Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to University of Austin Research Associate Todd Davidson, preparing for war on climate change means we should disregard scientific uncertainty.
Commentary: We Should Prepare for Climate Change Like We Prepare for War
Climate change poses a more significant threat to global security than the low probability event of a ground war with China. And yet, we spent $590 billion on defensein 2017 and maintained readiness against the unlikely prospect of a large conventional war. It’s time for conservatives to recognize our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense by addressing the rising threat of climate change.
There are three primary explanations that are used to justify inaction on climate change: The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.
First: Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.
…
Despite the uncertainty in the timing and location of military threats, we are always ready for war just in case. The same approach of readiness should be used for climate action, because despite the uncertainty in how climate change could impact the world, the threat on the horizon is real and has the potential to be catastrophic.
…
Read more: http://fortune.com/2018/04/17/climate-change-conservatives-defense-spending/
The problem with rushing headlong into expenditure is the money being demanded is utterly astronomical.
For example, Professor Aled Jones, Professor & Director of the Global Sustainability Institute, declared back in February that the $300 billion per year currently spent on renewables is far short of the money required to address the climate threat.
Waving away uncertainties when that kind of money is on the table is simply unacceptable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Prof. Aled Jones says “Send us more money”.
Otherwise his institute won’t be sustainable.
I’ll grant you that!
So, Professor Jones, you want a war on carbon, huh?
O. K., I’m on board with that Pvt. Jones. Yes, I said Pvt. Jones–and I addressed you in that manner just to show you the sincerity of my commitment to “the team” and “the cause”. For, you see, Pvt Jones, it is my pleasure to announce that you and all your fellow, lefty-puke hive-mates, pushin’ the Gaia-hustle, have just been drafted, into this war you advocate. In other words, Pvt Jones, this war on carbon will be one where, for once, those who advocate the war, will actually fight the war (you didn’t expect that kind of war did you, Pvt. Jones?).
And in this war, that you, Pvt Jones, have proposed, and that I have agreed to, a “little guy”–moi, in particular–gets to be, for once, the Supreme Commander in Chief (otherwise, I’d never have agreed to the deal).
My leadership model for this war, incidentally, will be taken from the French WW I practice–I plan to direct you impressed hive-worthies from far behind the lines, ensconced in the luxury of some “chateau” (or its high-carbon, modern equivalent (hmmm…maybe I’ll requisition Al Gore’s palatial, bachelor-pad beach-house”)), immersed in opulent creature-comforts, not otherwise available due to war-time rationing.
And from my lofty perch, I intend to regularly exhort, in stuffy communiques, the cannon-fodder riff-raff, like you, Pvt. Jones, “to die more bravely, for Gaia”. And, if my inspirational, long-distance prose fails to motivate “the troops”, and they begin to get a little restive at the latest cold snap’s casualty list, then I intend to liberally employee decimation to cure any reluctance, on the part of you draftee swine, to sacrifice supremely.
In other words, Pvt. Jones, your war is going to be fought with the winners-and-losers calculation, usually employed by your useful-tool, hive-flunky ilk (but not you, Pvt Jones, because you are so much different, in that regard, than all the other good-comrades with which you hob-nob), turned on its head.
Your orders Pvt Jones:
-Hold all academic conferences (especially, those obscene, CO2-spew eco-confabs, which you brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie, mouthy, frequent-flyer hive-bozos regularly swarm), as zero-carbon video-conferences.
-SET AN INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!!PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!
And, oh by the way, Pvt Jones, I imagine you’re wondering who is going to get all those troughs, perks, easy-streets, gravy-trains, and greenwashed bucks, and the power-and-control that will surely flow from this “war on carbon” we have both agreed to. Well–sitting down!–it’s all mine, Pvt Jones. Another big surprise, right Pvt Jones?
Oops! I see that the “war-monger” in the above post was a gent named Todd Davidson, who is an “University of Austin Resear_h Asso_iate”. So I ask, dear reader, that you read “Davidson” for “Jones” in my above _omment In that regard, my sin-ere apologies are extended to Professor Jones for my s_rew-up!
Also the “see” letter on my keyboard suddenly seems to be dysfun_tional. Regardless, I felt the time-sensitivity of this _orretion, required that I press on, nevertheless.
Oops! I see that it was a gent named Todd Davidson–a University of Austin Associate Researcher, and not Professor Jones, who is seeking a war on carbon. Please, dear reader, substitute “Davidson” for “Jones” in my above comment.
Professor Jones, I offer my sincere apology for my above screw-up. And let me emphasize that the satire of my little rant was not intended to include yourself–your name appeared entirely due to an error, on my part.
This is a second submission of this correction, that follows a repair of the “c” key on my keyboard. Not sure if the earlier one was successfully received by WUWT, but, if not, I wanted to assure Professor Jone that the correction, contained in this comment, was earlier submitted in a more timely manner than this comment would indicate.
