Global Warming Non-Debate Continues

There is so much to find fault with in the stance of man-made-global-warming [MMGW] advocates (warmies) that it is astounding that so little notice is taken of those faults. Let me reiterate a few:

1) The proponent of a policy has the burden of establishing a case for the adoption of their policy. This is particularly true of a major policy change like cap-and-trade, which would significantly increase the cost of our most important fuel sources. Instead of making the case, they ask that we accept on authority alone, the conclusions of scientists. They have never simply and clearly explained either their MMGW theory or their Cap-and-trade proposal, much less made their prime fascia case.

2) Unlike the claim made by proponents, there is not a consensus among scientist that MMGW is a concern. Unfortunately, the government bodies that wield the most political weight in matters of science seem to have been co-opted by the warmies. They will not let the dissenters be heard. They discredit them and the publications in which dissenting views have been published.

3) The internet, being thus far free of government control, does give dissenters a voice. An interesting website that I linked to in an earlier post (and which I will check on) offers several scientific arguments against MMGW. One argument states that whereas it it true that CO2 absorbs and reradiates heat radiation, thus returning to earth heat that would be lost, it absorbs only heat radiated in specific wavelengths. (What wave lengths and under what conditions co2 absorbs radiation and what it does with the heat thus absorbed would be part of the theory that the proponents should be more fully explaining, but which they do not.) The website in question calculates the heat lost due to this process and concludes that even if there was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation within the given wavelengths, it would not have a significant affect on climate. (Perhaps the proponents have ways of explaining their way around this but they will not say, except that their computer model says that the result will be warming, a LOT of warming, we better really be scared-- and that they say is their scientific opinion.)

4) Eventhough he theory of the proponents is never fully stated (even to a first approximation), they do (or at least did initially) offer empirical evidence of recent warming in support of their theory. This breaks dwon in two ways. a) their methods of measurement have been called into question. Measurements made near cities, for example, are usually higher, as cities grow then the temperatures will increase. Therefore, many of their results taken near cities were merely confirmations of urban growth. (There are other problems with their measurements too.); b) Most temperature measurements , even those of proponents, show that in the very recent past, 15 to 20 years, temperature have gone down. This was while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. (This is one of the things they tried to lie about)

5) The Theory of MMGW via CO2 production, (which is the most important part of the theory for public policy) does not explain how the relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a significant affect. (This could be considered a part of objection #2) Even with the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere (which measurements they project by questionable, indirect means to times before measurements were taken), the concentrations are far below 1% of the total atmospheric gasses. This is in comparison to the atmosphere of the early days of planet earth, which other scientist have long told us was about 60% CO2. Connected to this, is the argument that it is the warmer earth that causes the CO2 increases, not the other way around. Dissenters have graphed the changes and they claim that the CO2 increases followed the warming, not the other way around. Again, many details of the theory could be more rationally discussed if they would tell us just what is in their computer model (and what is left out). As it is their model is a black box: we aren't told what goes on inside. This is because, no doubt we are mostly just not as smart as Al Gore and the rest of them. (Prince Charles of Great Britain is apparently another of the hyper intelligent warmies.)

6) An objection to the Cap-and-Trade scheme is that it would not bring about much reduction in the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere anyway. If CO2 really is causing global warming or if something else is causing warming (such as cyclical changes in the sun's output), there may be nothing we can do to reverse it. Therefore, instead of imposing trillions of dollars of burdens on the world economy, which would leave us with virtually no resources for other remedies, we should be spending our money and time on something that would help. The Maldive Islands is understandably concerned about possible rising sea levels, since most of the country is three feet above sea level. Besides lobbying for cap-and-trade (because A. Grore says to), they also created a new island and built a six foot wall around it. Building dikes would be a more efficient use of resources that capping and trading. (I must say that cap-and-trade should win an award as the most astoundingly stupid idea ever. It is obviously a thinly disguised method of obtaining the results that environmentalists have wanted all along, which is a word with much diminished industry. They do not say how we will support ourselves without fossil fuel, the most efficient form of energy discovered to date, with the possible exception of nuclear, which they don't want either.)

7) One of my favorite objections (as I sit here with 10 degree weather outside.) The warmies do not address the advantages to some, if not most areas of the world, that would result from warming. This could easily outweigh the unwanted consequences, and at any rate, should be calculated into the cost-benefit analysis.

