Awkward moment: Are Microbiologists Climate-Denying Science Haters?

From the American Council on Science and Health comes this interesting but awkward moment in science communications.

By Alex Berezow

Recently, I gave a seminar on “fake news” to professors and grad students at a large public university. Early in my talk, I polled the audience: “How many of you believe climate change is the world’s #1 threat?”

Silence. Not a single person raised his or her hand.

Was I speaking in front of a group of science deniers? The College Republicans? Some fringe libertarian club? No, it was a room full of microbiologists.

How could so many incredibly intelligent people overwhelmingly reject what THE SCIENCE says about climate change? Well, they don’t. They just don’t see it as big of a threat to the world as other things. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them felt that antibiotic resistance and pandemic disease were the biggest global threats. One person thought geopolitical instability was the biggest concern.

I told them that I believed poverty was the world’s biggest threat. The reason is poverty is the underlying condition that causes so much misery in the world. Consider that 1.3 billion people don’t have electricity. And then consider how the lack of that basic necessity — what the rest of us take completely for granted — hinders their ability to develop economically and to succeed, let alone to have access to adequate healthcare. If we fix poverty, we could stop easily preventable health problems, such as infectious disease and malnutrition.

Was I booed out of the room? No, the audience understood why I believed what I did. But woe unto you who try to have a similar conversation with climate warriors.

Woe Unto You, Bret Stephens

Conservative columnist Bret Stephens, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, landed a new gig at the New York Times. His very first column, “Climate of Complete Certainty,” caused much weeping and gnashing of teeth. And probably the rending of garments. What did he say that caused so much outrage?

In a nutshell, his thesis was that certainty often backfires. He used the Hillary Clinton campaign as an example; in his view, certainty of victory was one factor in her defeat. Next, Mr. Stephens drew an analogy with climate science, worrying that the certainty expressed by the most vocal proponents of major climate policy reforms are speaking with a sense of certainty that is not well-founded. He warned against taking imperfect models too seriously and the dangers of hyperbolic doom-mongering.

It often irks me when political commentators write about science, usually because they haven’t the foggiest clue what they’re talking about. But Mr. Stephens’ article used reasonable and cautious language, and to my knowledge, he didn’t write anything that was factually incorrect. He simply concluded, as I myself have, that doomsday prophesying is wrong — and even if it was right, it convinces few people, anyway. (Do the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church change anyone’s mind?)

Yet, the reaction was swift and entirely predictable. Vox, whose stated mission is to “explain the news,” called Mr. Stephens a “bullshitter.” GQ ran the headline, “Bret Stephens Is Why Liberals Have Every Right to Be Dicks.” And Wikipedia (whose founder is going to try to solve the problem of fake news) labeled him a “contrarian.”

All that because Mr. Stephens warned against speaking hyperbolically. The concept of irony appears to be lost on his critics.

Can Smart People Disagree About the Threat of Climate Change?

What so many in the media (and apparently the climate science community) fail to understand is that people have different values and priorities. Foreign policy analysts are terrified of North Korea. Economists fear Brexit and a Eurozone collapse. Geologists, especially those in the Pacific Northwest, fear a huge earthquake. Experts across the spectrum perceive threats differently, usually magnifying those with which they are most familiar.

That means smart people can accept a common core of facts (such as the reality of anthropogenic global warming) without agreeing on a policy response.

Yet instead of being a place to debate a policy response for complex science issues, the media have chosen to be an extension of the militant Twitterverse. Even if you are just discussing courses of action, you are not allowed to deviate from climate orthodoxy lest you be labeled a science-denying heretic.

Perhaps journalists should spend more time talking to microbiologists.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
392 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eustace Cranch
May 8, 2017 1:08 pm

Partially disagree. Tyranny is the world’s #1 threat. Which in turn is the #1 cause of poverty.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 8, 2017 1:12 pm

I sort of agree. Fanaticism, which often leads to tyranny, is the largest threat. A good number of fanatics are not yet in power.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 8, 2017 1:27 pm

It’s all about the Benjamins (money).
No matter if malignant or benign, EVERYTHING is all about the Benjamins.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Christopher Paino
May 8, 2017 1:54 pm

There are a fair number of historical figures who were evil and not primarily money-hungry. Torquemada as an offhand example. Other members of the Inquisition were rather mercenary, though.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 8, 2017 1:50 pm

And tyranny, based on fanaticism, is what we would have if the alarmists get all the power they crave.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 8, 2017 5:28 pm

I sort of agree. Fanaticism, which often leads to tyranny, is the largest threat. ”
A meaningless claim, to me, Tom. Who decides what is, and is not “fanaticism”, for instance . . to me, your statement seems fanatic, expressing some sort of fear toward those who feel strongly about something, anything . . and that’s a recipe for all manner of bullying and oppression, it seems to me.
The “establishment media” can simply label anyone a fanatic/extremist (as they routinely do) and drive the “narrative” toward stuff like attacking those who don’t tow the “establishment media” line, such as we can see with “antifa” thugs literally attacking people they declare “Fascist”. (And this works with so called “homophobe”, “zenophobes”, “misogynist, Islamophobe, “climate denyier” etc, etc.).

Tom Halla
Reply to  JohnKnight
May 8, 2017 6:10 pm

Try reading Eric Hoffer “The True Believer” on what definition I am using. Hoffer was a philosopher, not a psychologist, but pretty much most psychology does not get beyond the level of describing a syndrome. Not all adherents of a cause are fanatics, but sometimes the influential persons are. Theodore Roosevelt coined the term “lunatic fringe” to describe some of his own supporters.
The major difference between the American Revolution and the Russian and French Revolutions is that the fanatics did not get control of the American Revolution.
I am fairly religious, but also fairly relaxed about it as an adult. It is a subject people can discuss indefinitely, and never reach any conclusion. In the religion I was brought up in, Opus Dei is comprised of fanatics by my definition, but most Catholics in the US are not.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 8, 2017 5:46 pm

PS ~ And those who don’t toe the establishment line too ; )

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 8, 2017 9:43 pm

Tom,
If you hold a gun to my head and tell me you will pull the trigger if I deny Christ, I’ll tell you to to go to hell. And, I’m fanatical about preserving our Constitutional Republic, and the rights it enshrines.
Am I a fanatic according to your man-god Hoffer?

Tom Halla
Reply to  JohnKnight
May 9, 2017 9:31 am

John, try reading what you criticize. You do definitely have a great deal of emotional attachment to your particular faith in creationism, which seems immune to argument. You do seem to fit the definitions of a heretic, a person who takes part of a religion and runs with it to the point of absurdity. Christianity, or the Abrahamic religions in general, are much more than creation stories, which you sometimes neglect.
My personal opinion is that both you and Chimp have a bug up your butts on the subject of ID, and should back off. You, Chimp, and I mostly agree on other scientific issues, ethics and politics in general, and should accept that.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 8, 2017 9:46 pm

Oops, I meant if you tell me you will pull the trigger if I don’t deny Christ . .

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 12:29 am

Fanaticism is certainty.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 12:32 am

Like lot of things, the story of Torquemada gets exaggerated. The number of people executed during Isabella’s reign (for all crimes) was about 2000. Torquemada died before half her reign was over but was supposedly responsible for 9000. A lot of deaths occurred before the Inquisition because of mobs of Christians believing that the Jewish population was protecting criminals. Contrary to many accounts Jewish communities were doing well after Muslims rulers were ejected from Spain until confrontations started. Without the inquisition, it might have been uglier.

Shaun Zemke
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 1:52 am

Are you certain about certainty being fanatical? Is Hoffer? Logical first principles and epistemology permit and, indeed, necessitate certainty on subjects within which one can and must be certain to even move forward in thought. Certainty based upon failed GCMs is fanaticism and scientism. The scientific method and abductive historical science are firmly grounded in philosophy…a philosophy that presupposes many certainties of physical law, of logic, of empirical reliability, of ordered causality, of anthropic comprehensibility…all of which are casually absent from much of modern “science.”

Tom Halla
Reply to  Shaun Zemke
May 9, 2017 9:52 am

No, it is not about certainty. Fanaticism is a description of how people can make a cause, a mass movement, out of a good many different subjects.
Religion is the classic example, but so diffuse a topic it gets very unclear as to what one considers religion. Dietary habits, sexual practices, and ethnicity all have been and are topics of religion.
The Marxist Communists combined an economic model with heavy presumptions about social class being determined by economics into a mass movement. The Environmentalists combined concerns about nature with distrust of technology and socialist economics into yet another orthodoxy.

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 3:39 am

EVERYTHING is all about the Benjamins.
Ben, the two of us need look no more
We both found what we were looking for

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 6:38 am

Tom,
Fanaticism, as bad as that can be, does not always lead to tyranny. Tyranny always leads to poverty, misery, and mass suffering. Are all tyrants fanatics? Probably, but not all fanatics are tyrants. So I have to agree with Eustace on this one.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 9:56 am

Tom Halla May 9, 2017 at 9:31 am
Of course fundamentalists are fanatics, since they must d@ny objective reality to hold their false beliefs.
Does it require a bug to defend science on a supposedly scientific blog against the attacks upon it by adherents of false religion? ID is not science but blind religious faith, and those who imagine it is need to know that fact.
True Christians, who love their neighbors as themselves, are vanishingly rare. Fundamentalist creationists not only oppose science and reason, but their own professed religion, since their false doctrine requires that they lie against their God.
If scientists here allow creationists to spew their lies unchallenged, then the Carbonaris’ charge that climate skeptics are against all science would appear valid.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 10:07 am

In your exchanges with Johnknight, I mostly agree with you. But it has gone on a bit long, as neither is moving the other off their position.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 11:17 pm

I’m an atheist, Chimp. But I question the utility of attacking someone over benign (here) religious beliefs. It is bad form to hector others needlessly. I always bow my head for others’ prayers; outward respect for others’ beliefs does not imply agreement. Chill, Chimp.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 10:11 am

Tom,
That’s because a fanatic is impervious to evidence and reason.
John also believes in the myth of “flood geology” rather than real geology. Why does he comment on a science site, when he rejects not just bogus “climate science”, but all science, to include not just biology and geology, but physics, chemistry, astronomy and meteorology, all of which are antibiblical?

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 1:53 pm

Tom,
“John, try reading what you criticize.”
How the hell could you know what I read? . . You a heart-knower?
“You do definitely have a great deal of emotional attachment to your particular faith in creationism, which seems immune to argument.”
Judgmental word salad from a pretend heart-knower . . Yum ; )
“You do seem to fit the definitions of a heretic, a person who takes part of a religion and runs with it to the point of absurdity.”
Definition of heretic (Webster)
1 – religion : a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma (see dogma 2); especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth The church regards them as heretics.
2 – : one who differs in opinion from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist
Looks to me like you dreamed that up, Tom . . Could be you definitely have a great deal of emotional attachment to your particular faith in your imagination ; )
“Christianity, or the Abrahamic religions in general, are much more than creation stories, which you sometimes neglect.”
When I’m discussing origins and such, yeah . . ?
“My personal opinion is that both you and Chimp have a bug up your butts on the subject of ID, and should back off.”
Well, I’ve rarely brought the matter up . . so what you’re really telling me, in effect, is say nothing when I see someone who is (to me) fanatical about Evolution, push their take on things as a scientific fact (literally at times) . . while declaring that those who don’t accept it as a scientific fact are ignorant dopes, to put it mildly. You never saw me fanatically pushing creationism like that, with Chimp trying to tone the absolute certainty down . . and I’ve on more than one occasion said I don’t completely rule out the possibility of Evolution being true . .
But hey, I’ve got a competing theory for you to ponder . . I’ve studied the matter some, and can see a distinct pattern throughout history; Virtually all wars and atrocities and destruction of every sort is perpetrated by people with two legs . . Bipedalism is the “largest threat” we face!!

