option in the industrial world, but, as I see it; the concern about proliferation of weapon grade material has to be solved before the uranium based technology can be pushed out globally. Thorium or fusion may be feasible alternatives.
It is not easy to make global plans, and the treaties we end up with are usually huge compromises that are far from ideal, but anyway, I think it is a way we have to go, and it is better than the alternative; to have no plan at all.
Well, seriously speaking Willis, I did not like that.
I am not dictating anyone to do anything and I do not have any power to do that. But I believe in the free exchange of arguments. I learn something from this and maybe I can also contribute to something others learn from.
I don’t agree with you, but I would not dream of calling you part of the problem. I think a small part of the solution is to find in open-minded exchanges of ideas like those we see on this site.
Best Christmas wishes
/Jan
Yet you drive an electric vehicle made affordable by tax breaks paid for by the working poor…the natural outcome of policies you advocate is the continued impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people around the world. you do know that people cook indoors using dried dung for fuel in much of the world?
PS ferdberple
Your calculation of the energy content of gasoline is the BTU equivalent and does not take into consideration that the useflul energy you get is only about 20%
…
The Nissian LEAF get about 70 miles on a charge, and the batteries hold about 24 Kwh.
Assuming your gasoline powered vehicle gets 40 MPG, that 10 gallon tank of gas gets you about 400 miles.
You would have to charge the LEAF six times to get the same amount of mileage.
6 x 24 Kwh = 144 Kwh
…
144 Kwh is about 620,000 BTU, roughly half of the BTU content of 10 gallons of gasoline
..
.
david:
have you considered the energy required to manufacture the battery pack? mine and refine the lithium, recycle the used batteries…mine, or drill for the energy to fuel the power plants?
what about power lost in transmission from the source to the end user, losses transforming the power down in voltage, losses due to the need to keep the grid energized 100% of the time, losses in charging the batteries?
lubos motl, one of the physicists responsible for developing string theory in the late 80’s, certainly capable of handling the math, has done so, and his conclusion is that electric cars get the equivalent of about 27 miles per gallon, and this doesn’t include the costs of manufacturing the battery packs, or recycling them.
EVs: toys of the bourgoisie.
Yes, I do know that and I think it is one of the largest unsolved problems on this planet. Indoor air pollution is causing millions of deaths and lack of electricity is a huge problem because it deprives people of reading lights and refrigerators for safely storage of food.
That is why the largest burden of reducing the growth in carbon emissions should be carried by the rich world.
No, it is not, because it is possible to implement this policy in a different way. Firstly, why only talk about the poor, why not the rich. I am not so concerned if fewer people could afford a 10,000 square feet house and a 50 yard swimming pool. I am not saying that we shall make it impossible to live like that, but I am just not so concerned if some people think it is expensive when they use about as much energy as an average Midwestern township in their own house.
If you think this is a very rare example in the extreme end of wealthiness, I agree, but you started in the other end. I am just going to the other extremity.
/Jan
Mine lithium?….Sir, you sink a well and pump out the brine containing lithium salts. Recycling the lithium actual saves energy as using raw materials.
Next you talk about “losses”
…
They are much the same as the energy “losses” (i.e. expended) involved in pumping the crude, refining it and transporting it thru the distribution network to the gasoline station you purchase it from. The “losses” at the refinery are huge, considering the fact that refineries are the 2nd largest source of CO2 behind coal burning power plants.
You post ” losses due to the need to keep the grid energized 100%” …. Sorry, you seem to not know much about power transmission. If there is no load, there are no losses. Keeping the grid energized is not a “loss”
Just think……if the source of the electricity that powers the electric car comes from nuclear, hydro, solar or wind, the CO2 reductions are significant.
what many people ignore is how impractical it is to recharge an electric vehicle as compared to the time it takes to fill a gas tank.
there is an enormous amount of energy in a tank of gasoline. a ten gallon tank of gas is about the same as 10 x 1500 watt heaters running full out for 24 hours. You’d be hard pressed to draw this amount of power in most houses without blowing breakers. Now imagine everyone is drawing this amount of power to charge their cars. The local grids were never designed for this sort of load.
add to this the limited number of times a battery can be cycled before it loses charge efficiency (1000 if lucky). add to this the weight of the battery due to low energy density. Until battery technology improves considerably the electric car will remain a niche product.