Again, my mortified, heartfelt regrets, Professor Jones.
“Your orders Pvt Davidson:
-Hold all academic conferences (especially, those obscene, CO2-spew eco-confabs, which you brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie, mouthy, frequent-flyer hive-bozos regularly swarm), as zero-carbon video-conferences.
-SET AN INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!!PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!”
My orders would be a bit more strict:
-Hold all academic conferences (especially, those obscene, CO2-spew eco-confabs, which you brazen-hypocrite, carbon-piggie, mouthy, frequent-flyer hive-bozos regularly swarm), as zero-carbon in-person conferences that all participants must WALK (or canoe) to using only the power of their legs/arms or the wind. Organizing messages for said conferences must be sent by the same modes of travel, to ensure they are completely “zero carbon.”
[Notes: Video-conferences use the INTERNET, which consumes mass quantities of electricity, and is anything BUT “zero carbon” – can’t have THAT!]
-SET AN INSPIRING PERSONAL EXAMPLE IN MATTERS OF CARBON FOOTPRINT REDUCTION!!!PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!! Specifically, no more: electric lights, central heating, air conditioning, TV, internet, etc. CAVE life for you! Oh, and no more modern shoes or garments. You hunt down your dinner with a stick you sharpened on a rock, and wear the skins of your dinners as apparel. Fashion some footwear out of that too, or just go barefoot.
[Notes: “Reduction” is not sufficient! The “leave it in the ground” crowd must live by their own slogans!]
I might suggest the leave-it-in-the-ground folks begin with themselves… 6 feet under.
That’s OK, it’s other peoples’ money. Just like socialism..
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. But even if we could somehow stop the climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of the current climate and would continue unabated. Mankind has been unable to change one weather event let alone change global climate. We do not even know what the optimal climate is let alone how to achieve it. We should not be wasting time and resources trying to solve a problem that we just do not have the power to solve when there are so many problems out there that we do have the power to solve.
Didn’t president Obama stop the seas from rising? Why would we continue to waste money on a non-problem?
MAGA
Obama so decreed! AND he holds a Nobel prize! Surely HIS Godlike commands will be followed!
Agreed 100%.
The ridiculous notion that we have to wage “war” on a non-existent problem is a joke, the way that idiots like Davidson mean it. We do have a “climate change” issue to be vigilant about, but it is NOT the pseudo-science human-induced climate catastrophe of which Mr. Davidson speaks; it is the need to ADAPT to whatever changes ACTUALLY OCCUR. Because that is ALL WE CAN DO about REAL “climate change.”
…..And furthermore, what exactly should we do that would be different and that we would be able to do with our available resources so that we can be more prepared for the CATACLISM THAT WILL BE if we don’t do something?
Mankind’s out of control population is forcing people to live in dangerous locations without proper precautions for availability of resources, extreme weather events, wild fires, and Earth quakes that happen naturally. Mankind does have the power to control our own population without Mother Nature having to control it for us, catastrophically.
This IYI moron doesn’t realize the reason that open military warfare with China or Russa is unlikely is not “in spite of,” but rather “because of” our strong military.
Stop with the name-calling. Davidson is not a moron – he knows exactly what he is doing and why. He is either a true believer for whatever reason or an evil person knowing that he is pushing an evil agenda.
As much of the hypocrisy and pandering for cash as I’ve seen in regard to ALLEGED climate change, I would say Davidson is both a true believer and is pushing an evil agenda.
Maybe it’s time we started taking names – make a list – that sort of thing. They’d to that to the rest of us, you know.
Well he is pushing a moronic straw man argument – especially since nuke power could obviate his questionable question.
Why limit your options?
It is clearly not a binary choice.
Heck, I go with “all of the above”
Moron is the wrong term but I wouldn’t rule out some kind of pathology. Because of his superior education it’s likely that he has become detached from reality in a manner that mimics schizophrenia. link
CommieBob wrote: “Moron is the wrong term but I wouldn’t rule out some kind of pathology. ”
Eduphrenia, or it’s most serious cousin, Ph.D-phrenia? Severe mental illness brought on by a life of childlike hiding from life by never leaving the academic environment, from birth to death (victims presume a career and a pension guaranteed by the public sector teat).
Delusions of Infallibility, the victims of this pernicious disease begin to believe in their own infallibility following adequate psychological rewards in the form of praise (likes) from peers, employers, colleagues, the IPCC, and Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
Sustainophobia, the irrational belief that some necessary aspect of one’s survival is being lost, and that one somehow magically knows the solution to the problem.
Of couse we have the standard:
Trumphobia, the irrational fear of the current president
Trump Derangemnent Syndrome, a visceral hatred of the president that is so pronounced, it interferes with normal healthy day-to-day living.
And on a personal note:
Marmot Vacancy Phobia, the fear that all the cute little marmots will migrate to Canada (full disclosure, I have this phobia but manage it with a regime of pharmaceuticals)
I at least gave him credit for being an intellectual.