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 2:03 pm

John,
I’ve repeatedly showed you that evolution is literally a scientific fact, ie an observation repeatedly confirmed. That new species and genera arise from existing species and genera has been directly observed in the wild and in the lab. New species and genera have been created in the lab.
Your persistence in d@nying these facts amounts to fanatical attachment to objective falsehood.
How can evolution not occur, given the facts of reproduction and genetics, the observation of so many different kinds of mutations from so many sources, of endosymbiosis and of horizontal gene transfer? So the fact that it has been observed over and over again, repeatedly, should come as no surprise.
Creationism, OTOH, has not only never been observed, but as spontaneous generation, has been shown not to occur. Nor is there any possible scientific explanation for how a new species would be “poofed” into existence. Science requires natural explanations, not supernatural. If it’s supernatural, it’s not science, by definition.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 2:46 pm

I’d like to differ, Chimp, but I’m already being accused by some dude who considers responding to your absolutism, fanatical, by default no less. Perhaps another time . .

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 5:39 pm

John,
You are a fanatic. No amount of reality can penetrate your blinkered blind faith barriers.
Don’t take my word and mountainous evidence for the fact of evolution. Just read the Dover trial transcript, in which your hero Behe, the guy who cooked up the antiscientific ID sc@m, ie “irreducible complexity”, to try to get around the constitutional prohibition of teaching creationism, ie false religion, in public school science classes, was forced under cross-ex to admit that evolution is indeed a scientific fact.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 6:23 pm

As I said; a recipe for all manner of bullying and oppression . .

Duster
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 6:26 pm

Fanaticism is a product of societies that teach their members to follow leaders and to avoid critical or creative thinking. This encouragement of mental laziness permits dogmatic hierarchies to flourish, and dogma, regardless of where on the political spectrum it erupts from is a hazard to liberty. It doesn’t matter whether the dogma is left or right.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2017 7:39 pm

John,
What you call bullying and oppression is simply applying the scientific method.
Creationism fails miserably. It is not science. No matter how much you want to imagine that it is, it isn’t. Not even close. Indeed, it’s the diametric opposite of science. Your mindset is that against which the scientific revolution revolted.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 10, 2017 9:13 am

Not through lack of trying.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 10, 2017 12:22 pm

Chimp,
“What you call bullying and oppression is simply applying the scientific method.”
Sure, you’re applying the scientific method to me . . the new fanatic scientific method, ever so popular in climate science these days ; )

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 11, 2017 2:40 pm

Dave Fair May 9, 2017 at 11:17 pm
What I’m attacking is John’s false belief that his faith is scientific. It isn’t.
I also pointed out that his religious belief, ie blind faith that every word of his version of the Bible is literally “true”, such that the discoveries of astronomy, biology, geology and every other science must be wrong, is also opposed to Protestant, Roman and Orthodox Catholic doctrine.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chimp
May 11, 2017 3:54 pm

It’s still none of your business, Chimp. Truth wills out in the end, without vituperation.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 11, 2017 4:01 pm

Dave,
It’s my business when a commenter tries to inject religion into a supposedly scientific site. John gives ammunition to the CACA charge that “climate change” skeptics oppose all science, which is true in his case.
Since I care about the real science behind “climate change” and its policy implications, it is my business. He can believe whatever rot he wants, but don’t bring blind faith to a science fight.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chimp
May 11, 2017 4:40 pm

Chimp, it may be beneficial to the overall flavor of web argumentation to refer to the science you care about and leave the conclusions to the readers. Warmistas will troll no matter what you say.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 11, 2017 4:46 pm

Dave,
But why prove their contentions valid by attacking the fact of evolution on this supposedly scientific, skeptical blog?
CACA commentators frequently lump skeptics in with evolution d@niers, and are sadly justified in doing so. Their argument fails if other commenters on WUWT point out the utter, complete, total lack of science in creationism, indeed that ID is profoundly anti-scientific, like consensus “climate science”, only more so.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 12, 2017 6:41 pm

“I sort of agree. Fanaticism, which often leads to tyranny, is the largest threat. A good number of fanatics are not yet in power.”
If you’re going to keep stepping down the ladder, you’ll just end up at “Humans are the #1 threat”. Congrats! You’re now an extreme lefty! Yay!

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 8, 2017 1:33 pm

It is the fact that the country with the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world is poor, because it lacks a reasonably honest democracy and the rule of law. VZ is a great example of why Western Demi ocarcy with its tastefully concealed and legalised representative corrutpion, is a better way to be than Tyrants and African elected dictators and their rule of fear through the appartatus of the state.
Those of us in Western “democracies” are now allowed to keep just enough of the products of our labour by our elites, even receive reasonable basic services so that we don’t revolt, are a lot better off than the 3rd Word. But that took pervasive use of intense energy sources from Watt’s steam engine invention onwards for 100 years of decarbohydratisation to accumulate enough wealth from Empire that our own Tyrants of the 18th Century were prepared to share enough of it to make everyone’s life tolerable, in the face of serious threat’s of revolt even in the 19th Century. IMO

snedly arkus
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 2:16 pm

Like most commenting on Venezuela you show your ignorance. The US since Chavez was elected had been trying to unseat him covertly and overtly supporting a coup in 2002 which angered may Venezuelans. After the death of Chavez your pal Obama put drastic sanctions on Venezuela calling them “a danger to US security.” Really, Venezuela a danger to US security. Now they are considering even more drastic sanctions to make a situation they had a huge hand in causing even worse. When the current crisis erupted in Venezuela the US should have been down there with a helping hand instead of trying to bury these poor people for the US political agenda. We must also admit that Venezuela has been mismanaged for quite awhile but there is no excuse for the US to kick them repeatedly when they are down. We must also admit Chavez lowered the poverty rate and greatly increased education and literacy.
I don’t know if socialism is good or bad but explain to us why the US overthrows or punishes every 3rd world country that ELECTS a socialist government. Chile in 1972 which ended in a 25 year brutal dictatorship. Or Afghanistan in 1979 where the US created Al Qaeda to overthrow the elected socialist government. Or Guatemala in 1953 which has one brutal government after another since then with hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. In all south of it’s borders the US has overthrow governments in all but 2 countries. Honduras in 2009 another US “success” with lots of dead innocent people. Hows that thing in Afghanistan working out?
If the US had really cared about the people in those countries south of their borders they would have been down their helping those people get educated and prosper instead of supporting or putting in place brutal dictators who could rape and pillage their people with impunity as long as they danced to the US and it’s corporations tune. The Monroe Doctrine was not the freeing of the Americas from the rest of the world but the US declaring that it would be the sole source to exploit these countries for it’s advantage at the expense of those countries. If the US had helped and guided those countries instead of exploiting them there would be no illegal immigrant problem in the US. They would have all stayed home in their prosperous and successful countries and great trading partners with the US creating jobs in all countries.

Reply to  snedly arkus
May 10, 2017 4:50 am

Your first sentence describes your view of the country well. You have no clue about Venezuela. But you love to wear tin foil hats.
Obama was not trying to over throw Chavez or Maduro! He loved them both. Had you claimed Bush was, you might have had at least some believing you, but Bush did not care. No president has since Chavez was elected. Because they are no longer relevant (when oil was precious and we wanted it, yes they were).
Venezuela shot themselves. No one did it to them. They ate their seed corn and thought they had found a money tree. That is the way it always is with socialism. As they strip their capital in the first years to make everyone “richer”, they think the horn of plenty will never stop giving. But without capital, production dries up, wealth dissipates, and starvation sets in. It is always thus. Not from any mal-intentions by anyone, but due to simple economics.
Perhaps had you even bothered to actually talk to any Venezuelans, you would understand what is going on. But like so many with their canned propaganda, you have no clue, just mindless talking points.
I have skin in the game. So BS me, because I know it is BS.

Chimp
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 2:25 pm

No more Kool-Aid for you!
Chavez hugely increased the poverty rate in Venezuela by impoverishing the majority. Inflation robs everyone, rich and poor alike.
He did nothing for literacy, which was already high. In the 1970s, when Venezuela was experiencing huge growth from oil sales, the literacy rate soared from 77 to 93%, and continued gaining in the ’80s and ’90s. You regurgitate the same lies told by Castro’s backers. Cuba was already literate in the 1950s. Only a few rural old people were illiterate, so the rate would have soon reached the high ’90s in any case.
Resource-rich countries like Venezuela shouldn’t need handouts from the rest of the world. Only socialism can produce such humanitarian calamities.

MarkW
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 2:37 pm

snedly, really?
It’s the job of the US to prop up failed socialist states, and the fact that we haven’t means that we are responsible for all the problems caused by Chavez?

MarkW
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 2:39 pm

PS: The most brutal south American dictators have been 100% anti-American.
Tell me again how the US has been busy installing anti-american dictators?

Mickey Reno
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 3:12 pm

snedly arkus wrote: “I don’t know if socialism is good or bad…”
It’s sort of like a bell curve, a little is okay or even good, but then as you achieve the pinnacle of the curve, it turns bad fast. As you begin to get more socialism, and the purer and more all-encompassing it becomes, the worse it is. In it’s purest forms, humans become meaningless fodder, dying in huge numbers for the greater good, and tyrannical, ultra-wealthy, ultra-powerful despots rule over them with authoritarian hubris. You can look it up.
Venezuela cannot blame the US for it’s horrendous mess. Utopians who think they know what an economy “needs” better be taking notes. But of course, they’re not, and they’ll misdirect and obfuscate the true nature of this relatively wealthy nation stepping on it’s own d i c k and killing the golden goose, even of it’s own nationalized oil industry. Do you know that oil tankers carrying Venezuelan crude need to have service boats go out in the harbor to clean the hulls of the exporting ships, because oil is leaking out of the underwater piping in the harbors and making the tankers so filthy that foreign ports won’t let them in? The big S Socialist government cannot even manage to maintain its most valuable infrastructure, the one bringing in the most money. How’s that for stupid.

Chimp
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 4:18 pm

Sned,
Nor did Allende replace a “brutal dictatorship”, as should be obvious, since he was elected in a long-functioning democracy.
However he won only 36% of the vote, amid claims of rampant fraud, vs 35 and 28% for the other candidates. Following the then current constitution, the Chilean congress accepted him as the winner, rather than ordering a runoff election.
The Chileans themselves would have overthrown Allende, with or without US involvement. He was an unmitigated disaster. Housewives took to the streets, clashing pots and pans in the traditional protest against a regime destroying the economy. Castro came to visit and stayed too long. The USSR sent an entire brigade of Warsaw Pact troops to act as his palace guard. He would not have allowed another election.

Menicholas
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 6:21 pm

I nominate Snedly Arkus’s misinformed rant for the award for writing the biggest and steamiest pile of pure bullshit to appear on these pages in this decade.

Chimp
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 6:32 pm

Me,
May I second that nomination. Not that there hasn’t been stiff competition. Griff however rarely comments at such length. It is indeed an achievement to maintain utter cant and drivel for so long.

Menicholas
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 8, 2017 7:13 pm

Yes, there are several candidates in the running for honorary lifetime achievement awards, for sure.

Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 9, 2017 5:38 am

In defense of snedly arkus, I suggest that those who believe he/she? is full of hot air purchase a tiny book called “The Devil’s Chessboard,” and then read it. And as an aside, I don’t think the climate science fraud, as exposed on this website, is necessarily a “socialist” agenda, and I once again refer you to that small tome that I think a few of you would find extremely interesting. http://tinyurl.com/n9ylrew

MarkW
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 9, 2017 6:35 am

Mickey, on a personal/family level, socialism can be good. Once you take it beyond that it goes bad fast.
The reason why is choice. Socialism can be good when it is voluntary. Socialism is never good when it isn’t voluntary.
And by voluntary I mean personal choice. 51% of the people voting to force socialism on 100% of the population is not voluntary.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2017 10:44 pm

And you get to vote, MarkW! Once.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 10, 2017 9:19 am

@snedley . . which Americans stole the toilet paper?
All you are saying is that the Socialists in Venezuela are utterly useless and unable to run their own affairs. You try and put it one move away from the incompetent Chavez and Maduro but ultimately they are responsible for keeping Venezuelans safe no matter what and they have failed.

Chimp
Reply to  brianrlcatt
May 10, 2017 9:24 am

Don132 May 9, 2017 at 5:38 am
The CIA is not responsible for Chavez. Venezuelans have only themselves to blame for ruining their country.
The best thing that could happen to them now would be for Colombia to invade and kick out the socialists. Bogota would be justified because of Chavez’ support for the FARC narcoguerrillas.
Hayek made a valid distinction between socialism and a welfare state. But you need capitalism in order to afford a welfare state. Chavez didn’t understand that. He bought votes of the poor with social programs financed by the oil industry, but neglected to maintain the goose laying the golden egg. For that, he needed oil companies, but he kicked them out.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 8, 2017 1:50 pm

+1

knr
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 8, 2017 3:07 pm

odd how ‘socialists paradises ‘ are all due to the left wing ideology right up until it becomes clear they are no such thing and then the left claims its all the fault of the USA .
Meanwhile care to show us a ‘successful’ left wing Latin American country you could start with Bolivia but that has gone to pot to . As for Chile , odd the very same people that where happy praise sing for Castro’s dictatorship for over 50 years and are still happy to ‘celebrate ‘ the lack of freedom for the people of Cuba today , have a hard on of hate for Pinochet who in the end actual give up power before he died and not held onto it to pass it ‘down the family’ in the Castro manner .

Chimp
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 8, 2017 3:28 pm

Chile was wise to keep Pinochet’s reforms, which have been the capitalist goose laying the golden egg from which the country finances its socialist features today.
Chile’s prosperity is thanks to Milton Friedman’s conservative Chicago Boys, who designed its economy and social welfare programs. Chile is the only Latin American country considered a First World state by the OECD, which is why Chileans can participate in the US visa waiver program.
Compare what Pinochet did for Chile was what Chavez did to Venezuela, a country much richer in natural resources, although Chile does have copper and lithium. Pinochet did kill up to 3000 communists and other opponents, but how many people have died under the Chavez regime? The murder rate there soared under Chavez, both directly from his goon squads and as a result of the breakdown of basic law and order.
From no less a “reliable” source than the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/12/violent-crime-makes-venezuela-dangerous
Last year Venezuela was branded the most dangerous country in Latin America. A 2010 UN report places it among the top four most murderous countries in the world. While the government has refused to release its own statistics for years, a recent report by an NGO, the Venezuelan Observatory on Violence, estimates that 24,000 people were murdered in 2013 alone, a 14% rise on 2012, with nine out of 10 homicides going unsolved.
Socialists turned Venezuela from paradise into hell on earth.

Reply to  Resourceguy
May 8, 2017 8:57 pm

It’s even better when they begin their drooling lectures by calling the person they are responding to “ignorant”, or something similar.
Makes me smile.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 8, 2017 9:57 pm

Thanks Menicholas thanks for calling BS as BS.

MarkW
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 9, 2017 6:39 am

Pinochet is an example of the left demanding that anyone they disagree with must be perfect, while their own heros are allowed to get away with much worse.
Was Pinochet perfect? No. He did lots of very bad things.
However he was a saint compared to the people who opposed him.

Chimp
Reply to  Resourceguy
May 10, 2017 9:19 am

Mark,
Yup. Without Pinochet, Chile would have ended up like Venezuela, only worse. Instead, it’s the richest country in Latin America, per capita.
Because of lax law enforcement under its socialist presidenta, however, there is a lot of street crime and Mapuche militants can murder farmers and forest fire fighters with impunity.

RAH
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 8, 2017 3:25 pm

I disagree with the whole premise that humans and/or society is “the world”.

gbaikie
Reply to  RAH
May 8, 2017 4:07 pm

-I disagree with the whole premise that humans and/or society is “the world”.-
Ok, but then who is the world?

Goldrider
Reply to  RAH
May 8, 2017 4:13 pm

My horses disagree too. I am quite secondary here to the Equine Nation, relegated to the role of materials handler, feed division! 😉

Dave Fair
Reply to  RAH
May 8, 2017 4:36 pm

Goldrider, add scooping up the output of the Equine Nation denizens.
Having said that, however, I don’t give them the vote.

Menicholas
Reply to  RAH
May 8, 2017 6:26 pm

“I am also the World”
-Prince

Mike Jowsey
Reply to  RAH
May 8, 2017 11:53 pm

@ Goldrider , I think I may print, frame and hang your quote, being of the equine materials handler genre myself. 😉

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 8, 2017 5:04 pm

And Eustace, CAGW is their illegitimate weapon of choice. Ergo, climate zealots are retarding solutions to world poverty. It also makes these Malthusian Nouveau Monde тотаl¿тая¿аи§ totally uncaring for world poverty. Famine, disease, genocides… actually fits with elitist “population bomb” concerns.

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 8, 2017 7:40 pm

I would say corruption, which of course also means enforcing fair laws equally. There are many countries with much wealth and lots of poor due to corruption. Look at Venz(people starving despite producing 2.7 million B of oil a day) also many African countries etc etc…

MarkW
Reply to  scottmc37
May 9, 2017 6:41 am

Rhodesia was the bread basket of Africa before the communists took it over. Now there is wide spread starvation.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 8, 2017 8:42 pm

the tyranny of the bureaucrat is the greatest threat to freedom for all people … be they living under a democracy or dictator … the masterminds are always in search of the perfect omelet and we are just the eggs they need to accomplish it …

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 9, 2017 12:28 am

tyranny is often caused by certainty. Would Stalin or Hitler or Polk Pot have killed their millions if they weren’t certain they were right?

Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 9, 2017 4:24 am

Eustace writes —

Partially disagree. Tyranny is the world’s #1 threat. Which in turn is the #1 cause of poverty.

In that case, what causes poverty in America?

Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 9, 2017 4:50 am

To my eyes, poverty in the USA is like middle class in the Third World.
Poverty in the USA includes TV sets, free school lunches, EBT cards, public housing, etc.
Third world poverty is cooking food, if one can find some, on a dung fire in a self-made shanty with no clean water or electricity. Much worse.
It’s a relative thing.
USA poverty is not a threat as much as a discomfort.
( I grew up poor in the USA. I never suffered malnutrition or lack of shelter.)

MarkW
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 9, 2017 6:42 am

For the most part, bad choices.
Regardless, there is no true poverty in the US.

Dave Fair
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 9, 2017 10:38 pm

There is no poverty in the U.S., lorcanbonda; at least not in the manner it is experienced in the Third World.
Most of what we have that passes for poverty occurs in the inner cities. They have been run by Democratic Party machines for many decades. I guess one could say poverty in the U.S. is caused by the Democratic Party.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 12:49 pm

What poverty in America? You men the poor that have cable TV, cars, AC and cell phones?

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 12:59 pm
Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:27 pm

Michael – I said poverty, not poor or poorest. So I ask again, what poverty in America?

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:07 pm

Michael,
The poorest Americans are rich by global standards. Poverty in America is only relative to the even greater wealth of the top 90%.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:18 pm

Chimp, contrary to the dream world you are living in, there actually are some very poor people living among us. I suggest you take a stroll in a large American urban area, and contact some of the homeless…..you’ve seen them, the ones that cart all their possessions around in shopping cart. They aren’t even counted when the Census is done every decade.
..
..
PS, don’t forget to visit the prisons, where a lot of the poor live.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 1:29 pm

Michael, most of those you refer to belong in mental institutions. Progressive thought let them all out on the streets decades ago.
Every study shows they are on the street by choice.
Treating drugs as crimes instead of mental health issues doesn’t help. Then, again, when has reality (Prohibition, anyone?) interfered with progressive thought. Let’s just spend more trillions on the police state.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 1:32 pm

By the way, Michael, get your facts straight before commenting.
The Census sends people out on the street to count people. Some of them hide, but that just helps bolster my point that extreme poverty in the U.S. is a mental health problem.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 1:36 pm

Michael darby

I suggest you take a stroll in a large American urban area, and contact some of the homeless…..you’ve seen them, the ones that cart all their possessions around in shopping cart. They aren’t even counted when the Census is done every decade.

Many observers believe that, to the contrary, the “homeless” – who used to be called bums, hobos, vagrants, and the even less politically correct “crazy people” and “madmen”- are indeed counted very accurately every census cycle. Every census cycle by census takers who are obeying their political interests by counting every homeless person and vacant house and vacant apartment room every time. Every time time they walk by a vacant house, homeless person, and burned out apartment complex.

Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:28 pm

here actually are some very poor people living among us.

No one has said otherwise. The question is not about poor. It is about poverty. Stop moving the football lucy.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:24 pm

Homeless Americans are richer than billions of other people.
I suggest you visit the Third World.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Chimp
May 11, 2017 1:31 pm

The “homeless’ problem is largely a product of deinstitutionalization of mental cases, which is an old policy dispute. There were enough problems with the former policy as far as civil liberties, with something of an overreaction resulting in involuntary commitment being made very difficult.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:36 pm

Dave and Tom,
Yes, the homeless are there by choice, but many if not most are mentally ill.
Even those who advocated deinstitutionalization of the mentaly ill in the 1960s and ’70s, thanks to new drugs, now realize that it was a mistake, unless there are friends or family willing to make sure that the freed inmates take their anti-psychotic medicines. Those living on an defecating in the streets now can’t legally be committed, or even arrested for their own good in many cases.
It is not poverty but freedom in America that accounts for most of the homeless.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chimp
May 11, 2017 1:39 pm

That same freedom allows low-born to achieve the heights in academia, politics, and business.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:38 pm

LOL @ Chimp. A lot of the “poor” in the third world are subsistence farmers. They have land to till, and eke out a living from their crops. The homeless in America subsist by begging. The homeless in America can’t even plant a garden. I see you are unable to tell the difference between an apple and an orange.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:41 pm

Chimp, your problem is what happens when you “average” the people in America, versus the “average” of the people in the third world. The bazillionaires at the top of the heap in America lifts the “average” of the people on the bottom rung of the ladder. A person in America with zero income is exactly the same as a person in the Sudan with zero income. Please don’t tell me the zero in Sudan is less than the zero in America. Both have zero income!!!!!!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 1:52 pm

Michael, I assume others will beat me to this, but you apparently give little thought (or are abysmally ignorant) concerning, at least, poverty.
Listing non-cash support for U.S. poor, including the “homeless,” would be a tedious exercise. I suggest you look them up on your own.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 1:59 pm

Michael darby

A person in America with zero income is exactly the same as a person in the Sudan with zero income.

