Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Of course it's all just a gravy-train political movement.
I mean, sure if we change our ways there is a slim chance we might end up with energy independence, preserved rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, clean air and healthy children.
But what if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
Worth noting I've worked in the petrochemical industry for 20yrs before the usual lefty guardian lentil insults fly.
I mean, sure if we change our ways there is a slim chance we might end up with energy independence, preserved rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, clean air and healthy children.
But what if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
Worth noting I've worked in the petrochemical industry for 20yrs before the usual lefty guardian lentil insults fly.
The EPA Command-and-control Climate 'Science'
Questioning global warming is no longer tolerated
After hearing Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy speak at this month’s annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society in Phoenix, Arizona, I realized that the United States is truly in a world of trouble from too much pollution - not the “carbon” kind, but the ideological kind.
Ms McCarthy’s presentation consisted of not only the typical derision of skeptics of man-made climate change and the distortion of climate reality, but included a rather delusional self-assessment. Early in her talk, as usual, Ms. McCarthy denigrated any challengers to the so-called settled science of anthropogenic global warming as akin to “flat earth” believers. She went on to claim that our biggest danger is in not taking action to stop an evident climate catastrophe.
Ms McCarthy declared that “science” is under attack as it has never been before and elaborated that there is an “all-out attack on science in D.C. right now.” Part of her solution is for scientists to be “more vocal,” supposedly to help her in the fight to save the planet. For her part, Ms McCarthy claimed that politics has “nothing zero” to do with her assessment of the science behind climate change. However, by all appearances, politics has everything to do with the issue. Much of her career has been closely tied to politics - apparently the kind aligned with statism - especially as an active state and federal bureaucrat.
Ms McCarthy’s position of authority and her enthusiastic personal commitment and demeanor demands our attention, or perhaps, even our subservience. Make no mistake, the Obama administration is practically a driving force in climate science at the present time. The feds set the tone and those who are still honestly unconvinced of a looming disaster (aka “deniers") will not be tolerated. On the other hand, a fountain of federal funding is flowing for projects to evaluate weather and climate data with respect to how it proves that humans are altering the atmosphere. The compliant expectation of continued global warming is still the modus operandi in the atmospheric science field, even though, in spite of confident climate outlooks and a slight increase of global average temperature in 2014, readings have essentially leveled off for more than a decade and a half.
Studies in heat-related stress are in, studies in cold-related stress are out, regardless of the fact that fatalities from cold snaps can beat fatalities from hot spells by a wide margin.
There are many experienced atmospheric science practitioners like myself who have a different perspective, represent no corporate interests and are not connected with fossil fuel industries (except to enjoy the comfortable benefits afforded by modern energy sources). In my deliberations with numerous environmental professionals, so many have expressed some doubt (most much doubt) that humans are largely responsible for long-term global climate change.
Yet, the marching orders from the president with his administration’s rhetoric and the new Climate Action Plan are to promote and finance dubious renewable energy and carbon sequestration projects while warring against purportedly evil, but reliable, abundant, cheap, poverty-alleviating, job-creating and job-sustaining fossil fuels. Mother Earth must be defended at all costs - her children, not so much.
Forget the ethereal nature of long-range global climate predictions. The administration seems to have found a solid, scary problem to hype, “solve,” and leave as a legacy. Besides, Ms. McCarthy reminded the meteorological society audience that President Obama has claimed “climate change is a moral issue.” Moral for sure, because unfortunately, if the administration’s command and control of climate science persists, in years to come we’ll discover too late that the legacy was one of expanding poverty, contracting liberty and misdirecting science.
Anthony Sardar (Consulting Meteorologist), ICECAP, 21 January 2015
Expanding poverty, contracting liberty, suborning science.
Questioning global warming is no longer tolerated
After hearing Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy speak at this month’s annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society in Phoenix, Arizona, I realized that the United States is truly in a world of trouble from too much pollution - not the “carbon” kind, but the ideological kind.
Ms McCarthy’s presentation consisted of not only the typical derision of skeptics of man-made climate change and the distortion of climate reality, but included a rather delusional self-assessment. Early in her talk, as usual, Ms. McCarthy denigrated any challengers to the so-called settled science of anthropogenic global warming as akin to “flat earth” believers. She went on to claim that our biggest danger is in not taking action to stop an evident climate catastrophe.