If you have a problem with the idiot or (redundant) moron monikers I ascribe to Dr Davidson, I suggest you take it up with Dr Nassim Taleb of The Black Swan fame. Both monikers IMO are entirely appropriate for those idiots who put the non-problem climate change on the same or higher level than National Security and international containment of communist China or Putin’s fascist Russia.
Marx had a perfect personality description—- USEFUL IDIOT!!!
+1
+1 meant for joelobryan
+100 …exactly. Makes one wonder whose side this guy is on. It also shows the well though out strategy by Russia to weaken the US and the Western world using the tool of CAGW.
There are many such threats that fit the bill. I honestly don’t see what’s so compelling about climate change.
We have experienced the horrors of war, Climate change, not at all, so skepticism is apprpriate.
Well for heavens sakes, the temps have changed by a few 1/10ths of a degree based on shoddy, incomplete and manipulated data! C’mon, get with it!
The military spending and preparations are for a certain risk – armed conflict. The US faces some threat of armed conflict virtually every year and history tells us that poor preparation would likely have done irreparable harm to the country and its citizens. All we know about climate change is that it happens regardless of what people do and the appropriate preparations are those that are already taken regularly for adverse weather events. None of this translates into a need to overhall the entire energy base of the economy for a fanciful belief that CO2 is an evil pollutant instead of the essential ingredient of all life on earth which we know it to be. Having the title of professor should mean a good grasp of critical thinking but these days that seems too much to ask.
Paisan – This is the correct response to the alleged requirement to institute “Catastrophic Climate Change/Disruption Glowbull Warming Climate Response Preparations” (as opposed to “Climate Reparations” as proposed by the Paris Agreement and the IPCC) – that “Business as Usual”, that is no additional unique preparations are required for societal responses to the gamut of the types of “climate changes” that we as a world have experienced and documented in the past.
To force society (Read as: The Western World) to abandon that which created and sustains our way of life, for fictions and new-age-religion-replacement ideas (ideals?) is in fact against all that the modern societies have striven for and for the most part have achieved.
Understanding past events, and planning for their eventual/potential return in the great cycle of life, is all that is needed.
MCR
The Left always uses the fear of some unknowable future event as a certainty unless freedoms and liberties are exchanged for more taxes and controls on the individual and loss of his/her freedoms.
Let me control your life, it will be better. Trust me.
Socialism distilled down to its essence.
Don’t fall for the name-revisions — this is marxism/stalinism thru & thru.
As someone once said, communists are socialists who are in a hurry.
“Socialism distilled down to its essence.”
Don, Institutionalized slavery is the only thing that is really ‘essential’ for socialism to exist and to persist.
There is another answer which is “if you think climate change is that worrisome, get over your fear of nuclear.” Nuclear is better (cleaner, cheaper, more stable) than any renewable + storage system. And newer designs may outdo fossil fuels in terms of price.
How are the so called renewables going to get built and repaired without fossil fuels? There are over 14k of wind turbines in the US that are dead and not being repaired.
Because the subsidies were for building them, after all, not maintaining them. ;|
…..Not to even mention the necessity for having economic endeavors that are powered by fossil fuels if there is to be money with which to provide subsidies for any of the so-called ‘renewables.’
a poor analogy. Wars DO happen, and kill millions. And if your country has no defense, they are even more likely to happen to you. Human-caused climate change, however, is probably benign, has so far no effect on severe weather, little enhancement of natural sea level rise, and is unnoticeable in any one person’s lifetime. Just another example of the stupid insurance analogy. You don’t pay $100,000 in insurance on the slight chance your $100,000 house will burn down.
Roy W. Spencer
My understanding is the only observable effect increased CO2 has had on the planet is to green it by 14% in 30 years.
Than far outweighs any other claimed effect.
I agree with both Roy and HotScot.
This statement by Todd Davidson is imbecilic:
“First: Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country (against global warming), even if the threat is uncertain.”
Furthermore, the science is becoming increasingly settled AGAINST the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. There is a very low probability that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is greater than about 1C/(2xCO2).
Earth is clearly colder-than-optimum for humanity. There is an Excess Winter Mortality of about 2 million souls per year globally, and no significant Excess Summer Mortality.
If man-made warming does occur, it will be minor and beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Allan,
thanks mate, I’m flattered. Having someone with your qualifications, and more importantly, experience, agree with an imbecile like me is humbling.
Let me see;
Climate change is uncertain, so we must do whatever can to prevent it.
War is uncertain, therefore we must assume that one will not happen and not spend any money preparing.
No agenda here, no sir, no way.
You are no imbecile HotScot my friend. You have more native intelligence and common sense than many if not most university professors – and certainly ALL those who have bought into the global warming scam.
You are also in good company with Roy Spencer, who with John Christy invented the technology to measure atmospheric temperatures with satellites, and both received NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement for doing so.
Suggested reading for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World
How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It (or The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots invention of the Modern World) is a non-fiction book written by American historian Arthur Herman. The book examines the origins of the Scottish Enlightenment and what impact it had on the modern world. Herman focuses principally on individuals, presenting their biographies in the context of their individual fields and also in terms of the theme of Scottish contributions to the world.
Maybe a slight overstatement or two in the book’s title – but then, it’s all true!
Allan
It’s been on my Amazon reading list for some time now. 🙂 A few other books to go before I get to it, but I will.
Wha’s Like Us – Damn Few And They’re A’ Deid
The average Englishman, in the home he calls his castle, slips into his national costume, a shabby raincoat, patented by chemist Charles Macintosh from Glasgow, Scotland.
En route to his office he strides along the English lane, surfaced by John Macadam of Ayr, Scotland.
He drives an English car fitted with tyres invented by John Boyd Dunlop of Dreghorn, Scotland, arrives at the station and boards a train, the forerunner of which was a steam engine, invented by James Watt of Greenock, Scotland.
He then pours himself a cup of coffee from a thermos flask, the latter invented by Dewar, a Scotsman from Kincardine-on-Forth.
At the office he receives the mail bearing adhesive stamps invented by James Chalmers of Dundee, Scotland.
During the day he uses the telephone invented by Alexander Graham Bell, born in Edinburgh, Scotland.
At home in the evening his daughter pedals her bicycle invented by Kirkpatrick Macmillan, blacksmith of Dumfries, Scotland.
He watches the news on his television, an invention of John Logie Baird of Helensburgh, Scotland, and hears an item about the U.S. Navy, founded by John Paul Jones of Kirkbean, Scotland.
He has by now been reminded too much of Scotland and in desperation he picks up the Bible only to find that the first man mentioned in the good book is a Scot, King James VI, who authorised its translation.
Nowhere can an Englishman turn to escape the ingenuity of the Scots.
He could take to drink, but the Scots make the best in the world.
He could take a rifle and end it all but the breech-loading rifle was invented by Captain Patrick of Pitfours, Scotland.
If he escapes death, he might then find himself on an operating table injected with penicillin, which was discovered by Alexander Fleming of Darvel, Scotland, and given an anaesthetic, which was discovered by Sir James Young Simpson of Bathgate, Scotland.
Out of the anaesthetic, he would find no comfort in learning he was as safe as the Bank of England founded by William Paterson of Dumfries, Scotland.
Perhaps his only remaining hope would be to get a transfusion of guid Scottish blood which would entitle him to ask “Wha’s Like Us”.
Aw ra best, Hotscot.
Thank you HotScot,
I greatly appreciate your reference to all the great Scottish engineers, technologists and medical and other professionals who have contributed in so many ways to the advances of our modern world.
I would like to also nominate Adam Smith, the great Scottish philosopher and economist (1723-1790).
Adam Smith was born and raised by his widowed mother in Kirkcaldy. Smith studied at Glasgow and Oxford universities. From 1748 he became one of the circle in Edinburgh which included David Hume. In 1751 he became Professor of Logic at Glasgow University, then Professor of Moral Philosophy in 1752. In 1759 he published his ‘Theory of the Moral Sentiments’. In 1764 he went to France as tutor of Henry Scott, the third Duke of Buccleuch. In 1766 he returned to Kirkcaldy. In 1776 his ‘Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’ was published. He died in Edinburgh and was buried in the Canongate Churchyard.
My friend Bob Lamond, who was born in Kirkcaldy, proudly flies the Scottish flag over his home in Calgary. Adam Smith’s grave was restored with £10,000 donated by Bob. I remember Bob telling me there was a statue in Edinburgh to Karl Marx but no statue to Adam Smith, and he and others, especially the Adam Smith Institute, were going to rectify that deplorable situation.
The statue to Adam Smith was unveiled on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh on 4th of July 2008.
https://www.adamsmith.org/the-adam-smith-statue/
Yours aye, Allan
Allan,
it might not surprise you that as an avid Capitalist, I subscribe to the Adam Smith Institute. They talk an awful lot of sense.
And please convey my thanks to Bob Lamond for his efforts to help Edinburgh, and the world see sense.
Right, I’m off Haggis hunting.
🙂
This reminds me to give Bob a call – long overdue.
Here is his shack in Calgary – Coste House, which proudly flies the flag of Scotland.
http://cdm15098.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p280501coll7/id/491
Allan,
some shack!
My wife and I are planning our retirement in around 3 or 4 years, maybe we’ll put Canada on the list. Plenty of relatives there.
🙂
Look me up in Calgary – you can email me via my website.
https://energy-experts-international.com/
And… We have a pretty good idea what happens in wars and how to defend our nation against potentially hostile nations and non-state actors (terrorists).
How do we defend the nation against something as ambiguous as climate change? The best defense would be to gather up everything related to RCP8.5 and launch it into deep space on a Falcon Heavy rocket.