Last I read, a person with “zero income” in America AVERAGES two cell phones, heating, freehousing, no taxes (plus a “tax rebate” of some 3000.00 to 6000.00 per year), plus food stamps, health care, free school, free child care, and the immense benefits of good water, good sewage and free police, fire, and emergency services (all paid for by other “rich” Americans who actually work for their living AND the living of the 47% who don’t pay taxes. All comes to some $26,000.00 per year. Tax-free. Now, admittedly, corrupt (liberal democrat) politicians and bureaucrats and corrupt (liberal democrat – but I repeat myself) liberal civil service unions DO cheat the systems and steal, lie, and fraud themselves into wealth at the expense of taxpayers. And at the expense of the people who elect corrupt and inept (democrat, but again I repeat myself) liberals to run such as the Detroit (Flint Michigan) water systems. But to those examples, I repeat that the victims were the ones electing corrupt, inept liberal socialists to be in charge.

Dave Fair
Reply to  RACookPE1978
May 11, 2017 2:19 pm

Big cities, in the main, have been run for decades by “progressive” Democrat Party machines. The bosses and their cronys get rich while the underclass gets welfare, violence and propaganda. Were do you thing the votes for Hillary came from?

Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:33 pm

Except there are none in America with “zero” income except by choice due to the welfare systems. But even that is a non sequitur as we are talking P-O-V-E-R-T-Y, not poor.
So once again, I ask, without expecting an answer on topic, what poverty in America?

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:44 pm

Michael.
About a billion of the world’s poor are urban, living in slums worse than Dickensian London, except for somewhat less cholera.
There are essentially no poor in America. They beg because they want to, not because they have to. No one in America need starve. If they’re hungry, it’s because they or their parents are too out of it to access free food, clothing, medicine and shelter.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:45 pm

Michael,
I’m not averaging at all. I’m saying that the very poorest person in the US is better off than at least a billion other people.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:48 pm

Due to social services, you can live in the US without any income. Not so much in the slums of Mumbai.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:51 pm

Chimp says: “It is not poverty but freedom in America that accounts for most of the homeless.”

I call BS on that.
..
If what Chimp says is true, then Egypt must have more “freedom” than America, because 18% of their population is homeless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population

Tom Halla
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 1:55 pm

Md, you are not paying attention. Deliberately, I think.

Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:35 pm

Michael, you need to learn to read. He said “in America”. Egypt is not in America.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:55 pm

Chimp says: ” you can live in the US without any income.”

I laugh at you Chimp. You are clueless.

Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:36 pm

He is correct. That is why it is called “welfare”. They have MONEY, but as they did not “earn” it, it is not income in the traditional sense.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:56 pm

Michael,
Can you really be this obtuse?
What part of “in America” don’t you get?
Homelessness in Africa, Asia and other Third World cities is due to poverty. In the US, it’s due primarily to craziness tolerated by liberal authorities.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 1:58 pm

Michael darby May 11, 2017 at 1:55 pm
If you truly believe that people in the US can’t live without a job, you really need to get out more.
Tens of millions do so.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:00 pm

Chimp says: ” it’s due primarily to craziness tolerated by liberal authorities.”

You really are clueless.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 2:22 pm

Hey, folks! Ever notice that Michael has no facts?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 2:26 pm

Well, m’boy, there are places in the U.S. with over one-third of the working age on “disability” payments.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:04 pm

Michael darby May 11, 2017 at 2:00 pm
You are sadly ill-informed and inexperienced.
https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chimp
May 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Chimp, the study indicated that 25% of the homeless are chronically homeless. That means that 75% of the homeless manage to better themselves over time. That seems to comport with the upward mobility offered in our society; most people don’t stay homeless, they manage to improve their lot in life.
The study indicated that 33% of the homeless have a serious mental illness. Without giving a number, the study indicated that the percentage of people with serious mental illness is higher among the chronically homeless than the 25% overall number. How much higher they didn’t say.
The study reinforces my prior understanding that chronic homelessness, in the main, is a mental health problem.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:05 pm

Mr. “craziness tolerated by liberal authorities.” AKA “Chimp”
..
..
Please get educated: craziness tolerated by liberal authorities.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:07 pm

Chimp says: “Tens of millions do so.”
..
..
Correct, my 92 year old mother doesn’t have a job. She’s retired.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:09 pm

Michael.
Apparently you are too young to remember or too uneducated to have read that crazy people used to be institutionalized. Then new classes of drugs came along which gave authorities the hope that insane asylums could be shut down. But it didn’t work out as planned, because crazy people living on the streets don’t take their meds.
You could look it up. That is, if you really want to be educated in a subject on which you want to comment.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:10 pm

Chimp says: ” Tens of millions do so.”
.
.
Melania Trump doesn’t have a job.

Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:39 pm

You just won the male chauvinist pig of the year award. Please go tell every mother that.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:11 pm

MD,
Are you really unaware that millions of people of working age subsist on welfare and disability payments?

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:11 pm

Chimp must not know the difference between “income” and “job”

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:14 pm

Yes Chimp, there are many quadriplegics of working age that are unemployed today in America.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:18 pm

Chimp has no conception of the term “working poor.” I don’t think any of the contestants on “Apprentice” fell into this category.

Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:40 pm

“Working poor” is NOT poverty. So once again, where is the “POVERTY” in America?

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:19 pm

Michael darby May 11, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Only a Progressive would consider unearned “income” the same as income from a job. Welfare is a handout, not income.
Michael darby May 11, 2017 at 2:14 pm
The vast majority of working age layabouts are able-bodied. They don’t work not because they can’t, but because they don’t want to and in our system, don’t need to do so.
As I said, you really do need to get out more.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:24 pm

RACookPE1978 says: “Last I read, a person with “zero income” in America AVERAGES two cell phones, heating, freehousing, ”


Please explain to me how come if they get free housing, they are homeless?

Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:41 pm

Chimp explained it to you. It is called “choice”. You are merely confirming you cannot read.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:31 pm

Chimp tells me: “As I said, you really do need to get out more.”

You are funny. I suggest you come visit me, here in the inner city. I’ll show you “entrepreneurship” where the able-bodied layabouts are engaged in serious business ventures, abet they might be illegal. They’d laugh at you…cause they make more money selling illicit substances than anything the “system” provides. Your bovine excrement is funny, because it smells of an old white guy that lurks on right-wing propaganda sites on the Internet.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 3:06 pm

Michael wants us to think he is an urban hipster.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 2:39 pm

Dave Fair: “Well, m’boy, there are places in the U.S. with over one-third of the working age on “disability” payments.
.
.
Being from Missouri, I say: “SHOW ME”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 3:49 pm

Michael, you just have to keep up with the news as it happens. They don’t teach reading skills in Missouri, Troll?

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 3:08 pm

Dave Fair May 11, 2017 at 3:02 pm
That’s right. The temporary homeless are in shelters, and tend to be families, or at least not crazy people.
The chronic homeless are mainly mentally ill to one extent or another. Some are old-fashioned hobos, who seek shelter when it’s too cold, or gravitate toward liberal, warmer cities. The less crazy augment their social service payments with pan-handling and theft.
To my public health nurse GF in the ’80s in Portland, OR, the problem was already evident, despite her being a liberal Democrat, now Sanders voter.

Chimp
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 3:11 pm

Michael darby May 11, 2017 at 2:31 pm
Junior, I lived and worked in inner cities back when the streets really were mean, to include Chicago and NYC in the ’70s and LA in the ’80s and ’90s. As well as the Third World in every decade since the 1960s.
You are a clueless troll. Last reply to you.

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 3:14 pm

Chimp, I see your problem. You post: “To my public health nurse GF in the ’80s ”

Lets do some math

2017 -1985 = 32

Yup…. you are living in the past. Just so you know, the “Great Recession” that happened in 2008+ made a lot of people “homeless” due to circumstances beyond their control ( i.e. CDO’s that went south & foreclosure.)

Michael darby
Reply to  lorcanbonda
May 11, 2017 3:17 pm

Chimp says: ” I lived and worked in inner cities back when the streets really were mean, to include Chicago and NYC in the ’70s and LA in the ’80s and ’90s”

Obviously you are lying….because if you did, you wouldn’t be posting the bovine excrement you’ve written.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 9, 2017 5:02 am

Because I tend to be antithetical, I believe the solution to the world’s #1 threat (whatever it might be) is cheap, available electricity: Volts for the masses! Watts for the downtrodden!!
A man working hard for an hour (say on a treadmill or bicycle hooked to a generator) produces ~100 Watts; in 10 hours he produces 1,000 Watts, or one kilowatt-hour. That can be purchased for as little as 7.41 cents in Washington State, or as high as 26.17 cents in Hawaii (the national average for the US is 10.42 cents).
Source: http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/204.htm
I don’t know of any clear-thinking man that will work for mere pennies per hour, but think what that same man could do with cheap electricity!
Again, Volts for the masses; Watts for the downtrodden!

Michael darby
Reply to  RockyRoad
May 11, 2017 3:30 pm

RockyRoad, Donald Trump donates his entire salary, so he is working for zero pennies per hour. Does that make him not clear thinking?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Michael darby
May 11, 2017 3:58 pm

Yeah, Chimp; I’m with you. No more time on trolling Michael. He’s got enough “man-goo” on his keyboard as is.

Michael darby
Reply to  RockyRoad
May 11, 2017 4:13 pm

Dave Fair, do you need lessons in how to click on the proper “Reply” button to get your comment in the proper place?

Reply to  Michael darby
May 12, 2017 12:52 pm

@MD – why are you calling Rocky Road, Dave. Apparently you do not know the correct reply to button either.

Wally
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
May 9, 2017 4:15 pm

Over population is easily the #1 problem.
But the Left refuses to acknowledge it because it’s the 3rd worlders who are the culprits.
Inconvenient Fact.

sabretruthtiger
May 8, 2017 1:13 pm

Not to mention the evidence supports the skeptics.

May 8, 2017 1:14 pm

The differences highlight the contrast between religion and science. Scientists try to avoid hyperbole because they understand they know how little they know. Religious know it all because their faith tells them what is the truth and what is not.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  philjourdan
May 8, 2017 8:44 pm

don’t know many religious people do you …:( … ignorance is the one thing we all can cure ourselves …

Leonard Lane
Reply to  philjourdan
May 8, 2017 10:04 pm

philjourdan. I doubt if any of the social sciences meet your definition of science. And the climate sceanceers do not either.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 8, 2017 10:56 pm

I doubt if any of the social sciences meet your definition of science

See my piece at https://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/theres_no_grand/

Duster
Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 9, 2017 7:22 pm

Science is an approach to learning about reality and it has to be “tailored” to the kind of phenomena being addressed by the inquiry. At root, it is more an ethos than any specific method. The commonality between sciences is the demand for empirical relevance, agreement with real, experiential reality at some level.
Where politics and religion are “top down” approaches to “how things work,” sciences ideally approach such questions from “the ground up.”
Individuals who purport to be “scientists” however, often fail to share that ethos. You can look at activities from astrophysics and cosmology, climate science to medical science and encounter a vast number of people who indulge in ritual that vaguely resembles scientific research, but are not capable of accepting what reality has to tell them. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” is an excellent example. It “denies” reality and the actual evidence in order to support Mann’s faith that he isn’t really that stupid.
Social science is no different. It is, like weather, a profoundly complex, difficult science. The only hard science that can compare is quantum mechanics. It can and has been able to make accurate, predictive generalizations about some aspects of social phenomena for decades, but neither the religious nor the atheists, the left or the right want to hear what actually can be scientifically said about social phenomena. People really don’t want to believe that they really are predictable. The common response is eyes squeezed tightly closed, ears plugged and a loud “la-la-la-la-la…”
The left for instance doesn’t want to hear that no “gun control” law has ever worked, anywhere. The right doesn’t want to be told that increasing the disparity between rich and poor causes crime, or that the poor can’t generally become “unpoor” by working harder. The left doesn’t want to hear that the ultra rich aren’t inherently evil, and the right doesn’t want to hear that those same ultra-rich ought to taxed massively – but only because they simply can’t spend money fast enough to off set the problems such concentrations of wealth cause economically. Well they can, sometimes, but very few are Elon Musks. The left would cheer the idea of such taxes, but would cry at the idea of forgiving taxes for spent money on a dollar for dollar basis as long as it is not spent on an “investment” or charity or any “social cause” with no direct effect on the velocity of money where it counts (gas, cars, carpentry, pizzas, plumbing, wages (that need to be spent), etc.). Nobody wants to hear that their idea of what is “right” and “true” and “good” is humbug.