Ms McCarthy declared that “science” is under attack as it has never been before and elaborated that there is an “all-out attack on science in D.C. right now.” Part of her solution is for scientists to be “more vocal,” supposedly to help her in the fight to save the planet. For her part, Ms McCarthy claimed that politics has “nothing zero” to do with her assessment of the science behind climate change. However, by all appearances, politics has everything to do with the issue. Much of her career has been closely tied to politics - apparently the kind aligned with statism - especially as an active state and federal bureaucrat.
Ms McCarthy’s position of authority and her enthusiastic personal commitment and demeanor demands our attention, or perhaps, even our subservience. Make no mistake, the Obama administration is practically a driving force in climate science at the present time. The feds set the tone and those who are still honestly unconvinced of a looming disaster (aka “deniers") will not be tolerated. On the other hand, a fountain of federal funding is flowing for projects to evaluate weather and climate data with respect to how it proves that humans are altering the atmosphere. The compliant expectation of continued global warming is still the modus operandi in the atmospheric science field, even though, in spite of confident climate outlooks and a slight increase of global average temperature in 2014, readings have essentially leveled off for more than a decade and a half.
Studies in heat-related stress are in, studies in cold-related stress are out, regardless of the fact that fatalities from cold snaps can beat fatalities from hot spells by a wide margin.
There are many experienced atmospheric science practitioners like myself who have a different perspective, represent no corporate interests and are not connected with fossil fuel industries (except to enjoy the comfortable benefits afforded by modern energy sources). In my deliberations with numerous environmental professionals, so many have expressed some doubt (most much doubt) that humans are largely responsible for long-term global climate change.
Yet, the marching orders from the president with his administration’s rhetoric and the new Climate Action Plan are to promote and finance dubious renewable energy and carbon sequestration projects while warring against purportedly evil, but reliable, abundant, cheap, poverty-alleviating, job-creating and job-sustaining fossil fuels. Mother Earth must be defended at all costs - her children, not so much.
Forget the ethereal nature of long-range global climate predictions. The administration seems to have found a solid, scary problem to hype, “solve,” and leave as a legacy. Besides, Ms. McCarthy reminded the meteorological society audience that President Obama has claimed “climate change is a moral issue.” Moral for sure, because unfortunately, if the administration’s command and control of climate science persists, in years to come we’ll discover too late that the legacy was one of expanding poverty, contracting liberty and misdirecting science.
Anthony Sardar (Consulting Meteorologist), ICECAP, 21 January 2015
Expanding poverty, contracting liberty, suborning science.
TKF said:
I mean, sure if we change our ways there is a slim chance we might end up with energy independence, preserved rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, clean air and healthy children.
All of those things can be done without syphoning off taxpayer's cash to make wealthy people even wealthier. None of those things are prevented by the existence of CO2 emissions.
As Sherlock says: Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.
Jacobyte said:
TKF said:
I mean, sure if we change our ways there is a slim chance we might end up with energy independence, preserved rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, clean air and healthy children.
All of those things can be done without syphoning off taxpayer's cash to make wealthy people even wealthier. None of those things are prevented by the existence of CO2 emissions.
As Sherlock says: Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.
Will pointers be taken from the lunacy of the Green Party manifesto for example.
There is no imminent thermageddon. We need to change our ways to stop wasting money on renewables as a solution to the non-problem. As prhibitively expensive taxpayer-subsidised bit-part players, wind and solar have already done enough (damage).
As most of us knew and still know, renewables cannot overcome the itermittency problem and simply cannot work.
Intermittency Problem not solvable
Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’
turbobloke said:
The EPA Command-and-control Climate 'Science'
Questioning global warming is no longer tolerated
Anthony Sardar (Consulting Meteorologist), ICECAP, 21 January 2015
Expanding poverty, contracting liberty, suborning science.
That seems to perfectly summarise the way the politics of this subject have developed over the past 30 years.Questioning global warming is no longer tolerated
Anthony Sardar (Consulting Meteorologist), ICECAP, 21 January 2015
Expanding poverty, contracting liberty, suborning science.