10 X 1500 = 15,000 watts
Most homes today have a 200 amp service.
If you drew 100 amps at 240 volts, you would be drawing 24,000 watts.
This is more than 15,000 watts, and only 50% of rated capacity.
Once again socks rats misses the point.
Once again mpainter shows us he has no clue about circuit breakers.
Secondly, have you ever seen the demand curve the utilities have to deal with?…you know, the reason they offer power at reduced rates at night?
200 amps@ur momisugly 110 volts is the equivalent of 100 amps @ur momisugly 220 volts.
take a semester of circuits sometime…or maybe just the second semester of a first year college physics class.
a house with 200 amp service would be able to (safely) power about 70 amps @ur momisugly 220…since monty municipal electric code specifie that circuits be used to about 2/3rds of rated capacity.
davideisenstadt
..
The electric utility delivers you 240 volts on two wires. If you have a 200 amp service, your breakers are 200 amps on both hot legs of the service. I suggest you consult with a working electrician who didn’t go to college but has real world experience which you seem to lack.
Your breaker will trip when you exceed 200 amps on either leg of the service.
PS 2/3rds of 200 is 133 amps, not 70
Sock rats thinks electric cars are the now thing.Just plug it in like you would your toaster or electric toothbrush.
No problem he says, he average home has thirty wall sockets.
mpainter doesn’t realize that if a person is smart enough to consider using an all electric vehicle, they’d know you’d run a dedicated circuit close to where the vehicle is parked for charging. In fact, mpainter, why don’t you ask the owner of this web site what he did to enable the charging of his vehicle?
Sock rats say “Electricity?No problem. Everybody knows that electricity comes from plugs and those are everywhere.”
mpainter doesn’t know if I pay my electric bill with a check, or directly from my account with “bill pay”
200 amps @ur momisugly 110 v ac is the equivalent of 100 amps @ur momisugly 220. when you pay for “200 amp” service you get 200 amps @ur momisugly 110 ac…not 200 @ur momisugly 220.
when is the last time you installed service in a residence?
your post reveals pomposity borne of ignorance,
in this country…(the United States) when you get 200 amps service its 200 amps @ur momisugly 110 ac.
you sir are an ass.
socrates
not only do you do a greta disservice to an incredible mind, you reveal your ignorance to the world. good luck trying to draw 400 amps@ur momisugly 110 ac from your 200 amps service…when have you ever installed service into a dewlling.
and yeah. 2/3rds of 200 is roughly 133 amps…but thats @ur momisugly 110 …for 220 2/3rds is about 70, giving your pin head the benefit of rounding error.
We’ll never run out of electricity because the wind is always blowing, except when it doesn’t but then we have solar panels and the sun is always shining even if it’s on the other side of the planet, unless it’s cloudy, but if it is cloudy we’ll think of something, right sock rat?
truly “socrates” you have simply no experience with residential electricity. I have little or no patience for “people” like you…good luck trying to suck 200 amps @ur momisugly 220v out of your residential service rated at 200 amps.
really,yours is the post of an ignoramus.
200 amp service is 100 amps @ur momisugly 110ac through each hot line…not 200 amp in each.
go read up on your electrical code…install some services and then come back and pontificate.
really…you think no one knows enough to call you on your bullshit? we haven’t been pumping 240v ac through our lines in the states for something like 40 years.
“200 amp service is 100 amps @ur momisugly 110ac through each hot line…not 200 amp in each.”
…
Nope….
I suggest you look at the main input breakers on a 200 amp service.