8) contiued

The Wanderings of Careless Thought or It's My Blog and I Can Say Whatever I Want

With regard to the last post, it occurs to me that just as St. Thomas subordinates authority and even reason to the traditions of the Catholic church; so too does the elitist environmentalist cabal subordinate reason and tradition to their all encompassing faith in their cause. For this reason, environmentalism has been called a religion. However, like the character of Daedalus in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, when asked, as he refused to serve the Church, had he become a Protestant; we must ask, why would environmentalist refuse to serve one system of beliefs to adopt another that makes no sense?

That is to say that although James Joyce's character abandoned the Church, he believed that, unlike Protestantism, it's teachings formed an internally consistent and logical set of beliefs. Why would he abandon that for the irrational? (His abandonment, I guess goes deeper, the exploration of which is partly what the book is about and a little deep for me) The organization of a free human society naturally forms a means of exchanging goods and services that is logically consistent in its basic tenants and practices. Because our system with division of labor and private property, allows more saving (non-consumption), which becomes the capital goods for further advancement, we call it capitalism (although Marx coined this as a term of derision). So-called revolutionaries have always opposed this system because of the unequal distribution of those goods and services that inevitably results. The second reason that some revolutionaries of today want the downfall of capitalism is that they see it as the root cause of changes for the worse in the flora, fauna, and other endowments of planet earth. However, I assert that neither of these two objections have ever passed the muster of rigorous evaluation. (Which you won't get here either; only musings.)

Revolution is a temporary redistribution followed either by return to the status quo or chaos. Until capitalism is reestablished, the material standard of living of most people suffers. The environmentalist objection seem to imply an ultimate return to a natural state as hunter gatherers. There probably never existed an idyllic natural state as some envision and the proponents only conjure it up because they don't believe that it would actually ever come to pass. For my part, I wouldn't mind a life of hunting and gathering, although it would require an approximately 99% global population reduction. I believe that in the final analysis, the second revolutionary objection collapses into the first. i.e. redistribution of prosperity favoring some particular group of which they consider themselves a part. With their newfound ill-gotten goods, they might build a park or two. Taken to the logical conclusion, the destruction of capitalism could lead to my idyllic hunter gatherer condition. They might need their parks to pitch a tent; they couldn't hack it.

Lying to Save the Planet

Lying to save the planet has obviously been a tactic of environmentalist and one of them fessed up. On the Peter Weisback radio show out of Seattle today an environmentalist leader was interviewed by a fellow with a British accent. Actually it was more of a cross examination; he didn't let up until the witness admitted that he did not believe that the Arctic would really be ice free by 2030 as he had stated science had revealed. The interviewer pointed out that the Greenland Icecap was about 1.5 million square miles and three miles thick. After trying to dodge five or six questions, the environmentalist stated that it was sometimes a good idea to emotionalize the issue. The interviewer stated that these were scare tactics. Weisback said that what he meant by 'emotionalizing' was he sometimes lied to advance the policy agenda of global warming. This has been rather obvious for a long time but the press, according to Mr. Weisback, continues to regurgitate what the environmentalists feed them. That has also been obvious for a long time.

Get Your Red Green Card Here

What is the connection between environmentalism and socialism (aka Progressives, Communism, Marxism...)? I don't know for sure but there seems to be a lot of interconnected political threads running throughout both movements. A starting point to collect and try to analyse a lot of the treads is Van Jones, the new Green Job Commissar. I have just been reading about him after listening to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Cunningham. There are internet articles for and against him but none differ much in their litany of all of the organizations and individuals he has been associated with. They show me that my opinion of his boss, BHO, from almost the first time I heard him, was correct.

Without trying to put it all together, I see: youth summit on climate, central planning, green for all, solar power, US Imperialism, eco-apartheid, spread the wealth, reclaim the revolution, Marxist Leninism, Apollo Alliance, change the whole system, class justice, racial justice, Weathermen, Black Panthers, ACORN, Tides Center...

I could see a present day Joe McCarthy standing before congress waving a sheaf of paper, "I have a list..." The paper would only contain a list the party commissars (i.e. President Obama's Czars - see "Czars or Commissars" in this blog).

Mr. Jones says he is a communist. He says he wants to use environmentalism to advance social justice and equality.