Chimp
Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 9, 2017 7:36 pm

Duster,
The scientific method applies equally to all fields of scientific study.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
May 11, 2017 11:24 am

Leonard,
I do not subscribe to a blanket “any of the…”, as there is some empirical evidence in all sciences. However, when those practicing them abandon empirical evidence for “feelings”, they have left science and embraced religion.

daveandrews723
May 8, 2017 1:14 pm

Great perspective… adding logic and balance to the man-made global warming debate.

Editor
May 8, 2017 1:19 pm

comment image

Duncan
Reply to  David Middleton
May 8, 2017 1:35 pm

30.7% are ‘afraid’ of GW but if you ask these same people to part with $100 per week of their hard earned money to save the world, something tells me this number would drop significantly. It is all about perspective.

Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 1:36 pm

I think the drop-off is at $10/yr.

Duncan
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 1:40 pm

David you are probably correct, any more these same people could not afford to fuel their cars.

Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 1:42 pm

While the data gathered shows that a whopping 42 percent of people wouldn’t even pay $1 a month on their energy bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, those who were willing to pay might put up some decent cash.
29 percent of survey respondents said they’d pay $20 per month to reduce greenhouse emissions, and 20 percent said they’d pay $50 a month. The $20 threshold is a significant one, as it’s the cost that the government estimates the damages from climate change would be on each household in the country. Still, the negatives in this study are hard to ignore: despite the fact that 77 percent of respondents said they think climate change is happening and 65 percent said the government should do something with it, that 42 percent who wouldn’t even pay a buck a month to do something about it is hard to ignore.

https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/15/climate-change-money-survey/
42% wouldn’t be willing to spend $1/mo.
29% would be willing to pay $20/mo.
20% would be willing to pay $50/mo.
I wouldn’t be willing to spend 2¢/mo.

gbaikie
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 4:21 pm

Not that I support it, but $10 per month could get you star travel.
Not for certain, but more certain than doing anything significant about “global warming”.
$1 a month could get you lunar exploration and then Mars exploration which in turn could lead to getting solar energy from Space in about +50 years.
But I favor doing such exploration without adding to NASA budget- NASA gets enough, it simply needs the leadership to do it.

Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 7:51 pm

Many of the 30.7%’s jobs and wealth depend on keeping the narrative alive. Politicians love it, they say how much they care about the enviroment, say they need to raise taxes, and if you do not agree you are evil. Dont have to do anywork, since GW is more important than fixing roads or schools(that is work) (Also its easy to give friends and family GWarming contracts and stuff your swiss bank account

AP
Reply to  David Middleton
May 8, 2017 2:39 pm

Needs a few more arrows from Maobama.
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12

MarkW
Reply to  AP
May 8, 2017 2:40 pm

I agree with 8 and 9. The others are absurd.

TA
Reply to  AP
May 8, 2017 3:14 pm

I note Global Warming is listed under Environment, not Man-made Disaster.

ZThomm
Reply to  AP
May 8, 2017 3:23 pm

Importing terrorists is the reason for #4.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  AP
May 8, 2017 10:08 pm

I think you are right on AP.

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
May 8, 2017 3:35 pm

David,
Did you run the old site called “panic watch”?
Loved that thing.

Reply to  Gunga Din
May 8, 2017 3:38 pm

That wasn’t me… but it sounds like my sense of humor.

Chimp
May 8, 2017 1:20 pm

Not that microbial resistance to antibiotics isn’t a serious problem. A main reason why there are going on eight billion people is the ability to control potentially lethal infections.
The gross overuse of antibiotics, particularly in the developing world in lieu of water treatment facilities, but also in the developed world, has created real and potential monster pathogens, like MRSA, only worse.
Health care professionals and medical scientists are taking steps to slow the evolution of resistance in pathogens and to find new drugs. Thanks to improved understanding of microbial genetics and new techniques and technologies such as directed evolution and synthetic biology, the search for new medicines is on a sounder footing, less hit and miss.
Billions of lives are potentially at risk if we fail.

Fraizer
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:05 pm

Huge potential in material science and nanotechnology. I.e surfaces that actively reduce micro load (i.e. Copper) or more advanced materials they by the very nature of their ( ano) shape do not allow micro owls to reproduce.

Fraizer
Reply to  Fraizer
May 8, 2017 2:17 pm

Sorry for the garboled typos. Interpolate and it will make sense.
{If your gargoyled typo’s had bad breath, would you require they be gargled garboyled before climbing down? .mod]

Chimp
Reply to  Fraizer
May 8, 2017 2:35 pm

I was able to do so.

AP
Reply to  Fraizer
May 8, 2017 2:41 pm

Micro owls are a big problem.

MarkW
Reply to  Fraizer
May 8, 2017 2:42 pm

Are these the micro owls you are referring to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_owl

urederra
Reply to  Fraizer
May 8, 2017 4:09 pm

Anus shaped micro owls is world´s #1 problem.

jim
Reply to  Fraizer
May 8, 2017 9:15 pm

Urederra,
It is a problem in Spanish: ano vs año. Can also be a problem in English if you do things per anum instead of per annum.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:10 pm

Yes, antibiotic materials are also promising. It might be harder for microbes to evolve resistance to such substances and surfaces than to chemical or biological agents of control.

Fraizer
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:30 pm

Moreover, it means less chance for propagation. I.e, surfaces actively prohibit reproduction as opposed to depending on questionable sterilization practices.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:36 pm

We’ll still need to keep using sterile procedure, in case microbes adapt to antibiotic surfaces.
But, yes, new materials will make important contributions in fighting untreatable infections.

drednicolson
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 3:35 pm

Antibacterials claim to kill 99.9% of germs. If you ask me, it’s the 0.1% they don’t kill that you need to worry about.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 3:41 pm

The problem is that the number of pathogenic strains resistant to all available antibiotics is growing.
Evolution in microbes, with 20 minute generation times, is very rapid.

Ron Williams
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 5:41 pm

I remember my Grandma on the farm after I had milked the cow and hand separated the milk/cream, would put a silver dollar in the milk can and leave the whole can in the root cellar since that was supposed to be able to stop bacteria from growing. The cream went in the fridge for further refining into butter/cheese. My gut feeling is that there is truth to this. I own shares in a health company that has been developing all kinds of silver based nano based tech, so no doubt that copper/silver and probably lots of other materials are making things bug resistant.

Ron Williams
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 7:42 pm

Thanks Chimp…Looks like maybe I should sell the stock. Based on the Wiki article, silver antibacterial cream and bandages etc, aren’t all they are hyped to be even though the FDA have approved some so far.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 6:05 pm

Ron,
Ineffectiveness alone might not justify selling stock. Many have been sold on colloidal silver by such pitchmen as Alex Jones, so the market might still be growing.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 5:31 pm

+1000. Incomparably more dangerous (and plausible) than CAGW.

Brett Keane
Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 6:01 pm

@ Chimp May 8, 2017 at 1:20 pm: The resistance/dirty water syndrome comes back to poverty. In 1800 our ancestors were 90%+ poor. But the fruits of science enabled a huge change by 1900. Looking at what happened we see that a growing resistance to the corruption of family preference slowly allowed better distribution of wealth. Some may not like this, but it was the basic Christian premise that we are all equal, being descended from the same folk, which facilitated this (hence Magna Carta). Starting with freeing all slaves over some decades. Literacy and a decision to refrain from violence made by the Chartists after ‘Peterloo’ in the West’s leading society, meant poor people could rise by peaceful cooperation and education. They could thus increase their economic heft, at 1st as groups, then individually. Because the rising middle class came from poorer parents, votes and voting trends favoured societal improvement.
A snowball of incredible progress, viewed from here. It is not the way of Warmism, however.

Chimp
Reply to  Brett Keane
May 9, 2017 6:09 pm

Capitalism is responsible for the huge increase in wealth since the 18th century, when it began to replace mercantilism, which replaced feudalism.
First there was rapid population growth, thanks to more wealth and such advances as public health, ie clean water, thanks in part to Dr. Snow’s discovery that cholera was a waterborne disease, and later, sterile surgery.
Then, as people learned that they didn’t need to have ten kids for two to survive, population stabilized, due to the phenomenon of demographic transition, which happens naturally. It doesn’t require tyrannical intervention, as China has only just now realized.

Mumbles McGuirck
May 8, 2017 1:25 pm

“The concept of irony appears to be lost on his critics.”
Irony is often a strange concept to folks on the left of the political spectrum. They can’t conceive of anything being as but what they imagine. That is why they can’t believe that there is anything amiss with the global warming hypothesis. To admit such would cause their whole conceptual house of cards to collapse.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
May 8, 2017 2:36 pm

Mumbles,
You said, “They can’t conceive of anything being as but what they imagine.” That has certainly been my experience with liberals attacking me on The Conversation blog. They accuse me of things that they think I believe and do without any evidence except a brief statement from me commenting on an article. Therefore, I had similarly concluded that one of the characterizing traits of hard-core liberals was a binary view of the world and an incapacity to imagine anything in between their world view and that which they think are their conservative ‘enemies.’ It is a sad commentary on their closed minds that they defend their liberalism with the ferocity of someone who has just had their religious beliefs attacked by a heretic.

sonofametman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 8, 2017 3:51 pm

I had a similar experience with a friend who’s a kind of journalist/PR person. My youngest son had just started an apprenticeship with a local firm with a big name. I didn’t think it was really his thing, but didn’t say anything negative at all, and just praised him for getting the place (200 applicants for 4 slots) and told him to do his best. Over drinks, the friend pressed me for my views, and when I hesitated, stated ‘You just think……’. I replied that it was interesting to be told what I thought when I hadn’t said a word on the subject. Result: silence, and pained expression.

Goldrider
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 8, 2017 4:17 pm

Arguing logically with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; he’ll knock over all the pieces, strut around, crap on the board and say “he’s won!” Gear your argument to the emotions of a 3-year-old child and you might have at least a chance of getting heard. For some reason these people WANT to believe the world is ending and it’s all their fault. I think at this point we need to ignore them–don’t click, don’t retweet, don’t give them a platform to rant their apocalyptic nonsense. Goes double for bimbo (male and female) “celebrities” with the IQ of a garden snail.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 8, 2017 8:48 pm

they are weak minded robots desperately virtue signaling in the hopes that nobody will accuse them of some “terrible” fault (usually one of the -ism’s )

Brett Keane
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 9, 2017 6:09 pm

@ Clyde Spencer
May 8, 2017 at 2:36 pm: Yes, it is just another leftist sounding-board, which disallows contrary facts or opinions.