…
It’s 200 amps on each leg
davideisenstadt
http://www.lowes.com/pd_140290-296-HOM2200BB_0__?productId=3467883
davideisenstadt
A 200 amp service can support 48,000 watts.
..
200 x 240
…
It is NOT 100 amps per leg.
davideisenstadt
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101120054345AAh8Bup
Now if you think a 200 amp service limits you to 100 amps per leg, please post a link supporting your asseriton
Jan, sorry Willis is right. Nobody pushed wood out, It happened because coal and then oil was so much better. Oil losses, virtually nil compared with energy transformations. Electric car, I calculated the tesla 85KW to cost same per mile as petrol in California with “zero” range, no heater/aircon. Lastly you claim that you are not forcing anybody down any road. Oh yes you are. The thousands of frozen to death, the millions choosing between heat or food.
Look at electricity bills in Germany, Denmark and Spain. Four times the going rate, why. You said economies of scale would bring down prices. so where is the prices going down? Only oil and gas it seems.
Energy usage is quite proportional with the CO2 emissions in this sector.
Refineries are the second largest CO2 emitter, in the US after the power plants. Onshore oil and gas production is number three. See: http://foreffectivegov.org/oil-and-gas-production-major-source-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-epa-data-reveals
This means that the losses are large.
(In addition there are the spills.)
/Jan
Jan,
Here is the truth:
Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial, so relax, don’t let the nasty ol’ alarmists give you a fright. The more CO2 the better for all creatures.
Some people even claim that more CO2 will make a warmer world but that has not happened so far, though it would be nice.
Phew, nothing to do with the point made. Classic diversion. Jan take responsibility, dont wash your hands and answer the questions that Willis asked.
I also asked how you calculated your mpg, no answer. A Tesla is 85 kw/hrs. How do you rapid charge that?
Economies of scale bring down prices… ceteris paribus.
The thing that is not equal is the government, which is the reason that prices don’t decline as they should.
LMAO…the recent price drop in crude oil was not due to “Economies of scale”……it was due to the actions taken by the government of Saudi Arabia.
Jan, sorry I forgot. Take responsibility for your words and thoughts. You might then rethink.
Willis – You stated that the NOAA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once. The page you linked to is a NASA website and it provides links to the 97% studies. Somehow you missed it on the NASA page that you linked to. You confused NOAA with NASA!
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Thanks for pointing out the NOAA/NASA error, Martin. However, a search for “97%” on the web page brings up nothing, and what I said was:
“In fact, the NOAA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once …”
However, I now see that you are correct, they’ve spelled out the number “ninety-seven” with a link to another page … which once again doesn’t provide any citations for the 97% number, just statements from talking heads on the boards of various organizations plus the odious Naomi Oreskes.
In fact, the 97% number is bogus … and the appeal to consensus is meaningless.
In any case, I’ve updated the head post to include your valid correction, Martin, much appreciated.
w.
Martin is right.
“Now, their [Source] is a NOAA web page, and it goes to some length to prove that the globe has actually warmed over the last few centuries … but then we all knew that most scientists agree about that. However, in a classic “bait and switch”, it says nothing about whether humans are responsible, much less whether 97% of scientists believe that humans are driving the climate to Thermageddon. In fact, the NOAA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once … that’s their evidence for their “97%” claim??? Do they understand what [Source] is supposed to mean?”
Actually the source is a NASA webpage and they do have a link to the 97% studies. Let’s argue that the 97% studies are bogus because they are. We need to be precise in our criticism.
Thanks, Robert. See my reply to Martin above.
w.
That democratic uncle, he’s not called “Ernie”, is he?
Jan Kjetil Andersen
December 26, 2014 at 12:57 am
Here’s an experiment for you that will demonstrate the power of CO2, also known as Magic Gas:
Locate a commercial greenhouse where they’re using Magic Gas to enhance plant growth (~1,000 ppm) and simultaneously measure the Magic Gas concentration and temperature inside the building and at another location outside the greenhouse maybe a city block away. This experiment should clearly show what an awful catastrophe awaits us for our obsession with fossil fuels.
Sorry, Jan. When you say we shouldn’t “base our strategy on luck” (a crude way of denigrating market decisions based on the values and calculations of millions – think of the market as “crowdsourcing”), and that we need to “plan or push” in a certain direction, and then follow up with “I am not dictating anyone to do anything,” you appear to have lost the ability to examine your own beliefs and actions.
The problem is that some people have a religious belief in the power of central planning that is unquestionable in their minds – ten thousand contrary examples will not shift it, no delineation of principle or example, no contrary argument will do so.
In the end, they are insulted by your refusal to concede the point, regardless of how hollow the argument. It seems the belief is so strong that it lasts up to and well beyond the point of “wait until Comrade Stalin hears about these camps!”
I expect, pretty much, for all future history to be as bloody as past history, because the 2+2=5 camp will always be with us (and will always think it is So Right!).
Merovign says
By all due respect Merovign, but this is a rather ridiculous statement , and I shall explain why:
Firstly, when I am is participating in a public debate here on an open blog I do that because I am interested in reading other people’s ideas, offer my opinion on their ideas and hear other people’s opinion on my ideas. That is what an open debate is. If you are offended by ideas which you disagree with and think they are bad persons because of what they suggest, you are actually advocating a totalitarian regime.
Secondly, if you really think that all planning is wrong you must be living in your own world. If we for example were to build a new highway; should we just handle out two hundred digging machines and let people start wherever they want, or should we plan where it should start and stop first?
Would it be “a crude way of denigrating market decisions” if we planned something in beforehand?
/Jan
“If we for example were to build a new highway; should we just handle out two hundred digging machines and let people start wherever they want, or should we plan where it should start and stop first?” If the highways were to emerge from 200 digging machine with 200 hundred mostly rational people controlling them, we might very well get more efficient highways. What we usually get are things like the infamous I-394 3 inbound lanes being reduced to 2 lanes as you approached Minneapolis to get us to ride the bus. They planned to control us. If the highway had emerged naturally, we likely wouldn’t have seen that. We can plan many things and with enough resources we can claim success and cut a ribbon. It’s not necessarily the most efficient or elegant solution.
The last thing you’re interested in is an open debate, or you wouldn’t so violently twist other people’s words. You conflate criticism with totalitarianism, you conflate centrally-planned economies with *any planning whatsoever* – in other words, you’re being grotesquely dishonest in your argument.
You appear to be *literally* incapable of seeing the contradictions in your own advocacy, and yet you see angry phantoms in everyone else’s – or, alternatively, you’re just spoiling for a fight regardless of the details.
A Pair of (automated) Twits.
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 26, 2014 at 12:57 am Edit
Jan, your idea of central planning for energy decisions has been tried before, under a system called “communism”. You might recall how that worked out.
As to whether we should “base our strategy on luck”, the forces of the market plus the laws that we build to surround and corral those forces are not “luck”. For example, is it “luck” that the pollution from coal power plants is so small? Hardly.
Jan, in the name of helping the poor and the environment, you advocate pushing up the prices of energy. This is very destructive, both to the poor and to the environment.
Which means that you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
As you point out, you wouldn’t dream of calling me a part of the problem … but then, I’m not advocating policies that harm either the poor or the environment.
As I said above, I dislike being so harsh, and I do wish you well … but you seem to be lost in some kind of green dream world where actions only have the intended consequences, the ones that are beneficial. You seem to be unaware that the actions you are pushing, like getting rid of coal plants and replacing them with windmills, are already causing pain and suffering.
So yes, my friend, around here you don’t get to pretend that your policies have no downside. They have a huge downside, they kill the poor, and for what? For a possible cooling of 0.02°C in the year 2050 at a cost of untold billions … I hear people describing these CO2 reduction plans as “insurance”, but if so, that’s the crappiest insurance policy I ever heard of.