This is just great but he does not add a few other term that would have to come into play: Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Fascism, gulags, re-education, big brother, permanent under production and unemployment, poverty, riots, war, gun confiscation, mind-control, media control, 1984, Gestapo, Chickenshitnewworld...

Freedom? What in the world could be the use of that?

A Convenient Theory

One of the many comments to this blog directed our attention to an essay:

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/07/10/top_stories/doc4a576b0ec9caa441243158.txt

This is one of the best commentaries that I have ever read. Not only does the author demonstrate the irresponsibility of environmentalists who make unfounded predictions of doom, he exposes quite handily the snobbery and elitism of said environmentalists.

It has become clear to me that environmentalists, (at least the growing extremist fringe), hate capitalism. Why it is that they and liberals in general hold this view, given the irrefutable facts of history, is one of the great mysteries of our time. They want to turn back the clock and undue the advances of the modern world. They disguise there plans in a feigned concern for dangers to nature. They get monetary and moral support from some genuine environmentalists. However, to these radical environmentalist, who are actually not environmentalists at all, global warming is the latest and most convenient theory so far to help them with the destruction of capitalism, which is what they actually wanted all along. Thirty years ago, when they foretold the coming man-made ice age, their solution was the same: more and more limitations on industry. Doesn't this raise some suspicions? I guess if you're a mundane journalist with his marching orders who drank the conformist Cool-Aid, you're beyond help. God help us all.

Rude Awkening

I was awakened this morning to the voice of Robert Redford on my clock radio tuned to National Public Radio (NPR). That's the only radio that I generally have tuned to that station. It helps me get up in a hurry, in order to turn it off. Mr. Redford was saying that obviously we cannot trust a corporation to tell the truth about not polluting, and incidentally about not breaking the law. This seemed a self-evident truth to the speaker and the interviewer, Mr. Bob Edwards.

Mr. Redford made remarks regarding the arts, public broadcast, oil companies in Alaska, etc. Of course he did not understand why our government did not support the arts as other nations do. Instead, some people even try to cut off funds to public arts and broadcasting. He also described the environmental destruction that would occur with oil drilling in Alaska. Mr. Edwards took a compliant stance. He did not questioning anything that was said, regarding veracity, sources, or opposing views. He didn't opine that we needed to get oil somewhere. Whatever this peculiar type of interview was, it was not investigative journalism. It is characteristic to public radio.

Most radio talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh for example) refer to Mr. Redford and NPR, among others, as the Media/Hollywood Elite useful idiots. They are described as unbelievable naive, complete morons, hopelessly biased and indoctrinated, and illiterate regarding anything of substance. I cannot recall Mr. Limbaugh's more colorful phrases. I do know what I often hear from Hollywood stars and on NPR. I have also read about energy needs and Alaskan drilling. In the final analysis, if I had to choose between Redford's generalizations about corporations or Limbaugh's about Hollywood and NPR, I would pick Limbaugh's as the more supported by evidence.

Environmentalism is a Fake

I enjoy hiking, camping, running, photography, and other outdoor activities. I do not like seeing the natural world degraded. I pick up litter and do not leave any behind. Unfortunately, environmental organizations that I have respected in the past have not been honest and I now distrust any sort of environmentalism. They seem more intent on destructionism that preservation. The global Warming hoax is so outlandish that it at long last exposes them for what they are. Environmentalism is being used to advance socialistic type of control over the national economy. This will destroy the only thing about this country that separates us from the rest of the world: FREEDOM. Freedom is the only thing that I write about in this blog.

Ludwig von Mises: "Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." - Socialism

Regarding global warming there are many sources of scientific inquiry that attempt to explain and refute the warmist ideology. However, it is difficult to refute their theory because the theory has no definitive statement. How do you refute something that does not exist? Opponents almost have to develop their own theory and explain its flaws. Al Gore is a spokesperson for a theory that he says scientists agree upon. Show me the theory. Scientific theories are necessarily stated in mathematical terms that allow for no rhetorical tricks. It is what it is. Global warming theory seems to morph whenever it is attacked. Proponents claim that it exists in the ever expanding, ever improving black boxes of their computer models. That is like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain or the swindlers behind locked doors weaving the emperor’s non existent new clothes. I want a statement of the theory with numbers that can be checked and that are based upon empirical results, which can also be checked.

A good starting point to understand why manmade CO2 generated global warming is not scientifically plausible is:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html