Should have put it in Musk’s Tesla before it was launched. Probably could have fit in the glove box.
Just substitute “RCP8.5” for “Camelot”…
https://youtu.be/m3dZl3yfGpc
Let us not go to Climatelot. It is a silly place.
Two years ago the AGW statement was “the science is settled!”. Now the statement is “Is the science settled?”.
I would say we have come a long way in 2 years.. especially since most of the northern and northeastern US has been freezing well into April this year. From what I’ve seen, next winter will also likely be a chilly one with an early fall.
I’ve always thought people will put up with almost anything until they are cold and/or hungry. At that point it becomes personal and they start paying attention.
‘What we demand is rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty’ (Duglas Adams of course) could so easily be the true calling card of climate gravy train pasengers
Dr. Spencer,
Thank you for a clear thoughtful comment about a confused irrational proposal.
“You don’t pay $100,000 in insurance on the slight chance your $100,000 house will burn down”
Roy , I wouldn’t buy fire and flood insurance at all if I lived in a concrete and steel house on a hill that has never flooded. Even though steel can burn it is very unlikely it will if you set your sofa on fire. I’m just looking for a good response for the insurance argument because I have got that posed to me when I tried to convince a relative that spending money on a non problem when you are so deep in debt is not a good idea. It became clear to me that the relative had no understanding of the science or the price she was paying for the “insurance ” or the price her children and grandchildren will pay if the CAGW crowd gets their way. I wonder if it even dawns on her that she might have jumped on the wrong bandwagon when it has been snowing in mid April here in central Indiana. It has been abnormally cold here too.
It is like buying asteroid insurance from a used car sales lot.
Snowing and below-average cold outside my house now, and a pair of downy woodpeckers have been searching the tree outside my window for bugs.
There are NO bugs because of the cold. Too cold for them to hatch.
That means I may have to buy suet or try to make it from uncooked bacon fat if it isn’t at the hardware store, and that is NOT a good thing. Downy woodpeckers, as small as they are, mean as much to an ecosystem as geese and herons. This is NOT normal, but it is weather, NOT climate, and next spring may bring a longer or shorter transition from winter. I have decided to not speculate on it any more.
Sara
Polar bears.
They need love too.
No Doc the mortgage company does and they insist it be insured for twice that amount—they realize how stupid people are.
“…other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.”
This should read, other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t make the slightest difference anyway.
“…the threat on the horizon is real and has the potential to be catastrophic.”
By his own admission should read, the threat on the horizon may or may not be real and might have the potential to be catastrophic.
The Roy Spencer comment contains required content that most do not include. Not that most can figure out why or even if informed, could understand why. Too many sheep; the trap was set and sprung by the willing.. I’m being obtuse cuz of anger at very intelligent ones that are fighting on the side of Right but are aiding the evil ones.
Most readers realize that quote does not explain away the 3rd objection; we are not talking about a “common good” like defense. If China and India contribute a lot more CO2 than the US, it doesn’t matter that the US further reduces CO2; we will never offset their emissions.
“Is the science settled? It does not matter—we have an obligation to be prepared to defend the country, even if the threat is uncertain.”
With that logic we should also prepare for “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”” or “Creature from the Black Lagoon” or “Them” or “the Blob” or “the Terminator”
On the other hand, when it comes to actual defense, he uses the same uncertainty as an excuse for doing nothing.
These guys desperately need a guided tour of Arlington.
The war analogy has some merit.
“Weapons of Mas Destruction” was used to convince the public to support a war based on a lie. The climate scare also invokes images of mass destruction to scare the public into a war on themselves.
In climate change the poorest people will theoretically suffer the most at some point in the future. The “fix” for climate change is making poorest people suffer the most right now.
In Houston, our Mayor has applied the
“make them suffer now” principal in the name of “climate change” in abundance.
WMDs were no lie, and have been found, as well as programs for making them.
Just before the war with Iraq started, a caravan of trucks were observed traveling from Iraq to Syria. And apparently Syria doesn’t have WMD either.
Jim
Five tons of yellowcake uranium were recovered in Iraq, enough to make a great host of radioactive dirty bombs. There were also many chemical weapons found in Iraqi weapons storage bunkers — but for some reason our labs were never able to rule out the possibility they were insecticides.
Today’s alarmists are increasingly using marketing strategies. The fear of war is in the air and in the media. Cashing in on that current war- fear is where science meets marketing.
David A, sorry that you have bought into the lie about WMDs being a lie. A lot of Saddam’s chemical WMDs and precursors went to Syria. I saw some of the intelligence which appeared to show moving the material in the weeks leading to the war. Put it this way convoys of tank trucks with security guards weren’t rushing to ship oil to Syria. It is my understanding that such intelligence wasn’t used because it would have thereby involved Syria in the war. It is also probable that the chemical weapons Russia did destroy in Syria were by then those same very old chemical weapons shipped to Syria by Saddam. We get lost in the idea that Iraq and Syria were not related in anyway, both were Ba’athists.
He also directed his top of line fighter aircraft to fly to his former enemy’s country of Iran and buried some others. No WMD my arse.
R2Dtoo—-I suggest the WALL.
In other words:
Many (most?) adults are well able to spot an untrustworthy huckster.
But what schools really ought to be teaching instead of “you will burn in hell if you don’t do something to save the planet”, is “These are the common ploys used by confidence tricksters. They may be companies, sales agents, politicians, or charities. But you should run a mile from these people. The person obviously trying too hard to gain your trust almost certainly does not deserve your trust.”
“There are three primary explanations that are used to justify inaction on climate change: The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.”
Notice that Davidson doesn’t realistically address any of the objections.
I agree. But not with the threat itself or its supposed but wholly disprovable cause. The tiny changes we see are irrelevant on a global change scale, and unlikely to be controlled to any significant extent by anything humans do, on the science fact.
The only “civilised” adaption of humans, that has only manifested itself in a technological society in the last short warm interglacial, needs to prepare for the next very probable ice age, coming soon, controlled by forces stronger than this guy can possible imagine, or Hom Sap’s pathetic powers can affect, which will scrape Russia, Canada, Northern Europe, etc. infrastructure off the map and force mass relocation of Billions people 1,000 miles towards the Equator , where they will need to rebuild their cities and their sea ports 100 metres lower to support the next 80,000 years or so.
PR:>0.999999, or greater. Milankovitch eccentricity won’t change,
It’s behind you!
I read an article nearly 20 years ago on the impending ice age – was only vaguely aware of the 1970s scare, and had never thought much about the matter before. A climatologist was interviewed – I think Calvin was his name, and he went through what would happen in the inhabited northern latitudes. The basic contention was that, according to some ice cores, a civilisation-killing drop in temperature could occur within a couple of decades (the ice sheets would follow in a couple of millennia). For the first five or so years there would be cooperation, then desperation, then war and total chaos. Depends on the time frame of course – if instead a slow and gradual descent, we have a better chance of adaptation and organised migration.
On the general point that the next ice age is the real worry, I entirely agree. Most people I happen to mention this to have even less idea than I used to – don’t know about inter-glacials, never heard of the Holocene, think ice ages occurred sometime around the dinosaurs (Disney’s fault I suppose), and look at me incredulously when I talk of the certainty of the demise of everything above New York and London being only a matter of time, and not much of it.
But there was one long (30ky) interglacial 400ky ago – maybe we’ll get lucky.
I recently mentioned the ice age scare to my cousin who was in her late teens or early twentys at the time it was going on and just got a blank stare. I still don’t know if she just missed it or didn’t have an answer. I remember it very well. As I recall the meme was we as a society were going to push the next ice age sooner because we were burning stuff and the burned stuff residue would block the sun. The tipping point was that if enough snow fell and failed to melt that the sunlight would reflect and soon we would freeze to death in an ice covered earth. It has been very hard for me to totally believe scientist and the news media ever since.
James Francisco
I was in my early 20’s during the 70/80’s ice age scare and was acutely aware of it. Of course it subsided after a year or two when it became apparent noting was happening and we all laughed it off.
Little did we know CO2 was lurking!
The current scare is just another media hyped non event. Only we haven’t learned our lesson yet, not to listen to the media.
People are simply ignorant and happier that way, believing whatever is easiest for them. They will probably deny ice ages keep happening or claim that the last one was the only one, anything to avoid understanding inconvenient truths they will never have to experience anyway. How politicians and pressure groups get away with daylight robbery enacted in the name of ignorant fear, of whatever.
“There are three primary explanations that are used to justify inaction on climate change: The science is uncertain; we cannot afford to address the problem; and other counties will keep polluting, so our actions won’t matter.”
Um, no, wrong, and wronger. First “climate change” as used by Warmunists is nothing but a Big Lie. It is classic misdirection, and part of their propaganda campaign. It is their boogieman. There is not only no need, but acting on a fake threat, spending ultimately $trillions is stupid on steroids, damaging economies, making people poorer, and causing misery and death of poor people. Secondly those “three primary explanations” are simply straw man arguments, another classic Warmunist tactic. These people have no shame.
It is no mere ‘97% consensus’ that China, Russia, North Korea exist and have nuclear weapons, that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc exist and would do the West harm. It is no mere speculation as to the effect of nuclear weapons, having been to Hiroshima and having seen the footage etc, that is hardly down to some confected ‘consensus’ either. My father fought in WW2 and there is no shortage of actual footage of combat from bother world wars, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq etc etc.
Rumours of speculation about climate armageddon and kids never seeing snow again yet then ending up snowed in across the northern hemisphere, of endless drought in Australia and then floods that fill every reservoir on the east coast and then cause floods etc etc.