I am a serious environmentalist and have been my whole life, Jan, and I’ve spent a good chunk of my life working with the poorest of the poor. The damage done to the environment by poor people far, far outweighs the small amount of pollution from a modern coal power plant. No country has cleaned up its environment without first industrializing its way out of poverty. The faux green environmental organizations are destroying the environment, like you they are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution.
Look, Jan, if you want to fight the imaginary menace of CO2, that’s your business. I fail to see why you’d want to do that, so I asked you why above, saying:
However, you assiduously ignored those questions … so I’m still in mystery about why you want to fight CO2. An answer to both of those questions would be enlightening as to why you enlisted in that unwinnable war.
But given that you do want to be a foot soldier in the campaign against CO2, if you fight the eeevil carbon in any way that significantly increases the price of energy you are damaging, impoverishing, and killing the poor … so I’ll thank you not to act like you have the moral high ground. As soon as you start talking about policies that significantly jack energy prices, like subsidies for renewables, or cap-and-trade, or renewable mandates, or subsidies for electric cars, you are damaging both the poor and the environment … and as such, you are part of the problem. The rich get subsidies for their Teslas … and the poor get expensive energy. That’s a bad deal.
In any case, my warmest Xmas wishes to you, and my thanks for defending your position,
w.
This is cute.
Sorry to tell you this Willis, but you are the one who is living in a bubble here. Most of the world are laughing at people who do not take global warming seriously.
If you really think that I am lost in a green dream world because of my modest arguments above then I cannot help you.
You have sometimes told me to “get out in the World”.
I can tell you Willis, I am out in the world. I work in an international company and I meet colleagues and business relations from all over the world. Perhaps you should meet the real world, not only people who share your ideas here.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 26, 2014 at 1:37 pm Edit
Thanks, Jan, but I note that
• You have not answered the questions that I’ve asked … twice … about your imagined dangers from CO2 and from warming.
• You have not demonstrated that your advocated policies do not harm the poor.
• You have not demonstrated that your advocated policies do not harm the environment.
In fact, rather than being a response to any of the cited, supported, referenced points I’ve made, your entire latest post is merely a well-spoken version of the schoolroom reply, “AM NOT! AM NOT!”
Finally, as I pointed out, we have good evidence that your claim that “most of the world are laughing” is itself a joke. In the recent UN poll of more than six million people, just as in the US polls, the majority of those polled don’t think that global warming is in any sense a serious threat. The alleged threat of warming came in sixteenth out of the options, and the only reason it didn’t do worse is that there were only sixteen choices. It was dead last, Jan. The folks that think it’s important are mostly some wealthy folks who won’t be harmed if energy prices skyrocket …
So if I’m “living in a bubble”, I have most of the world for my company.
Sadly,
w.
“This is cute.
Sorry to tell you this Willis, but you are the one who is living in a bubble here. Most of the world are laughing at people who do not take global warming seriously.”
What a lame ad hominem response. Made even more pathetic by its passive aggressiveness.
Jan, if you want to have standing to continue the discussion with Willis, then answer his questions. Feel free to ask your worldly colleagues to help you with the answers and, when they can’t either, do look in a mirror and begin to understand why you’re part of the problem.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
Most of the world are laughing at people who do not take global warming seriously.
According to numerous polls, the public just doesn’t care about global warming. So in fact, most people do not take global warming seriously.
The purveyors of the GW hoax have cried “WOLF!!” so often, that they no longer have any credibility.
The facts show that warming would be a net benefit, and that CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better, at both current and projected concentrations.
Every scary alarmist prediction has failed, therefore people are actually laughing at the climate alarmist crowd. You just have it backward, that’s all.
Good point – that ship has already sailed.
If we could actually separate the science (already highly uncertain) from all other factors (such as politics), we might know where we stand. But we can’t.