Why is it that when politicians know that no one trusts them (and rightly so) they expect to push this agenda on the basis that they should be trusted?
Vanity projects I would suggest. Something that can be held up as a major part of their "record" for at least the rest of their lifetime.
America and Europe leading the way ... may be utterly irrelevant of course.
If this apparently respected US Investor is right in 50 years or less from now Asia will be dominant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2...
The interview is about Finance so there are no specific comments about Climate Change but there are implications that "the West" is relatively rapidly losing its clout in many areas. In the final analysis whatever "planet saving" policies vain politicians may dream up without having any understanding of how their regulations might affect anything they are not in control of events.
If Rogers is right (or even if he is just not entirely wrong ...) the attempts of Europe and Obama to steamroller legislation through Western Politics are likely to be totally meaningless.
=
"Politicians, he says, could in theory reverse the decline of the US and Europe by ‘cutting spending with a chainsaw, cutting taxes, cutting regulation. If you ran on that ticket, you might win, but after a year or two you would be assassinated. You should move to Asia. Teach your kids Chinese.’
Rogers has done exactly that. He and Parker moved from New York in 2007 to live in Singapore – not China, because it is ‘too filthy and polluted’ – so that their daughters would learn Mandarin and be immersed in the culture."
A toe hold in Asia - but no Mandarin, or Cantonese.
Just heard about some climate event in 7 continents (?) at 'global cities' on 18 June via local radio. Easter eggs only just getting the full monty. Ramping of The Cause continues and Gore's snout is still in the trough it would seem.
Just heard about some climate event in 7 continents (?) at 'global cities' on 18 June via local radio. Easter eggs only just getting the full monty. Ramping of The Cause continues and Gore's snout is still in the trough it would seem.
turbobloke said:
Agreed but what does 'change our ways' mean? It sounds authoritarian if not totalitarian and who will tell us what to change?!
Will pointers be taken from the lunacy of the Green Party manifesto for example.
There is no imminent thermageddon. We need to change our ways to stop wasting money on renewables as a solution to the non-problem. As prhibitively expensive taxpayer-subsidised bit-part players, wind and solar have already done enough (damage).
As most of us knew and still know, renewables cannot overcome the itermittency problem and simply cannot work.
Intermittency Problem not solvable
Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’
That second link is to your desktop TB, that ain't never gonna work.Will pointers be taken from the lunacy of the Green Party manifesto for example.
There is no imminent thermageddon. We need to change our ways to stop wasting money on renewables as a solution to the non-problem. As prhibitively expensive taxpayer-subsidised bit-part players, wind and solar have already done enough (damage).
As most of us knew and still know, renewables cannot overcome the itermittency problem and simply cannot work.
Intermittency Problem not solvable
Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’
TKF said:
Shame there were no internet forums around when people categorically denied the earth was round.
Aye, flat earth, complete with huge consensus.You might find this of interest, sir...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
LongQ said:
Right, back to the 2015 Political Drive to con everyone into making Gore richer and paying more taxes.
This always reminds me of Fat Albert...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1hqfC0l5Pg
SOUND NOT SAFE FOR WORK
I've just seen on www.steyonline.com that he's budgetting $9 million for the lawsuit against Mann. I hope he's joking but I don't think he is - it's going to drag on for years (which is arguably what Mann wants).
Expensive business, challenging soothsayers.
Expensive business, challenging soothsayers.
The Don of Croy said:
I've just seen on www.steyonline.com
Stop trying to confuse me, I can do that perfectly well myself...mybrainhurts said:
The Don of Croy said:
I've just seen on www.steyonline.com
Stop trying to confuse me, I can do that perfectly well myself...TKF said:
Of course it's all just a gravy-train political movement.
I mean, sure if we change our ways there is a slim chance we might end up with energy independence, preserved rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, clean air and healthy children.
But what if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
Worth noting I've worked in the petrochemical industry for 20yrs before the usual lefty guardian lentil insults fly.