Duncan
May 8, 2017 1:28 pm

“He used the Hillary Clinton campaign as an example; in his view, certainty of victory was one factor in her defeat.”
Absolutely. The messenger hypocrisy, inability of the climate models to predict and doomsday prophesies that are proven wrong time and time again will be their own undoing. Sometimes people will listen better to a whisper than yelling. People eventually smell the rat, see who is receiving the monies and are turned off forever. People forgive mistakes, not outright lies.

MarkW
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 1:51 pm

When Hillary referred to many of the people who supported Trumps as being deplorable, it may have caused a great cheer from the ranks of the faithful (who were going to vote for her anyway), but it turned off many moderate voters/

drednicolson
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2017 3:40 pm

It was an own goal for sure.

Chimp
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2017 3:42 pm

She thought she could win without the deplorables.
Voters in FL, PA, OH, MI, WI and IA showed her wrong.

Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 5:27 pm

I beg to differ, Duncan. Look at how many people voted for Bernie. 100 years have proved that Socialism is not only a failure, but also one of the great evils on this earth.

Duncan
Reply to  Jon Jewett
May 8, 2017 6:54 pm

Jon, I am center-right on my politics. At the end of the day, it takes all types to make this world go around. What would art be without the free spirited type persons? Life would be boring. It is your neighbor that you drink beer with who voted for Bernie, do you hate your neighbor? Just injecting a little counter-sight. Even your Democracy is a ‘social’ Democracy – you pay taxes to the benefit of the people’s right?

Reply to  Duncan
May 10, 2017 2:16 pm

Bernie supporters do not drink beer. They drink Merlot

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Jon Jewett
May 8, 2017 8:50 pm

Bernie wasn’t and isn’t a free spirit … he is a evil man slouching towards death and irrelevance …

Reply to  Jon Jewett
May 9, 2017 6:22 am

Duncan,
One example of what the Democrats do: Here in Texas, the state police (Department of Public Safety) released a report in 2014. They had a program that tracked the crimes committed by foreign nationals here illegally. From 2008 through May of 2014, that group committed some 10,000 plus homicides and sexual assaults. I think that would qualify as an epidemic of rape and murder. And that epidemic was and is a direct result of the Democrat agenda. Every one who has voted Democrat bears some responsibility for it. In truth, however, most didn’t know what they have done.
Curiously , my Father was in the Occupation forces in Germany after WW2. The German people for the most part, said that they didn’t know what was going on,, just the same as Democrats voters today. So, the military took bus loads of them for tours through the death camps. My Father was stationed in Munich, so their tours were through Dachau. I am NOT equating Democrats to NAZIs. But I am comparing the ignorance of the average Democrat to the ignorance of the average German.
So, for the poor Hispanics who are suffering this “epidemic”, do you think that having a daughter raped or a son murdered a suitable sacrifice for them to make? Do you think that your next door neighbor Democrat is willing to make that sacrifice? Or is that sacrifice only for little people?
You might ask yourself “Self, the saying is “if it bleeds it leads” so why didn’t I know about this epidemic of rape and murder?”
Here is an excerpt from the report; I can send you the whole thing if you want.
2. Criminal Aliens in Texas and the United States
Criminal aliens are foreign nationals who are arrested on criminal charges in Texas. In Texas, these criminal aliens can be measured through arrests; and identified through the Secure Communities initiative, and as individuals who have been incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
From October 2008 to April 2014, Texas identified a total 177,588 unique criminal alien defendants booked into Texas county jails. These individuals have been identified through the Secure Communities initiative, in which Texas has participated since October 2008. A review of these 177,588 defendants shows that they are responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults. Note that these numbers include only those aliens whose fingerprints were already in the federal system when they were booked, and it does not necessarily include all those who are incarcerated in federal prison.

MarkW
Reply to  Jon Jewett
May 9, 2017 6:48 am

Voting to enslave your fellow citizens is not just another form of art. It’s an evil act.
Those who support evil may manage to convince themselves that they are justified in stealing from people who have too much, but they are still stealing.

Duncan
Reply to  Jon Jewett
May 9, 2017 1:13 pm

Mark,Jon
I am not sure how we got from me saying essentially ‘love thy neighbor’ (with differing opinions or view points, free spirit or otherwise) to thinking I am supporting, evil, rape, murders, enslavement, etc. I (already) agree with points you’ve guys made but you’ve made it into a Straw Man argument, I never said or defended any of these things. Guys need to chill out a little, this was sorta my point in the fist place. We’re still on the same team at the end of the day.

davidgmills
Reply to  Jon Jewett
May 10, 2017 8:44 pm

@Jon Jewitt. I grew up in Texas. Went to law school there. Practiced there for 20 years. In 1980 we had the Reagan revolution that took over Texas. Everything since in Texas has been run by Republicans. Republicans need to own what has happened to Texas. I dealt with the abominable laws Republicans passed in Texas for 20 years.
Take some responsibility for what Republican laws and rule have done. The war on drugs is a Republican idea. Democrats don’t like those laws. Despite what a number of commenters here have said, in my experience it is Republican legislators and Republican judges who take away the rights of citizens far more often the Democratic legislators and judges do.
Republicans revere the second amendment and pretty much give lip service to the rest except the religion clause of the first amendment.
Buck up and take some responsibility for Texas sad state of affairs, especially its health care crisis.
As bad as the ACA was, and it was bad, the ACHA will be ten times worse.
And all of you who don’t like social programs, give up your social security and all those diplomas you got from public schools. Sounds like most of those diplomas are worthless any way.

Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 7:52 pm

They were so sure they were going to win, they didnt even bother stuffing ballots in too many places…

sabretruthtiger
May 8, 2017 1:30 pm

The real biggest threat is the central banking oligarchy and their agenda for global dystopic, Marxist government.
CAGW is of course designed as a wealth redistribution tool and to gain extreme political and economic control over every aspect of our lives. It is a proto-infrastructure for global governance.
In order to push through global government they need to destroy the current systems of dominance that could resist, such as the West cultural and economic dominance, in particular the US.
This is why they’re eroding the west on economic fronts with the engineered credit crisis, over-regulation and CAGW, and societal cultural fronts with Marxism, feminism and the associated increasing totalitarian-related legislation.
This is why they’ve taken over academia to raise the next generation to be obedient, weak communists.
They need to destroy the family as their ultimate strategy is ‘divide and conquer’. Family forms the backbone of societal cohesion and confusing traditional gender roles, masculinising women, feminising men serves to make male/female relationships and marriage difficult to form leading to less families and a fragmented society. Children have less parental influence as a result and are more subject to state brainwashing.
They also need to destroy religion as devotion to God before the state is intolerable to them, especially a God that promotes individual rights and traditional family values.
They defend Islam because this is required to nurture the destabilisation agenda. They flooded the West with immigrants, most single males to destabilise economically and create civil tension. They let Muslims get away with much because they need to promote as much tension and chaos as possible..
So ‘divide and Conquer’ and ‘Order out of chaos’ are their mottos. when sufficient chaos and strife has occurred they will pull a League of Nations/UN trick and claim we need a world government to make sure this will never happen again.
They have no qualms about break many, many eggs to make their global dystopic omelette and they’re the biggest threat humanity has ever faced.
of course there’s always the possibility that their altruistic in intent and believe they’re creating a better world but I doubt it.

MarkW
Reply to  sabretruthtiger
May 8, 2017 2:43 pm

The nut cases are out today.

Earl Jantzi
Reply to  sabretruthtiger
May 8, 2017 4:17 pm

Here is your backup for you view. Your welcome(non sarc).
IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” “This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.” http://www.nzzDOTch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227
22Jan2015”At a news conference [22Jan2015] in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said . Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Reply to  sabretruthtiger
May 8, 2017 5:30 pm

Sabre, yes. We have spent $20 trillion to destroy the black family. (It was called the war on poverty.)

JohnKnight
Reply to  sabretruthtiger
May 8, 2017 6:54 pm

sabretruthtiger,
I can agree with most of what you said, but the concept that those hyper wealthy psychopathic elite types actually intend to establish a Marxist state is downright silliness to me. They might market what they have in mind as that (with your help!) but that ain’t the plan, I’m very sure.

Reply to  sabretruthtiger
May 11, 2017 4:41 pm

The central bankers are fascists not Marxist but enjoy your hatred of everything left.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
May 12, 2017 12:55 pm

The central bankers are fascists not Marxist but enjoy your hatred of everything left.

So that is why they funded Hillary and Not Trump.

The Original Mike M
May 8, 2017 1:31 pm

It appears that increasing CO2 is decreasing infant mortality –
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/infant-mortality.jpg

Duncan
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 8, 2017 1:38 pm

You missed the ‘greens’ point, they are trying to reverse this trend.

Chimp
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 1:47 pm

+8 billion.

D B H
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 1:59 pm

I’m afraid to consider your comment, as correct.
But sadly, you could easily create an argument that would support that contention.
This comes close to actually making me feel physically ill, considering that to be the case.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 1:59 pm

The greens would improve that trend by counting the abortions as well.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 2:19 pm

The Chimp beat me to it!

Duncan
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 4:46 pm

Someone else posted this video months ago. Great visualization of lifespan increase with the industrial revolution (aka CO2). With my comment above, should have added a /sarc tag but it could be that serious for some zealots.
Hans Rosling’s 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes.

Chimp
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 5:06 pm

No surprise for the BBC that capitalism didn’t get mentioned among the causes of increased health and wealth.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 5:47 pm

Very unfortunately, Hans Rosling recently passed away due to Hep C and pancreatic cancer. He opened many minds and one could never argue with his conclusions once one saw the real “facts”. Something like global warming in a way.

Duncan
Reply to  Duncan
May 8, 2017 7:01 pm

Bill, thanks for the info on Hans, unfortunate, such free life. Agreed, his method of education, just the facts, will be missed. God speed Hans.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 8, 2017 3:53 pm

It appears that increasing CO2 is decreasing infant mortality – (^__^)
… or is it that decreasing infant mortality is increasing CO2?
More people breathing the air sucks more oxygen out of the atmosphere, while pumping more waste exhalations into the atmosphere, thereby upping CO2 concentration. Yeah, that’s gotta be it !

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 8, 2017 6:56 pm

“More people breathing the air sucks more oxygen out of the atmosphere..”
You reminded me of another inconvenient CO2 anti-correlation for the shyster Paul Ehrlichs of the world to choke on, population growth rate is slowing down and projected to continue slowing down –comment image
(Frankly I think that is pessimistic; I expect it to be going negative by 2070 if we can end CAGW mass psychosis sooner than later.)

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 9, 2017 6:28 am

With the population set to stabilise in 2050 then decline thereafter (if we keep getting wealthier), we can also note that the increase in electricity prices is driving down consumption, especially by industry.
https://mg.co.za/article/2017-04-29-court-ruling-on-zumas-nuclear-deal-is-a-marker-of-south-africas-political-health
That is a Mail and Guardian article on the courts mixing President Zuma’s ‘contracts for buddies’ in the form of a nuclear power plant deal with Rosatom. In the article the decline in consumption is noted, as is the lower cost of coal power which South Africa has lots of now.
The article picks at the scab of the capture of the state by the Gupta family, but not at the capture by Big Green which also has its hooks in deep.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 9, 2017 6:53 am

2050 was the most recent UN “estimate”. Every 10 years they come out with a new “estimate” and every ten years the turnover point gets earlier.
The reason for the over estimates is because of bad assumptions built into the model. First that those countries whose rates are above replacement and falling, will stabilize right at the replacement level. Secondly, that countries below replacement level will return to replacement levels.
Neither has happened yet, and no reason to assume either will happen in the next few decades.

Ron Williams
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 8, 2017 5:54 pm

Forrest…you are so right. And probably exceedingly unfortunate that CO2 just happened to be going up at the same time the planet had some minor warming. If warming had been flat, I would think that it possible that there never would have been an issue with a colorless, odorless trace atmospheric gas called CO2. It appears there was a mix up with soot from coal and diesel, and smog in the cities. Something that people can see, but also something that we were able to mostly reduce or eliminate.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 8, 2017 8:52 pm

better infant mortality rates are easier when you abort millions of them before they are classified as infants … 🙁

MarkW
Reply to  Kaiser Derden
May 9, 2017 6:56 am

If that doesn’t work, you can just reclassify what counts as a live birth in order to improve your numbers.s
In many European countries, any baby that dies in the first 24 hours after delivery is counted as a still birth rather than an infant death. In other countries the baby has to be above a certain weight at birth in order to qualify as a live birth.

JasG
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 9, 2017 5:12 am

I think you are forgetting that minor planetary cooling from 1945 to 1975 was also blamed on fossil fuels. Plus we had a phoney acid rain scare blamed on fossil fuel power. The anti-capitalist agenda is hugely adaptable.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 9, 2017 6:31 am

JasG
You are right: cooling is caused by large scale burning of coal, and warming is caused by large scale burning of coal, and flat temps is caused by large scale burning of coal that balances sulfate particles with CO2.
That being the case(s) all we have to do is promote the burning of the right sort of coal in the right manner to set the global thermostat wherever we like, right?
Who knew it could be so simple!

Robert
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 10, 2017 3:16 am

More than correlation, this is linked causation. More energy = living more fully human = ability to protect our children. For me, the pan-global and persistent decline in infant morttality over the past 200 years is 100% attributable to increased exploitation of energy.

Reply to  Robert
May 10, 2017 6:01 am

Yes, you are correct, in two ways. Increased energy (that releases sequestered CO2 in the process) is related to an increased standard of living which directly reduces infant mortality. And also the CO2 decreases infant mortality by providing more food.

Tom O
May 8, 2017 1:32 pm

I would say the greatest threat to the world is the growing ignorance in the civilized world. It is because of the growing ignorance that tyranny and poverty can still exist. Almost as bad is the closed mindset that permeates virtually the entire western civilization now, basically, of course, from the educational priorities that has created the ignorance to start with. It is leading the race in a downward spiral that instead of reaching for the stars, is pushing us towards a return to Neanderthal thought processes.

Goldrider
Reply to  Tom O
May 8, 2017 4:20 pm

This is by design. “Education” on any number of subjects is little more than left-wing indoctrination today. How can they claim to be all about “science” while pushing “gender theory,” and trying to recruit children as young as 3 into the normalization of other-than-natural “sexual identities?” Dumb it down any more, and we’ll have multiple generations who think a “smartphone” is “life” and who utterly lack the ability to think critically for themselves about anything–they’ll be consumers of whatever “content” exists, and that’s all.

rocketscientist
May 8, 2017 1:34 pm

World Poverty? How exactly do you measure that? It is a relativistic adjective. Even the poverty stricken in the US are in the worlds top 2% of affluence.
IMHO stupidity is the world’s biggest problem. Ignorance can eventually be overcome by those with intelligence, but stupidity persists. If only we would stop enabling and protecting it….

jon
Reply to  rocketscientist
May 8, 2017 2:21 pm

There is only one cure for stupidity, unfortunately.

Goldrider
Reply to  rocketscientist
May 8, 2017 4:23 pm

Everyone should read Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve. That’s the only cogent explanation I’ve ever had for the apparent utter inability of large portions of the human race to see the impending outcomes of their actions, be they “subway surfing,” “BASE jumping,” or unprotected casual sex. You can’t fix Stupid, and a surprising percentage of the human species has an IQ south of 80; that’s just the way it is. Pity we can’t talk about it without Antifa starting a riot.

Mark
Reply to  Goldrider
May 8, 2017 8:08 pm

The facts are even more awful, as there are many people with dazzling IQs who are somehow genuinely seduced by the left view of the world. The tendency seems related to personality rather than learning potential. Oddly, it is possible to be an avid and successful learner within a crazy world view. This is a salient lesson for us all.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Goldrider
May 8, 2017 8:53 pm

IQ is not a measure of wisdom … never has, never will be …

MarkW
Reply to  Goldrider
May 9, 2017 6:57 am

I’ve mentioned my brother. Mensa quality mind, but don’t leave him alone with power tools.

Physics Major
May 8, 2017 1:41 pm

To believe that climate change is the number 1 problem, you need to believe that there is a specific climate model that can accurately predict future weather AND that there is a specific economic model that accurately predicts the future economy.
We know that the accurate economic model does not exist because anyone who possessed it would have the secret to making a vast fortune buying and selling stocks and commodities. Actually, just having an accurate climate model would be enough to make a fortune in agricultural commodity speculation.

David L. Hagen
May 8, 2017 1:52 pm

Should we be prepare for global warming? OR global cooling? Which causes the greatest hardships?
ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on ‘this date’ – and could kill millions

Research from mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova shows that low solar activity could cause global temperatures to dip to their lowest levels for more than 350 years.

Solar activity is running lower than previous predictions!

David L. Hagen
Reply to  David L. Hagen
May 8, 2017 5:52 pm

Forrest Gardener
Referring to the dangers of cooling such as Finland loosing 1/3 of its population during the Great Famine of 1695-97 (not the lemming dash to the sea.)

Resourceguy
May 8, 2017 1:52 pm

How about an anonymous, professional columnist with no labels?

Editor
May 8, 2017 2:01 pm

What so many in the media (and apparently the climate science community) fail to understand is that people have different values and priorities. Foreign policy analysts are terrified of North Korea. Economists fear Brexit and a Eurozone collapse. Geologists, especially those in the Pacific Northwest, fear a huge earthquake. Experts across the spectrum perceive threats differently, usually magnifying those with which they are most familiar.

Geologists in Texas are more likely to “fear” Federal regulatory malfeasance more than huge earthquakes and Yellowstone super-eruptions, combined.
The bolded sentence follows the same principle as the key claim in Doran & Kendall Zimmerman: “Experts” usually magnify the importance and/or validity of the subject matter with which they are most familiar.

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure1). In our sur-vey, the most specialized and knowledge-able respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer- reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individu als in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf
One of the most frequent refrains is the assertion that “climate scientists” endorse the so-called consensus more than other disciplines and that the level of endorsement is proportional to the volume of publications by those climate scientists. Well… No schist, Sherlock! I would bet a good bottle of wine that the most voluminous publishers on UFO’s are disproportionately more likely to endorse Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a documentary. A cursory search for “abiogenic hydrocarbons” in AAPG’s Datapages could lead me to conclude that there is a higher level of endorsement of abiogenic oil among those who publish on the subject than among non-publishing petroleum geologists.

Reply to  David Middleton
May 9, 2017 7:06 am

Here in Washington State, the Oso slide was “completely unforeseen!!” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Oso_mudslide) Yeah, right–politics and money were the real problems. It depends on which geologists and engineers you ask.
I have a friend who has property on the Sauk River, and we drive by the slide area a couple of times a year. It’s quite something to see.
Jim

ossqss
May 8, 2017 2:03 pm

I believe the biggest threat to most of the developed world is over-reliance on technology. Vast percentages of vulnerable humans would turn into Zombies after a few days without power and the Internet….. Just saying, most folks who seem brave over the internet turn into pussbags in real life when forced out from behind that curtain.
Let alone the censorship/fake news/disinformation initiative happening with internet power brokers. Just look at Facebook and what they are doing in the UK before the elections as an example.

Chimp
Reply to  ossqss
May 8, 2017 2:08 pm

Reliance on transport is a threat comparable to electrical power. Most cities in the developing world would run out of food in a few days without modern transportation systems. If a collapse of power and transport occurred in NH winter, megadeaths would rapidly result.
This is just one reason why the Norks must not be allowed to develop an EMP weapon. China’s economy would also collapse without exports to the West, especially the US.

snedly arkus
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:36 pm

Over the years the US has made promises to NK if they would drop their nuke bomb programs. Such as food assistance and help with NK nuke power plants for electricity. The US backed out of every promise after NK gave up their bomb research and other military stuff. You now see the result as NK went back to bombs after being repeatedly shafted by the US. Also, in NK the military helps with crop planting and harvesting. For many years now the US and South Korea hold joint military exercises in SK at planting and harvesting times that result in NK keeping it’s military at readiness and out of the fields.
[??? .mod]

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  snedly arkus
May 8, 2017 2:50 pm

I need to point out the communist-socialist states you are propagandizing for have murdered some 120 million people since the 1917 revolution. Yes, the United States is right in opposing communism worldwide.

Reply to  snedly arkus
May 10, 2017 5:13 am

Again, your ignorance is manifest. The US did not “back out” of any deal. NK violated every agreement!
But when all you have is hate, I guess your view of the world is binary. Bad must be the US fault. Ignore the fact that NK has nukes now. Ignore the fact that they are not created over night. Ignore the fact that Un is a meglomaniac that even their staunchest allies think is a fruit loop. The irrational hate explains it all.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:45 pm

ossqss and Chimp,
And, interestingly, a Carrington Event, such as happened in 1859, would shut down electricity and vehicles and isn’t even on the list of the 30 most feared items supplied by Middleton. If we had to go for months without heat and food, those surviving would probably welcome a warmer climate.

MarkW
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:45 pm

Since NK never slowed down, much less gave up their nuclear bomb program, you are delusional.

MarkW
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:46 pm

PS: It’s a really sad country in which the military needs to help with the harvest, otherwise people starve.

ossqss
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 7:28 pm

How do most folks pump gas without power. Just sayin, manually , and after a short while, the ethanol goes bad in the US.
My comment was more towards our dependence on tech for every day life. No tech, no life for many.
“Oh the Pain” with out a Keurig, eh?

Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 5:01 am

So Schmedly believes Venezuela and North Korea would be successful regimes, Utopian, if not for the USA.
Really?
No one could really believe such absurdity.
This odd fellow is either being overtly provocative or …
(The Latter I think is most likely.)

Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 5:03 am

… or he’s showing his ignorance.
(The “latter” missing above.)

Butch
Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 10:46 am

..Robroy, I think the word you are looking for is “INSANE” ?

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 11:00 am

snedly arkus May 8, 2017 at 2:36 pm
You have that back@rseward. Is there any Loony Left Lie for which you won’t fall?
http://nypost.com/2016/01/06/you-can-thank-jimmy-carter-and-bill-clinton-for-north-koreas-nukes/
The Nork Kimdom regime used the threat of nuclear weapons to blackmail the West into supporting their tyranny, which has impoverished their subject people, Gullible dupes Carter and Clinton fell for the sc@m, gave them all they asked for, but of course the Norks went ahead with the development program anyway.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 11:22 pm

As will Iran, thanks to President Obama. Another not-Treaty.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  ossqss
May 8, 2017 2:38 pm

There’s no escape, even the Amish are on Facebook. We’re all doomed!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 8, 2017 2:47 pm

Probably not ALL Amish. Even so, their agrarian lifestyle would favor them for survival in the event of an infrastructure collapse.

ossqss
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 8, 2017 7:32 pm

Leonard Lane
Reply to  The Original Mike M
May 8, 2017 10:20 pm

snedly arkus. I think that you make the most stupid, illogical, and untrue comments I have ever seen on here.

commieBob
May 8, 2017 2:07 pm

Common sense and wisdom have disappeared from the social discourse. People have understood the hazards of certainty since forever. Here are a couple of examples.