If we could know the ACTUAL MOTIVES of the CAGW advocates (and the skeptics) this would also help. But we can’t.
Some do argue that the general public SHOULD worry about CO2 caused warming (or decay of concrete!) in 100 years. But the public does not so worry (e.g., opinion polls), and rightfully so.
Conversely, others of better conscience opt for a less miserable life for energy-poor people today, which has more public support, particularly I guess if one is (or ever has been) cold and hungry, and particularly as jet-set do-gooders flit about with hypocritical abandon.
Some pine for a more high-minded “optimal”, but unrealistic and unobtainable, energy solution (somehow!), but these persons have come across to the public as less than straightforward (like politicians) if not just naïve (hangers-on), or as scientific pretenders with likely conflicts of interest.
So as dbstealey observes, it is in fact the alarmist who are held in disrepute by the public (laughed at in a blog like this one), particularly by those who hold jobs, pay taxes, contribute their OWN money to the poor, and who (discarding the rose-colored glasses) try to make do with the world as it really is. Happily, it looks like this will work out just fine.
Abraham Lincoln was almost wrong – you can fool MOST of the people ALL of the time – and the only thing that really drives all this twaddle (more euphemistically and politely known as fucking crap) is money:
– grants for scientists who toe the line
– carbon offsets which come in the form of credits that can be traded on the open stock markets
I’m all for “good housekeeping” but why should people receive handouts for tidying their own shit up?
Great Post again Mr. Willis! Thanks again for all your work.
“Scientists are trying to stop the next Mega Tsunami” !?!
NATGEOHD promo, 12-26-14 at 4:21 p.m. during Neil D ssss, ‘scientific’ COSMOS.
Again at 4:52 p.m.
WTF? I hope we know that tsunamis are caused by earthquakes. Aside from the Italians charging some geoscientists for not predicting an earthquake, earthquakes are random events and cannot be predicted.
Most don’t know how big the earth is.
It’s a big, big world out there.
I submit that the best scientists in the world couldn’t even correctly model the quake after it happened, let alone predict the next tsunami. We all know that the difference between a 6.5 and 7.5 quake is an order of magnitude more severe, right? An order of magnitude is a factor of ten.
This ignorant propaganda leads to ignorance and dismissal of science, as well as poor choices. We all watched ‘The Christmas Carol’ right? The wanton boy revealed by the Ghost of Christmas Present represented ignorance as I recall.
Here is NATGEO claiming that scientists can end earthquakes. These infant journalists need to take some basic science classes.
I forgot to add that this idiocy leads to folks thinking we can control the weather.
Perhaps if the scientists are hand picked……
We have a public broadcaster in Great Britain that has decided that AGW is a fact and has banned any commentators who do not agree with their assertion, a prohibition which seems to take the ‘public’ out of their remit. They cease to be representative of the general scepticism which attaches upon taking such a stance and therefore do not represent in any way their public and the disqualification of the facts of AGW that you illustrate here. This is probably allowable in the context that there are loads of other broadcasters not quite so punctilious in their bias, you can always switch. But when such totalitarian views then support government in the application of extra duties on the cost of energy to the consumer we see a coterie of conspirators and are liable to ask what came first the demand for more revenue to maintain the energy supply or the BBC’s insistence on the censorship of fact?
In a land far, far, away, once upon a time, there were geological conditions which formed a land bridge between Great Britain and Europe, now we call that area the English Channel. There was a time when Eastern England had a vast area of land liable to incursion by the tides until Dutch engineers were employed to drain it (and so turned it into one of the richest farming areas that England possesses). There was a time when the Bosphorus was an enclosed sea (and that may only have been opened to the Atlantic at the time of Noah and the Biblical flood). To settle on the encroaching sea as a measure of some pre-determined hypothesis seems to be rather in denial of evolution.
The Meteorological Office in Great Britain is a government organ whose raison d’etre seems to be to qualify political manifestos rather than to do its day job. As futurologists they suck. Having made predictions on the forthcoming weather that have, to a man, been knocked down by actuality. “Barbecue Summers” and dry winters have tellingly been awful summers and winters subject to torrential downpours (who can say God is not mused by puny mankind. A strain that He seems to have created merely to demonstrate the acuity of His Commandments). In reaction to their hilarious predictions they have decided to cease long term predicting, except for AGW.
The Met Office now regale us with the fact that they have purchased a computer of such huge capability, tens of trillions of computations a second, that will allow them to be ever more precise in their predictive ability!? Yet they are a progenitor of the AGW theory and any model they process must be biased in that regard, meaning garbage in and garbage out. A wrong conclusion even faster and more elaborately embroidered is still bound to be erroneous.
The featured news item today is that Britain is engulfed in ‘weather’ of the wintry kind. Everyone has been taken by surprise by a wintry blast that has left people stranded in cars, warnings have been issued concerning the dangers of travelling, train services have been suspended. Britain is not a place where tyres need chains for a season; we are never engulfed by adverse conditions; our winters are a mild inconvenience; we are constantly surprised by bad weather; although a small island every climatic condition imaginable can be witnessed somewhere here almost on a daily basis. Weather in Britain is quirky. Yet the level of severity was not forecast and motorists and travellers generally have been put at risk by an agency preoccupied by assertion and dogmatism imposed on it by the urgency to support ‘consensus’.
Whether long term or short term, the Met Office has once more displayed its ineptitude, here demonstrating that it cannot even do its day job to any significant level of competency. It appears that those of the ‘Barack Canute’ tendency are in the ascendency. Proscription, inadequacy, misinformation, rigidity, laxness and dereliction of duty are high prices to pay for insistence. If ever a bureaucracy wanted an excuse for its inadequacy AGW seems to be a godsend.
Willis says
Look at my answer to KaiseDerden December 25, 2014 at 9:39 am
This is if cause not the largest danger I see, but it is a quite uncontroversial one.
I started this discussion thread by addressing your claim that since the US emissions of CO2 are nearly flat it does not matter much what the US do, because the developing nations is in the driver’s seat.
I objected to this because the US is a leading nation in nearly all areas. I pointed to the fact that if the US said that they did not care then everyone else could say the same.
The topic I am highlighting is whether the US matters when an international deal on global CO2 emissions is discussed.
At this stage it is a premise for the further discussion of this particular topic that CO2 emissions matters. When you then are saying that CO2 emissions does not do any harm anyway and therefore the US emissions does not matter, you are trailing off the discussion in a new direction. When you then demand answers to the dangers of CO2, you open a huge topic which you know we will never close here. That is why I chose to use the uncontroversial carbonatation as my only answer to this.
This is a poll where people are asked about the UN Millennium Development goals, and the focus of these goals is more immediate needs in the developing world. When your child is starving you do not care about global warming. I think it is surprising that that so many as 1.3 million out of 6 million asked mentioned global warming is this context.
You can find polls all over showing that a vast majority of scientists think global warming is real and a major danger. Se for example: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I am not saying that the fact that they are a majority is a proof that they I right in everything. I have said before and I still mean that you write many good articles where you expose statistics and promote interesting alternative views. Continue with that.
But bear in mind that you are promoting a view that very few scientists agree with, and some humbleness for this fact would be appropriate. To picture the opponent who has a view more in line with the huge majority as being in a dream world is just silly.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 27, 2014 at 2:31 am
Not only have you not answered my questions, you don’t seem to have noticed them. So let me ask them again.
It is uncontroversial, to use your word, that the world used to have much, much more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. It is uncontroversial that the world has generally warmed a couple degrees C or so since the Little Ice Age.
So … where are the storms and the droughts and the floods and the hurricanes that are supposed to accompany such a terrible 2° warming? And where are the disasters associated with the very high levels of CO2 in past geological eras?
w.