Where do these goddamned galoots get their crap from?
Komrade Kuma,
The modern world has seen major wars approximately every generation — WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Middle East — with minor conflicts interspersed. Although, I’m not sure that “minor” would be appropriate for the Rwanda Genocide with something like 2 million victims. The results are well documented. So, it would be imprudent to assume that wars are unlikely and we shouldn’t spend to be prepared just because we can’t be certain exactly when and where the next challenge will be presented. On the other hand, even the climate alarmists, using unverified models, can only provide a range of scenarios of what they think might happen in the future. There is little to no evidence that the scenarios will happen, or what the magnitude of the damage will be.
It would be prudent to continue to study the situation, but to commit large sums of money for remediation of possibilities of unknown probability would be irresponsible, considering how many other issues are in need of resources. Revamping our economic systems, changing our governmental structures, and dismantling our energy infrastructure based on speculation is irresponsible!
Very good comment Clyde. My guess that those minor 2 million killed in Rwanda were minor was because they were mostly humanly killed by machetes and not by the inhumane guns, bombs and gas / sarc off.
Sure, let’s have a war on climate – it will build on the triumphant successes of the other wars-on – the war on cancer, the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty and the war on terrorism. /sarc
All of these wars-on are code words for gimme all your money. The more abstract and undefinable the subject and the more remote the possibility of “victory” the better to keep the gravy trains tooting along.
I am an avid environmentalist. I do my best to limit my ecological footprint. I grow as much of my own food as I can, drive as small and as little as practical, reuse, and recycle whenever possible. I try to encourage others to make their own effort.
But do I have to be against progress? Do I have to be anti-oil, anti-people, or anti-meat?
Is there some reason I have to engage in a war on anything, or anybody simply because they are wealthy, drives a gasoline-powered automobile, or work in an industry I do not approve of. Do I have to work towards destroying jobs, impeding commerce, or destroying the profits of corporations? Why must I hurt my fellow man in the name of some rather vague ideology?
How often does Greenpeace, the Tides Foundation, or the Sierra Club ever protest against starvation in Africa, abuse of women children or elders, human trafficking, or slavery?
Why is every extremist activist (and most of them are extremists) doing their best to hurt as many people as possible in as many ways as is possible?
Why do these activist groups and their members think it is justifiable to use lies, misinformation, violence, obstruction, and destruction to illustrate a point that may be questionable to begin with
Hello Rockyredneck ! Please SEE MY LENGTHY POSTING near the END of this as I think I have
the EXPLANATION there for you !
Just take my word ( AND especially THEIR OWN WORDS ) for it………………IT IS NO ACCIDENT !
.
Regards , Trevor.
Rockyredneck
You are what’s known as a reasonable human being.
I don’t think there’s an abbreviation for that yet, but one is needed.
RHB?
This item doesn’t mention Prof. Davidson’s field of expertise. Perhaps he is with the University of Austin’s esteemed School of Voodoo?
Todd isn’t really a Texan. He’s in Austin, a city that has been overtaken by hipsters and people from the Left Coast who want everything their way. If he were a Texan, he’d never say such things.
And let me add here: follow the money. Always follow the money. It’s always about cash, and just about even with it, power tripping.
No true Scotsman?
“Follow the money” is a fallacy too. Very similar to ad hominem -attack. I mean, we all get our money from somewhere so therefore we must all be paid shills, right?. And if i’m dirt poor and claim the sky is blue, I must be right. But if I get 5 bucks from Coca Cola and say the sky is blue, suddenly i’m paid shill and must be wrong? Attack the argument, not the person. If skeptics have to resort to ad hominem -attacks, they are no better than the alarmists.
If you’ve ever been to Austin, and the rest of Texas, you would recognize how different the two are.
As a skeptic I am not asking for any money from you but as an alarmist you are asking money from me.
@ur momisugly Fredar. Fallacy ? NO , it is what intelligent people have learned to do to avoid bad outcomes .
No, he is NOT a Texan. He lives there.
And if you don’t know, recognize or understand the language of scam or fraud, you are not paying attention.
Hyperbole and advertising language are two of the tactics used by CAGWers to get attention and then talk you into donating everything you can spare to them, and/or used for getting grants for so-called research that simply culls false results from the work of other “researchers” of the same mindset. It’s the same tactic used by televangelists to separate the viewing audience from their cash. If you don’t believe me, then look up the history of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker – worst thieves on the planet, using religion as a way to filch cash from people.
Davidson’s approach to “fighting climate change” through “defense and warfare tactics” is ridiculous enough to show that he is simply using it to get a cash grant, and nothing else. It is pure, unadulterated BS that anyone with a working brain can see through. What is he proposing to do? Fire missiles at CO2 molecules? Run roughshod over China and India and force them into submission?
When I said ‘follow the money’, it’s because he has no real plan. It is gobbledygook disguised as a bright idea, which does NOT BEAR CLOSE SCRUTINY.