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. Mark Twain

and

Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false. Bertrand Russell

One of the main themes of Greek mythology was hubris.
The only place in post secondary education where I am aware that such wisdom is explicitly taught is in the colleges of engineering. In professional practice and ethics courses, engineers are taught to stick to their areas of competence.

Manfred
Reply to  commieBob
May 8, 2017 2:45 pm

“People have understood the hazards of uncertainty forever”
Oh really?

That means smart people can accept a common core of facts (such as the reality of anthropogenic global warming) without agreeing on a policy response.

MarkW
Reply to  Manfred
May 8, 2017 2:48 pm

I fail to see your point.
Are you upset that people can agree that human activity has caused a small increase in warming, without agreeing that we need to end the use of fossil fuels?

commieBob
Reply to  Manfred
May 8, 2017 3:19 pm

I think you read wrong. The hazard is certainty.

Goldrider
Reply to  Manfred
May 8, 2017 4:29 pm

One of the stupidities of post-modernism is this idea that we can ever really be “safe.” “Safe” from each other’s avarice, from natural disasters, from heating cooling tornadoes asteroids or earthquakes. This is a very 21st-century notion, the idea that being “safe” is some kind of a human right. Ask my ancestors who buried most of their children before the age of 5, or whose country was overrun by invading armies on a regular basis for 500 years! Prior to modern times most lives were short, brutish and nasty but don’t tell the Utopian transcendentalists who think if we just embrace “diversity” and “sustainability” all would be well!

Manfred
Reply to  Manfred
May 8, 2017 7:35 pm

Foot in mouth. Read wrong, as you say. Dang.

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Manfred
May 8, 2017 8:59 pm

Actually Goldrider, I think we have to blame baseball. Think about it. Nearly every kid in the US, Japan, the Caribbean,and some other places too grows up playing a game with the main object of being “safe” at “home.” 😉 😉 😉

AJB
May 8, 2017 2:08 pm

Perhaps journalists should spend more time talking amongst themselves.

PiperPaul
Reply to  AJB
May 8, 2017 3:11 pm

Most of what “journalists” do is to impress each other and further their own careers, not inform the public.

Goldrider
Reply to  PiperPaul
May 8, 2017 4:31 pm

If “journalists” capture the attention of your eyeballs for 10-30 minutes, they have earned their paycheck in the eyes of the advertisers paying them to capture same. Informing the public, educating the public, or presenting a balanced view of anything not to count. It’s just all about Getting Your Attention.

Old Woman of the North
Reply to  AJB
May 8, 2017 9:58 pm

They do and they all agree with each other and freeze out anyone who disagrees.

michael hart
May 8, 2017 2:10 pm

The headline doesn’t surprise me at all. Microbiologists share something very important with, say, synthetic chemists:
Their science regularly teaches them the humility that comes from being wrong. More importantly, it teaches them that quite quickly. Many climate scientists will go to their grave not having learned how many of their good ideas were actually bad ideas, bad in the sense that bad ideas don’t reflect what actually happens in the real world.
Microbiologists might get smacked on the wrists by reality in a few days or weeks. Chemists can often suffer the same agony in hours. Both sets can learn and move on, without having to resort to models in order to prove that they are right and reality is wrong.

Reply to  michael hart
May 8, 2017 2:59 pm

Absolutely Michael – right on the money. As a synthetic chemist once upon a time, how many times did I go into the lab in the morning expecting a 99% yield reaction, yet finding a charred black mass in the flask? Certainly double figures. The so-called climate “scientists” can’t, or simply don’t want to admit that Arrhenius, 1896, and the “simple physics” blather are failed conjectures, or they don’t have the ability to understand the frequency with which Mother Nature will slap a scientist down.

Pat Frank
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 8, 2017 4:10 pm

I’ve done my own fair share of synthesis, Phil, and know exactly what you’re talking about. Nitrogen compounds usually produced a red/black tar. 🙂
Regarding the climate modeler syndrome, my experience with them — now well over a dozen — is that they have no understanding at all of physical error analysis.
They don’t know the meaning of a calibration experiment, or the impact and meaning of calibration error. They have no idea at all of how to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
Sound like hyperbole? It’s not.
Hence the consensus of certainty.

Reply to  michael hart
May 8, 2017 4:28 pm

Right Pat. DNA chemistry does involve a fair bit of nitrogen-based “issues”.
Because they, ostrich-like, don’t feel like they have to address the actual, real, tough, question(s), they have to chant slogans that you could teach a parrot to speak. Even going on silly marches to chant them.
How about building a piece of equipment to actually measure the back-radiation from CO2 at 280 ppm and variable water vapor (up to 40,000 ppm), and then CO2 at 400 ppm and then variable water vapor (up to 40,000 ppm). That could probably be built for well less than a $ Million, I’m sure. Probably throw in some convection too, even. These f-wits wouldn’t know an experiment if it bit them in the @ss.

John Loop
May 8, 2017 2:10 pm

If you are to believe the latest issue of Discover…… [and their fear mongering cover] (NASA) scientists are predicting best case sea level rise of 1 foot by 2100, worst case 8 foot rise. —-Isn’t 1 foot kinda “normal” or expected?” I don’t see this on the list of things to worry about [I guess it is a only subset of Global Warming]. They have the requiste pictures of inundations of NY, etc. of course. All because of the glaciers in Antarctica melting. I must say it is VERY hard for a normal person to keep his sanity with all this “information.” Somebody please put my mind to rest…. please….
John

MarkW
Reply to  John Loop
May 8, 2017 2:50 pm

Best case assumes that the sea level rise of the last 400 years will continue.
Actually if we have a Dalton minimum like cool snap, SLR will drop dramatically.

gnomish
Reply to  John Loop
May 8, 2017 6:31 pm

7 inches is normal and expected @ 1.7mm/year

Chimp
Reply to  gnomish
May 8, 2017 6:35 pm

A number of women have told me that 5.5 inches is normal, but maybe they were just being kind.

Reply to  gnomish
May 8, 2017 8:05 pm

Sorry to break the news Chimp, but they were talking about girth.

gnomish
Reply to  gnomish
May 8, 2017 10:31 pm

ah, chimp- don’t fall for those half-truths.
;}

MarkW
Reply to  gnomish
May 9, 2017 7:01 am

When asked, I always answer “long enough”.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
May 9, 2017 10:50 pm

“Adequate for the purposes intended.”

May 8, 2017 2:20 pm

The Malthusian option: Food or Ethanol? A Limerick with explanation.
When EPA regulates, they are but slobs;
No thought what effect it will have on our jobs. (1)
You want food? You want fuel?(2)
The one choice is too cruel. (3)
A Malthusian choice, that’s why Mother Earth sobs. (4)
https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/12/the-malthusian-option-food-or-ethanol-a-limerick-with-explanation/

May 8, 2017 2:23 pm

I believe the biggest threat to human kind is nuclear war. There are people inside the US military who really believe that we can win a “limited” nuclear war. I believe no nuclear war will stay “limited” and that a full exchange of nuclear weapons will end human life on this planet — or, at least, set us back to the stone age.
Oh, and what did the author mean by “fringe libertarian club”? it was Classical Liberalism that built industrial western civilization and we now must call that belief system “libertarian” since the socialists stole the name “liberal” over a century ago. See here for what Classical Liberalism meant: https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism

Chimp
Reply to  markstoval
May 8, 2017 2:34 pm

Even if every single nuclear weapon on the planet were exploded over cities, which is not how they’re intended to be used, it couldn’t end human life.
The main use of strategic nukes is to deter their use by others. Since no adequate regime for verification of elimination of nukes is possible, we’re stuck with them. Tactical use wouldn’t necessarily lead to an all-out exchange.
You clearly know nothing about American nuclear doctrine. We more than anyone have sought conventional alternatives to tac nukes. We’ve gotten rid of all tac nukes, except for some strategic bombs which could be dialed down to lower yields.
Meanwhile, Russia and China have acquired ever more numerous and capable tac nukes. Russia ostensibly withdrew its stockpile of nuclear artillery and tactical missile warheads after the US did in the 1990s, but is now building and fielding a new generation of tac nukes. Every Russian submarine carries nuclear torpedoes.

MarkW
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 2:52 pm

Wouldn’t a nuclear torpedo be suicide for the sub that launched it?

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 3:01 pm

No. Nuclear torpedoes are low-yield and typically travel a long way before detonating.
The power of tactical nukes is widely misunderstood.
That said, the joke for crews of the jeep-mounted Davy Crockett atomic recoilless rifle was that it was the only weapon with a Kill Probability of 2.0.

Reply to  Chimp
May 8, 2017 3:20 pm

And you are just wrong. News of generals who think we can “win” are credible.
And if every nuclear weapon was exploded, I suppose you think there would be no damage to the planet from the radiation? Really? No damage to humans from the radiation? Plus, the idea of a “nuclear winter” has never been disproved.
You list your top worry, I listed mine. But please, keep your ignorance to yourself.

MarkW
Reply to  Chimp
May 9, 2017 7:02 am

Radiation is bad, but not as bad as many try to paint it.
And yes, nuclear winter has been disproven. Mere fires can’t loft material into the stratosphere.

MarkW
Reply to  markstoval
May 8, 2017 2:51 pm

If the NK launched against the US, and the US obliterated the country, why do you believe China and Russia would feel the need to get involved?

Chimp
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2017 2:59 pm

Clearly, they wouldn’t. The Norks just aren’t that important to China and even less so to Russia nowadays.
Besides which, we could obliterate everything that mattered in the DPRK without nukes, although Trump might prefer that route. We wouldn’t need to obliterate the whole, poor, suffering country. I’m giving away no secrets by pointing out that our target sets are 1) political and military leadership, 2) nuclear infrastructure, 3) command, control, transportation and selected energy grid and 4) general military, especially those threatening South Korea most directly.
High on the list of the latter category of course are the 15,000 artillery tubes trained on the border, and Seoul in particular. Given six-tube batteries, that’s about 2500 aimpoints, once the guns and rockets are rolled out of their tunnels. IOW, some 300 US and SK F-16s and F-18s, each with eight cluster bombs, could solve that problem in one pass.

TA
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2017 3:43 pm

“High on the list of the latter category of course are the 15,000 artillery tubes trained on the border, and Seoul in particular.”
Chimp, my favorite retired American Air Force General said last week that it would require about 30 MOAB’s to destroy the North Korean artllery stationed along the North/South Korean border.
U.S. B2 stealth bombers can carry at least two MOABs each, so 15 B2’s are required for this attack. Sounds doable to me.

Chimp
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2017 3:52 pm

TA,
B-2 can just barely carry two MOABs, but we built only 15 of the bombs, of which 14 remain. The line could be reopened, however. We have 20 B-2s, of which 15 might be operational at any one time.
Dunno which USAF general that was, but his statement doesn’t compute. The 2500 or so artillery batteries would be too spread out for just 30 MOABs to destroy all of them. Maybe he was talking about taking out those which most threaten Seoul, or attacking command and control nodes for the tunnels in which they are stored.

Chimp
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2017 4:05 pm

Maybe the general was planning on taking out the 30 tunnels closest to Seoul.
If there are, as once estimated, 200 to 500 such tunnels, each would contain 30 to 75 tubes, ie about a regiment each (typically 54 tubes in three battalions, each of three batteries). Heavy and rocket artillery units may differ.

Chimp
Reply to  MarkW
May 8, 2017 4:08 pm

B-52s loaded with 70,000 pounds of dumb ordnance could also carpet bomb the DMZ, a la Arc Light missions of yore.