PS—The carbonization of concrete is uncontroversial. However, it is also not what anyone would call an issue. It is a problem today, and we have ways to deal with it today. The major effect is from moisture, not from CO2. Basically what is done in response is that in high-moisture areas (say concrete in water) you simply bury the rebar more deeply in the concrete than in other areas.
A second way to decrease carbonation is by additives at the time the concrete is poured, which slow the carbonation process.
The final way that we deal with carbonation in concrete is to use one of a large number of surface coatings. These range from epoxies and silicone resins down to plain old paint, and they can and do totally counteract the effect of increased atmospheric CO2.
So as it turns out, your big fear is that increasing CO2 levels will cause us to have to paint certain of our concrete structures … you’ll excuse me if that doesn’t alarm me.
Finally, I note that concrete has been used since the industrial revolution, and during that time CO2 has gone from ~ 275 to ~ 400 ppmv without carbonization being a major issue anywhere that I’m aware of … so how about you let that issue go and answer my questions?
Willis says:
Willis, while you are technically right that the level has been higher in the geological past, you do not mention that we have go more than 800 000 years back:
As you see above, the CO2 level in the year 2100 could be three times the highest level we have had in the last 800 000 years. Do you really think we should let this happen and that there is no reason for concern at all?
The picture is taken from the article here: http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
The CO2 level will of cause continue to grow after that as long as we do not make any reductions in our carbon emissions.
We have to go millions of year back to find this high CO2 levels.
Do you want me to pinpoint any huge costs millions of years ago?
Well, I would be very suspicious of anyone who said they could pinpoint that, just as suspicious as I would be to anyone who could guarantee that there has not been anyone, or could be anyone, if we suddenly triples the CO2 level.
/Jan
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 27, 2014 at 1:25 pm
Sure. We’ve been told, for example, that a rise in temperature of only 2°C will cause huge extinctions of a third of the species on earth … surely we’d find that in the geological record no matter when it happened.
But heck, if you can’t find any, we’ll let that go and wait for the answer to the other question.
w.
Interesting they seem to think “97% consensus” is their strongest argument–shows how weak the CO2 theory of climate change really is. Even if the sample were not absurdly skewed, it would still settle nothing. About a century ago, one part time amateur espoused the theory of continental drift and there was a 100% scientific consensus that he was a crank. Consensus? So what?
A show of hands can determine an election but it can’t determine reality.
How can people who are so stupid think they are so much smarter than everyone who disagrees with them? Does it ever dawn on them that other people might have good reasons for disagreeing? If you ask them to debunk what they consider to be the 3 strongest arguments against CAGW, most of them don’t even know that 3 or more arguments against it exist. They just jumped on the bandwagon without looking at any other possibilities and now they are so haughtily sure of their own opinions and so openly contemptuous of anyone who expresses skepticism about a theory whose predictions have repeatedly failed. They are the Climate Pharisees. “Lord, I thank Thee that I am not like those ignorant and worthless Deniers who don’t care about their children’s future!” Turns my stomach.
Brute
wrote:
No, no. It goes back *at least* to 1950 when socialist economist Robert Heilbroner wrote in his fashionably leftish book _The Human Prospect_ (which I have read, once upon a time) that global warming caused by industrial emissions will require the formation of a one world government to save us from ourselves; and he added that it will probably have to be a “revolutionary” government–at the time, a euphemism for Communist.
As Al Gore, Jr. (his legal name) said decades later, it’s all about getting “global governance.” Global and, of course, unaccountable to the voters and taxpayers who will have to live under its high-handed decrees.
All for our own good, naturally. “Liberals”/socialists always think we sad, benighted masses need to be supervised by a strong and unaccountable central authority, staffed by a morally and intellectually superior elite of benevolent and enlightened planners, namely themselves.
Now that they have “fixed” American healthcare, their next agenda item is to “save the climate,” ultimately by giving unelected UN or other international bureaucrats greatly expanded authority and an independent source of revenue, possibly from “carbon” taxes.