It is absolute BS and it will cost the rest of us if anyone does take this fraud seriously. Period.
The good professor is so ignoramt on so many lebels he is not simply wrong.
Through sudden inspiration, I have arrived at a fair analogy of the AGW scare… I have spent a couple thousand dollars to plant 50 pecan trees, my 12 acres may have room for 100 more, with also additional cost of a couple thousand dollars for each 50 trees. I have done this because the price of pecans has been on the rise, yielding no less than $1.25/lb, and sometimes as high as $3.20/lb, to the GROWER, and this has continued for at least 8 years, even through a so-called “crash” of the pecan market (that was the $1.25/lb year). A mature pecan tree can produce up to 200 lbs of pecans in a good year, I’ll leave the rest of that arithmetic to you. It takes about 8 years to reach a marketable production level, and maturity is usually assumed as 15-20 years and on. There may be failure at the end of this, every one of my pecan trees could come down with blight, or a flood could wash them away, or etc. And now some damn fool with a degree is going to try to tell me I should spend $200,000 RIGHT NOW and pave over my entire 12 acres to avoid the horror of harvesting, or paying someone to harvest, those pecans 20 years down the road. Except it’s worse than that, chances of my pecan orchard actually succeeding and becoming mature enough to produce those kinds of numbers are FAR GREATER than the chances of any detectable impact at all from increasing CO2, and at least we know I planted those trees, we don’t even have proof that Mankind has had anything to do with rising atmospheric CO2 (to forestall this argument, I’ll agree that it’s highly likely that CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil fuels PROBABLY contributed to increasing CO2 levels).
…the horror of my southern next door neighbor’s (1/2 mile away) algae growth on his north wall due to increased shade of my pecan trees. …the horror of increased/decreased ant populations in the shade of my trees (never mind that ants can’t live in a paved environment either). …the horror… well, you get the point.
Red94ViperRT10
Keep planting those Pecans mate, Pecan pie is the best thing since sliced bread.
And I have only tasted the factory versions. If an invitation is in the offing, count me in!
And pedant alert: “…According to University of Austin Research Associate…”…? Is it possible you mean The University of Texas at Austin? I’m unfamiliar with University of Austin, where is that? Even assuming it’s in Austin, Texas, what’s the street address? How big is it? What are they known for? …? 🙂
About the Gulf Coast Carbon Center, Research, Technology, and Education for the Geological Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc/
Unfortunately, UT Austin ain’t what it used to be. Cutting edge research ain’t what it used to be. Still some real ones around, surviving in spite of the difficulties. This one is so bad it took two universities.
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/coastal/thscmp/support/SeaLevelRiseLesson.pdf
With regard to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), let me see if I got this straight…? Since the most commonly vilified target of the warmunists WWR to “evil” (is there html markup to cause the word to shake and change color?) CO2 emissions is a fossil fuel fired power production plant, let’s start with that as a hypothetical. Wherein they claim one can capture ALL CO2 produced, and hide it away where the atmosphere will never see it again (a proposition of dubious value, but let’s save that for the end). How will they do this? I’m not even familiar with the process to separate CO2 from a stream of mixed gases, I know how to remove water through sub-cooling until the moisture condenses, and draining it away, so let’s assume the process will begin something like that, but CO2, at atmospheric pressure, condenses to a solid upon sub-cooling, so there will then have to be some mechanical collection method, we’ll leave those actual details to others, and then that captured CO2 is sequestered someplace, the most common destination I have heard is underground salt domes or pumped into fossil fuel wells to increase ultimate recovery from the well (oh the irony, but again I digress). So for these processes, sub-cooling, mechanical collection, then compression and delivery, each one requires energy, has someone yet done the figures to determine, if all this is done, isn’t this supposedly beneficial exercise consuming more energy than the plant can produce? All for a result of questionable, and probably harmful benefit? I say harmful because, we have just recently achieved a level of CO2 only double that of bare minimum required to sustain life on this planet (150 is lights-out, 180 is probably a realistic bare minimum, and the atmosphere only recently passed 360 ppm atmospheric CO2, while the more CO2 the better plants do, and harmful levels are somewhere north of 8,000 ppm). I don’t know about you, but as a conservative engineer, I want a larger factor-of-safety than that! So, for anyone to tell me, “CCS is just around the corner!” (usually followed with “all we need is more tax-money to continue our research”) well, I laugh in your general direction! Go away or I shall taunt you a second time! (apologies to Monty Python for massacring, and modifying, the quote)
If the professor is correct and we spend billions on reducing CO2 and the Chinese and Russians do not, then this would be an act of war by them on us. So we need to increase defence spending so we can get a first strike in. (I am sure the professor and his family will be first in the queue to join the draft.)
Swift wrote a very good book on how stupid ideas could be extrapolated into the realms of insanity
The professor’s prescription for fighting climate change would be equally effective for fighting a ground war in Asia.