If reducing carbon emissions was the sole objective Reverend Blair could and should have instigated an immediate crash programme to build a dozen nuclear power stations and reconstitute UKAEA's research and development labs after getting home from Kyoto in '97. He didn't do that, he vigorously pursued the window dressing of windmills and solar panels while swallowing whole the hogwash of carbon trading. I conclude from this that either a) Blair is a lot dumber than he appears to be and he actually believed these footling measures would achieve anything beyond punishing industry and raising energy prices or b) he knew it didn't matter a fig, but was cynical enough to use it as an excuse for gouging some tax out of UK PLC while paying lip service to the green blob.I mean, sure if we change our ways there is a slim chance we might end up with energy independence, preserved rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, clean air and healthy children.
But what if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
Worth noting I've worked in the petrochemical industry for 20yrs before the usual lefty guardian lentil insults fly.
hidetheelephants said:
TKF said:
Of course it's all just a gravy-train political movement.
I mean, sure if we change our ways there is a slim chance we might end up with energy independence, preserved rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, clean air and healthy children.
But what if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
Worth noting I've worked in the petrochemical industry for 20yrs before the usual lefty guardian lentil insults fly.
If reducing carbon emissions was the sole objective Reverend Blair could and should have instigated an immediate crash programme to build a dozen nuclear power stations and reconstitute UKAEA's research and development labs after getting home from Kyoto in '97. He didn't do that, he vigorously pursued the window dressing of windmills and solar panels while swallowing whole the hogwash of carbon trading. I conclude from this that either a) Blair is a lot dumber than he appears to be and he actually believed these footling measures would achieve anything beyond punishing industry and raising energy prices or b) he knew it didn't matter a fig, but was cynical enough to use it as an excuse for gouging some tax out of UK PLC while paying lip service to the green blob.I mean, sure if we change our ways there is a slim chance we might end up with energy independence, preserved rainforests, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water, clean air and healthy children.
But what if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?
Worth noting I've worked in the petrochemical industry for 20yrs before the usual lefty guardian lentil insults fly.
mybrainhurts said:
perdu said:
Got to admit I prefer my deniers in stockings but tights works too
You've been getting all hot and bothered about that for years, haven't you? I can tell...
It has been one of many interests to keep an old man quietly ticking over
(thinks: must remind Mr Zarse that is another fine keyboard he owes me. Kitty litter man)
Prof Lindzen Dismisses Silly Cults
An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs. During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage. Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”
But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree. Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”
“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”
Last week, after scoffing at Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a Senate vote on global warming, Lindzen was subjected to another barrage of diatribes. At his listed MIT phone number, Prof. Lindzen received a typical anonymous call: “I think people like you should actually be in jail,” the male caller told him, “because you must know where this is all leading now… the people you support and take your money from to make these outrageously anti-human comments (also ‘know’)… In other words, you’re a sociopath!”
Lindzen chuckled when the voicemail was replayed.
This writer asked him if, as has been alleged in some of the warmist blogs, he is taking money from the energy industry. “Oh, it would be great!” he said with a laugh. “You have all these people, the Gores and so on, making hundreds of millions of dollars on this, Exxon Mobil giving $100 million to Stanford for people who are working on promoting this hysteria. The notion that the fossil-fuel industry cares – they don’t. As long as they can pass the costs on to you, it’s a new profit center.”
Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”
“They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’” As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”
“Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.” The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance.
“Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”
Howie Carr, Boston MA, 21 January 2015
An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs. During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage. Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.”
But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree. Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”
“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”
Last week, after scoffing at Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a Senate vote on global warming, Lindzen was subjected to another barrage of diatribes. At his listed MIT phone number, Prof. Lindzen received a typical anonymous call: “I think people like you should actually be in jail,” the male caller told him, “because you must know where this is all leading now… the people you support and take your money from to make these outrageously anti-human comments (also ‘know’)… In other words, you’re a sociopath!”
Lindzen chuckled when the voicemail was replayed.
This writer asked him if, as has been alleged in some of the warmist blogs, he is taking money from the energy industry. “Oh, it would be great!” he said with a laugh. “You have all these people, the Gores and so on, making hundreds of millions of dollars on this, Exxon Mobil giving $100 million to Stanford for people who are working on promoting this hysteria. The notion that the fossil-fuel industry cares – they don’t. As long as they can pass the costs on to you, it’s a new profit center.”
Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.”
“They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’” As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”
“Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.” The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance.
“Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”
Howie Carr, Boston MA, 21 January 2015
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 23 January 10:00
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff