Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

On the climate

An excellent precis.

Trying to calculate something called “global average temperature” from this massive variety of ever changing data covering diverse locations, elevations, times, and weather is an exercise in statistical sophistry – either meaningless or misleading.

“Climate” is just the notional 30-year average of weather, so climate is controlled by the same big three factors that drive weather.

Notice one thing about the three big drivers of weather: not one is measurably affected by the trace amount of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere.  Never does a daily weather forecast mention CO2, and never do weather-watching farmers or sailors note daily measurements of CO2.  However, there are over one hundred massive computerized climate-forecasting models run by bureaucracies that use CO2 as a key driver, with variable inputs and rules and differing results.  No one knows which model may have stumbled onto an accurate climate forecast.

CO2 is a rare (0.04%) colorless natural atmospheric gas.  It does not generate any heat – it just moves heat around.  In the atmosphere, it may slightly reduce the solar radiation that reaches the surface, thus producing cooler days, and it may slightly reduce nighttime radiative cooling, thus producing warmer nights.  The net effect is probably a tiny net warming at night, in winter, and in polar regions – all of which are probably welcomed by most people.  Even this tiny effect shrinks rapidly as CO2 levels rise.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the key nutrient of our carbon-based life on Earth.  It has always been there, usually much more of it than now.  It is nothing to be scared about.  If it increases, the net effects will be highly beneficial for all life on Earth.  It is time to stop the carbon dioxide scare stories.

Change is the natural order of things on Earth, and all records are destined to be equaled or broken.  From the first ray of morning sunshine to the frosts at midnight, temperature is always changing – every minute, every day, and every year, at every place on Earth.  The Earth keeps turning, the planets interact, asteroids come and go, and that big glowing pulsing nuclear reactor in the sky keeps moving toward the next phase of its turbulent and finite life.

No level of carbon taxes or emission targets will stop Earth’s climate from changing.  Nature rules, not politicians.  We must aim for resilience and be prepared to adapt.

There’s so much good, science-backed common sense here it was hard to decide when to stop excerpting. You’ll definitely want to read it all…and maybe even bookmark it for future reference, too.

The Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) scam was never really about Saving Gaia!!!™ from human depredation. In fact, it was never even about the climate, really. It was about the same old things that underlie every Leftist plaint: power, control, and expanding government’s reach. No more, no less.

Share

Wrong then, wrong now, wrong forever

Funny how no matter what the climate may be doing at any given time, the same old Doomsday clowns keep making the same old predictions and offering the same old solutions.

In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.

Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

Follows, a list of 13 of the most amusing shrieking freakouts, my favorite of which are these two anguished cris de coeur from eternal buffoon Paul Ehrlich:

  • “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  • “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich

Ehrlich is not only a loser and an idiot, of course. He’s also a complete asshole, too. Bottom line:

Paul Ehrlich’s entire career stands as a monument to the ideological imperatives of the world’s elites and the extent to which they exist not just independent from, but in actual opposition to, both science, evidence, reason, and good faith.

The very fact of Paul Ehrlich is an indictment of the bien pensant progressive order. 

He’s the pluperfect example of the pluperfect liberal: doubling down on stupid each and every chance they get…always with other peoples’ money, natch.

(Via Ed)

Update! Via WRSA, Watts Up has these plus a few more, all for your Earth Day enjoyment.

Share

More inconvenient truths

The sky, it turns out, is NOT falling.

For environment ideologues, The Donald has ensured destruction of the world by removing the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate accord. The key for global warming proponents is the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) content in air from 200 parts per million during the ice age to 400 parts per million in 2013. CO2 is a clear harmless odorless tasteless gas expelled by every human and also a product of burning fossil fuels.

In spite of a growing U.S. population, President Barack Obama pledged a reduction in CO2 production of 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which would have a minuscule effect on global CO2; require draconian enforcement measures; damage the U.S. economic structure; and accelerate the rise of China, the world’s most prolific producer of CO2. China only pledged to peak CO2 production by 2030 with no targeted reductions. It is China’s strategy to overtake the U.S. economically, militarily and politically.

From 1996 through 2015 global temperatures remained essentially flat, despite predictions of a rise by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Forecasts of rising sea levels have also failed to match reality. Melting Arctic sea ice does not increase liquid volume. Melting ice from land masses does increase global sea levels. About 90 percent of the world’s glacial ice is on Antarctica which shows no net decrease in ice cover. In a Kafkaesque setting, the entire world’s economy and standard of living is being threatened by a technically challenged political elite in a global hustle using IPCC models, which are grossly flawed.

The IPCC refutes any scientific findings that suggest that global warming is not exclusively due to increased CO2 production from the burning of fossil fuels. In reality, 99.98 percent of the total energy contribution to the earth’s climate originates from the sun.

Aw, nooooo: more of that logic, rationality, and obvious fucking truth that so unhinges the libtards whenever and wherever they encounter it, poor things. Read on for more; it’s as concise a takedown of the Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) scam as any I’ve seen.

Share

Trump looses blood-dimmed tide!

Alternate headline: “Trump murders world!” Or howzabout, most accurately: “Trump refuses to do further damage to American economy by keeping US committed to silly-assed, non-binding wealth-redistribution scheme that won’t do one damned thing about Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”), which we don’t have the ability to much affect anyway.”

Either way, the center cannot hold. Surely some revelation is at hand. The worst are damned sure full of passionate intensity, no denying that. Among other things.

The Paris climate accord is a largely symbolic gesture that even supporters acknowledge lacks enforcement mechanisms and, even if successful, will have a statistically insignificant impact on the climate.

Reuters reports that U.S. carbon emissions will fall over the next decade — regardless of whether America remains in COP21 treaty.

Nevertheless, the news that Trump is officially withdrawing America from the accord has brought on a level of hyperbole that is almost … anti-science in its sheer disproportionality.

Here are the 14 most unhinged reactions to Trump’s decision thus far. 

They’re all absolute classics of unhinged libtard hysteria, but this one might be my favorite:

10. Al Gore released a statement that included the bold claim that “Trump’s decision is profoundly in conflict with what the majority of Americans want from our president”—this despite the fact that as a candidate Trump repeatedly promised to do exactly this and won soundly in November.

Ahh, good old Albert “Arnold The Pig” Algore, otherwise known as “Frosty” Gore, the guy who could make it snow in the Sahara simply by showing up there.

Update! Schlichter, still on a roll:

It was an undeniably awesome week when measured by the only metric that truly matters, the amount of pain inflicted upon liberals. Now, we are not sadists; we don’t delight in watching liberals suffer because their suffering itself makes us happy (Okay, it makes us a little happy). Rather, liberals’ misery is an important teaching aid that might succeed in instructing them in the folly of their poisonous, ridiculous ideology, since reason doesn’t work. And they had better learn and change their dangerous course before we all end up here.

Also, some sanctimonious jerks who pretend to be conservative humiliated themselves again, and that’s always fun.

The big event was when President Trump did something that has caused the liberal elite and the conservative Wormtongue contingent to wet their collective Underoos. He chose democracy, science, and normal Americans over the elitist twits of the pagan climate cult.

Horrors! An American president choosing Pittsburgh over Paris – Oh, well, I never!

I’d be happy to just cut and paste the whole thing, but…well, just go read it. Trust me, you’ll be glad you did. It isn’t entirely about the Paris horseshit, but it’s close enough to be included as an update to this post, I think.

There are several columnists out there who, after their initial early NeverTrump resistance, have come around to see the writing on the wall at last. Hell, even Andrew Klavan finally has, or so it would seem:

But the problem is, a few dopey intellectuals and their absurd little notions can have outsized power: the power of the echo chamber, the power of fashionable acceptance, the power of creating the atmosphere within the Beltway Bubble. And while Republicans frequently strut and fret about their opposition to leftist malarkey, they just as frequently acquiesce to it in the event. Witness their inability to stem the disaster of Obamacare now that they finally have the chance.

Which is why this au revoir to Paris is so encouraging. By withdrawing from the accord, Trump proves he is not susceptible to the influence of the usual knuckleheads. He seems deaf to the echo chamber, indifferent to media acceptance, immune to the atmosphere. In fact, some of the very things that make Trump unappealing to gentle folk like me — his belligerence, his recklessness, his bullish and even bullying insistence on his own vision — are also what sometimes lift him above the Leftist Crazy that so addles the intelligentsia.

How important is that? Very.

Of course it is—in fact, it’s EVERYTHING—and I’m happy to commend Klavan’s long-overdue acknowledgment of it. But of all of the effete, over-serious NeverTrump panty-soakers, Schlichter was one of the very first to get it, and has gotten the most joy out of the New Reality. I’m glad for that. Not that Kurt was ever what I’d call a panty-soaker, mind; he always was a no-nonsense hardass, fully recognized the Leftist enemy and pulled no punches describing them as such, and has resumed vigorously applying both the flail and the rapier where they will do the most good. Which was why his early NeverTrump stance was so puzzling, and so annoying, at least to me.

Welcome back to the Dark Side, Kurt. And do stick around, Andrew; we’re gonna win this thing with or without ya, but I for one would be glad to have you with us again at last.

Share

Making science great again!

Actually, making science science again would have been enough.

All References to ‘Climate Change’ Deleted From White House Website at Noon Today

‘At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming.’

Okay, I think I just came in my pants a little.

Mo’ bettah update! Vox has the text of President Trump’s great inaugural speech here. So full of wonderful stuff there’s no point in excerpting. Just read all of it.

(Via Ed)

Share

How Progressivism got itself Trumped

Progress. In precisely the wrong direction.

It’s not just about the showerhead. The water pressure in our homes and apartments has been gradually getting worse for two decades, thanks to EPA mandates on state and local governments. This has meant that even with a good showerhead, the shower is not as good as it might be. It also means that less water is running through our pipes, causing lines to clog and homes to stink just slightly like the sewer. This problem is much more difficult to fix, especially because plumbers are forbidden by law from hacking your water pressure.

As for the heat of the water, the obsession over “safety” has led to regulations that the top temperature is preset on most water heaters, at 120 degrees Fahrenheit, which is only slightly hotter than the ideal temperature for growing yeast. Most are shipped at 110 degrees in order to stay safe with regulators. This is not going to get anything really clean; just the opposite. Water temperatures need to be 140 degrees to clean things. (Looking at the industry standard, 120 is the lowest-possible setting for cleaning but 170 degrees gives you the sure thing.)

The combination of poor pressure and lukewarm temperatures profoundly affects how well your dishwasher and washing machine work. Plus, these two machines have been severely regulated in how much energy they can consume and how much water they can use. Top-loading washing machines are a thing of the past, while dishwashers that grind up food and send it away are a relic. We are lucky now to pull out a glass without soap scum on it. As for clothing, what you are wearing is not clean by your grandmother’s standards.

But wait: what about the need to conserve water? Well, the Department of the Interiorsays that domestic water use, which includes even the water you use on your lawn and flower beds, constitutes a mere 2% of the total, so this unrelenting misery spread by government regulations makes hardly a dent in the whole.

In any case, what is the point of some vague sense of “conserving” when the whole purpose of modern appliances and indoor plumbing is to improve our lives and sanitation? (Free societies have a method for knowing how much of something to use or not use; it is called the signaling system of prices.)

But I haven’t even mentioned what might be the biggest factor in why our clothes aren’t clean and our dishes are dirty. The government forced soap manufacturers to remove from soap the thing that makes them work for these purposes: phosphates. Phosphates, used in soap from the middle ages until the 1980s, break down the soap after it has done its work and allow the water to wash it away along with the dirt and oil it scrubbed out of the clothes.

Now, soaps lack this crucial ingredient. In order to add it back in, you have to go to the paint section of the hardware store and buy it in a box (TSP, the real stuff, not the artificial kind). Add a quarter cup to your wash. You would be amazed at the difference it makes. Things actually get more-or-less clean.

So let’s put it all together: lukewarm water, low water pressure, low-energy appliances, water-conserving technologies, flow stoppers in showers, low-flow toilets, plus no phosphates in detergent. You have here a perfect recipe for a non-working home and a more miserable life, all courtesy of government regulations.

Add in that the government requires you to run pisswater gasoline in your car that not only destroys engines but also is more damaging to the environment than the old non-ethanol type (hey, remember when putting sugar in someone’s tank was a pretty heinous prank that you’d only ever do to someone you really, REALLY wanted to screw over? Now it’s mandated by the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned government; I’ll let you decide whether to consider that a prank), and what you have is a government NOT of, by and for the people, but an actual, literal adversary that must be dodged, evaded, or worked around every day of every American’s life just to get by.

No wonder they want to neuter or destroy the Second Amendment too.

And I gotta say this, too: the one real misstep Trump made in the campaign for the GOP nomination as far as I was concerned—leaving out the thousand or so phony ones the hapless media and NeverTrumpTards ginned up—was when he gave a truly pandering speech in Iowa extolling the nonexistent virtues of ethanol. It was the one moment of the whole campaign that I was actually proud of Ted Cruz, who gave a speech around the same time telling those corrupt corn farmers loving them some government mandates and subsidies that he hoped to do away with the ethanol requirement.

Cruz was right, and Trump was wrong, and there’s just no other way to parse it. President Trump is going to have a lot bigger and more pressing things on his plate than this, of course. But it is part and parcel of why a majority of the American people believe that DC is indeed a swamp in dire need of draining. Here’s hoping Trump will correct his position on it, and get around to rectifying this crime against the American people sooner or later.

Share

Bugs–ugh!

Good lord.

Vinnova, the Swedish government agency that distributes money for research and development, spending some 2.7 billion kronor (£230 million) a year has announced its latest tranche of funding for creating a greener, more sustainable future — by weaning Europe off meat. It is hoped people will want to eat a so-called “climate smart” diet instead, reports FriaTider.

Green activists and the United Nations are behind such political initiatives as ‘Meat Free Mondays’ — a gateway to full vegetarianism — which are based on the premise that meat consumption is driving man-made climate change. Another method to reduce that so-called burden on the earth is replacing meat protein with that harvested from insects instead.

To that end, Vinnova is awarding half a million kronor each to fifteen different projects across the country, each of which tasked with creating an “edible prototype” of a new food.

Among the mouth-watering projects being funded are an attempt to produce a “good and healthy product from mealworms which are fed on vegetable food scraps to become a climate friendly source of protein”, “food prototypes” made from “refined mealworms”, and mincemeat made out of “climate smart insects” such as crickets.

Other enticing offerings not involving insects include “climate-fungal protein”, a “healthy vegetarian barbecue” made from by-products” and “fibrous raw materials”, and a “blue cheese-like product” made from beans.

Ulp. We’ve always mocked liberals as soulless killjoys, but this is really kicking things up a notch.

Speaking on the reasons for launching the initiative in their press release, Vinnova explains that insect-based nourishment will reduce food miles by encouraging interest in food grown in Sweden.

Think so, do ya? Not at my house it won’t, I assure you. You could try “encouraging interest” in gargling diarrhea to save the planet too if you like, but it ain’t gonna fly either. Not even on tiny little insect wings, it won’t.

Maybe I shouldn’t be giving these lunatics any more bright ideas with that last, eh?

Share

A failure of vision

They’ve never been right yet. About anything.

To celebrate Earth Day, let’s review predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day celebration in 1970:

  1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
  2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
  3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
  4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
  5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…1975 some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

Always the same hysteria, always the same contrived sense of urgency (“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” from number 7 in the list), always the same “solution”: more government, less freedom; more socialism, less capitalism. Funny how that works, innit? Lots more here–and even this is only a drop in the bucket from the bottomless well of lies these transparent tools have drawn from to stampede us ever Leftward.

(Via Maet)

Share

The REAL problem

Hey, it’s not as if the American Left doesn’t have a lot of concern for people like the folks mentioned in the post below, and they know just what’s needed to fix the problem:

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

Which is why deceitful Marxist pusbags like our Pretend President continue to insist that it’s absolutely critical that we address this non-problem, even as the Middle East descends into general chaos, the American economy continues its slow death spiral, Europe refuses to defend itself against hostile invasion and guerilla-warfare insurgency, and the Republicrat Party continues to semi-clandestinely work for more illegal immigration…and the entire Pundit Sector, Republicrat and Demican alike, runs around screaming their empty heads off about the Horror of Trump.

(Via Sarah Hoyt)

Share

A small victory

We’ll take it.

A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama’s sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”

By issuing the temporary freeze, a 5-4 majority of the justices signaled that opponents made strong arguments against the rules. The high court’s four liberal justices said Tuesday they would have denied the request for delay.

You takes ’em where you finds ’em these days, folks. And any monkey thrown into the Obama wrench even temporarily ain’t a bad thing.

Share

When you’re right, you’re right redux

Take it to ’em, Ted.

On the issue of cronyism, there is one noticeable exception during this year’s campaign. In spite of what could be perceived as a political risk, one candidate has remained true to his opposition to (and his commitment to end) the terrible renewable-fuel standard, which requires blending ethanol and other biofuels into the gasoline supply, thereby driving food prices up and creating all sorts of distortions in the energy market: That’s Senator Ted Cruz.

Cruz has long been an opponent of the renewable fuel standard; he even sponsored a bill to repeal it in 2013. Since 2014 he has argued for phasing it out. He is sticking to his plan, which would end the standard by 2022. With the Iowa caucuses just weeks away, that’s brave.

I have to say that I admire Cruz’s consistency here. It is unusual in politicians and it’s important.

I have to say that I do too. When it comes to getting the sugary, engine-destroying pisswater that passes for gasoline these days out of the expensive vehicles on which most Americans rely, it can’t happen soon enough. I hope Ted keeps fighting the good fight, on this issue among others. It may seem a small thing, but it’s part and parcel of our larger problem.

Far from perfect update! And when Trump is wrong, he’s really, really wrong.

Share

Perspective

Predicting the future is dangerous and difficult business; even Heinlein, brilliant and foresighted as he was, got a lot of it wrong, and the Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) crowd has never gotten even one right. There’s a reason for that.

Michael Crichton — the brilliant novelist and thinker — posed this question in a speech at Caltech in 2003, re climate predictions for 2100. What environmental problems would men in 1900 have predicted for 2000? Where to get enough horses, and what to do with all the manure. “Horse pollution was bad in 1900,” said Crichton. How much worse would someone in 1900 expect it to “be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

“But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80 percent of its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan were getting more than 30 percent from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, Internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, Prozac, leotards, lap dancing, e-mail, tape recorders, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, Teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.

Now: you tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our [emissions] models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives it a moment’s thought knows it.”

In 1900, the John Kerrys of the world might have been talking about global horse-manure accords, but a few bright-eyed non-bureaucrats had an idea of the direction transport was moving: Thirty years earlier, an Austrian Jew named Siegfried Marcus had built a wooden cart that propelled itself with an internal-combustion engine: the very first car. (A directive from the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda in 1940 instructed German encyclopedias to amend their entries on the motorcar so that “not Siegfried Marcus, but the two German engineers Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz will in future be regarded as the creators of the automobile.” The lie stuck. But I digress.)

Read all of it–and, if you’re a libtard Watermelon, check your insufferable arrogance for once, secure in the knowledge that, as per Reagan, a lot of what you think you know is going to turn out to be not true. Again, I mean.

Via Bill, who has some thoughts of his own that are well worth a look:

My family was solidly middle class in those days – my dad an executive with the local power company – and we had a new car every other year.  Yet my mom did her own canning to save money, and the world of the post-WWII decade in which I was born and raised was a much bleaker, drabber, more pinched existence than what we would consider normal today, although at the time it seemed to consist of nothing but wonder upon wonder – huge, gleaming passenger airplanes (I used to go back and forth to boarding school on a train as late as 1963) – my “computer” was a slide rule, and a “cell phone” was something Dick Tracy, a cartoon character, wore on his wrist.

The key concept here is “exponential” increase.

It sure is. And it gets by the hidebound, stultified, ossified Left every single time.

Share

The end of the fossil-fuel affordable fresh food era

This quote annoyed me when I posted on the Paris “agreement” yesterday, but I didn’t mention it at the time. I’ma mention it now.

While attending the United Nations Climate Summit in Paris last week, Brown reportedly argued that the world should never underestimate “the coercive power of the central state” when promoting polices that satisfy the Left’s goals. And, no, he didn’t say it like it was a bad thing. Peppering his talk with pleasant euphemisms (it’s not coercion but “well-designed regulatory objectives that business then follows”), Brown stressed the importance of compelling people to make sound, progressive decisions.

I’m relatively sure Brown wouldn’t approve of correspondingly forceful governance in, say, Texas. But no one has ever accused zealots of being objective.

The Paris climate accord (a non-treaty), was celebrated as one of the most momentous events in history, a “turning point for the world,” Obama said. Slate optimistically claimed it was the “end of the fossil fuel era.”

Idiots like Obama and corruptocrat assholes like Al Gore keep saying that as if it was a good thing. Wonder how their mouthbreathing constituents in places like New York and Boston, say, are going to feel about paying fifty bucks a head for arugula–or simply never being able to get it again at all, at any price–when the trucks all stop rolling and it’s brought to market by horse and buggy or pedicab–or by electric vehicles that can’t make the Florida-to-NYC run in less than a month–instead?

Harsanyi goes on to ask an extremely silly question:

Which got me wondering: what coercive state power do Democrats believe would be a step too far in fighting climate change?

None at all, of course. The State never has too much power to suit them. In fact, it can never have enough, unless it starts banning surgical sexual mutilation of confused adolescents and the like.

Would liberals be willing to regulate the making of certain appliances and electronics if it meant slowing climate change? Would they be willing to ration electricity to each residence to help slow the spewing of carbon into the air? Would they be open to limiting the number of cars the average America family could own? Would they limit how many miles a citizen can fly every year? How about regulating the size of houses?

Of course they would–in fact, they’ve called for all of those things at one time or another already. As long as none of it applied to them, that is.

Climate change is a more precarious threat to humanity than terrorism. This has been repeatedly explained to me by the some of the brightest minds of our generation.

So, if developing nations — after we’ve paid them climate reparations — start building coal-powered plants that allow citizens to enjoy modern conveniences like affordable electricity, cars, and air conditioning, and ignore those theoretical strictures on emissions that they signed on to in Paris, shouldn’t the U.S. consider invading? Should we not, at the very least, bomb them into compliance, as we do ISIS? Or perhaps we should sanction them and destroy their economies as we tried to do with Iran and South Africa? If countries that shelter and fund terrorists fear lethal force from world powers, why would climate-change deniers and propagators be immune from retribution if their sins are, in the aggregate, even worse?

Well, now, see, that’s diff’runt. With that one, you’re running smack-dab into some of that brain-bending, logic-defying cognitive dissonance Progressivism is so rife with: on the one hand, you’re talking about defending a nation and a citizenry that doesn’t deserve defending. On the other, you’re talking about enforcing a Left-authoritarian edict by means they consider unpalatable, and inflicting hardship on Approved Victim Classes in the bargain. Better to just slam some more punitive restrictions on the Wealthiest One Percenters instead and leave the Little Brown People alone, even though that won’t achieve anything they say they want to see achieved. Better to hamper implementation of a single liberal shibboleth than see ALL the shibboleths brought crashing down by the crushing weight of their internal contradictions. Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) is all just a smokescreen for more communism anyway, so what the heck, they can let the Third World slide on it.

We can assume that most of the autocrats attending the climate summit (and the majority of our new world partners are autocrats) would agree with Brown’s ideological perspective. Whether we’re talking about theocrats, old-fashioned dictators, or communists, “the coercive power of the central state” is always the preferred way to streamline policy. The question is how many Democrats agree?

All of them; the number of Democrat Socialists who don’t agree with absolute Superstate tyranny is probably even smaller than that of “moderate” Mohammedans who disagree with sharia and jihad–ie, insignificant, and utterly irrelevant. But David, you say “theocrats, old-fashioned dictators, or communists” as if they’re somehow mutually exclusive, or even distinguishable at all these days. With what Progressivists have become, they’re synonyms.

Share

Talk talk talkity talk

Kabuki governance.

In the case of the United States, the evasiveness on this issue is almost comical: “The deal was carefully constructed to carry legal force but without requiring approval by the U.S. Congress — which would have almost certainly rejected it.” You can tell this is a report in a British newspaper, because they seem to have no idea that it is impossible for an international agreement to “carry legal force” in America without being ratified by the Senate. The Paris Agreement, in short, is just Barack Obama’s fantasy. It is not the law of the land.

Ah, but the agreement “set a high aspirational goal.” The key word is “aspirational,” which Slate’s Eric Holthaus, one of the boosters of the deal, takes up with gusto.

The negotiations seem to be taking a “build it and they will come” approach, hoping to signal urgency to the global private sector that the era of fossil fuels must end very soon, rather than command national-level emission reductions via international law, as previous climate talks have tried, and failed, to accomplish.

Get that? In place of actually commanding reductions by law, they are going to “signal urgency to the global private sector,” which will somehow solve the problem for them. This is what the article reporting Gore’s comment about the “end of the fossil fuel era” is all about: the expectation that the Paris Agreement will somehow pressure big corporations into “divesting” from fossil fuel assets and pouring huge amounts of money into wind and solar energy, which will then suddenly become practical.

Meanwhile, Russia is planning on oil at $40 a barrel — cheap and plentiful — for the foreseeable future.

Even Holthaus’s chirpy boosterism gives way to a note of realism at the end:

In order to achieve the newly bold temperature target that the Paris talks have rallied around, global carbon emissions must peak within the next five years — before the draft Paris agreement would even enter into force — and then rapidly decline thereafter. Wealthier countries with greater historical emissions — like the United States — would need to decline to near-zero emissions over the next 15 years, with the rest of the world following by midcentury.

Good luck with that.

As a global warming skeptic, who thinks it’s absurd that the entire world is supposed to get together to prevent relentlessly rising temperatures (that aren’t happening) and who considers the idea of an international political target for global temperatures at the end of the century to be a monument to the hubris of central planning, I’m not bothered that the Paris Agreement is empty symbolism.

But it makes me wonder: if all of these facts are acknowledged right there in their own articles, why are the agreement’s supporters bursting with triumphalism?

Because it massages all of Progressivism’s erogenous zones: it allows them to pretend that holding hearings and having meetings is equivalent to actually accomplishing something; it allows them to posture and preen and strut and reinforces their inflated sense of their own importance and value, which in the real world is just about nil; it allows them to puff up their sunken chests and crow about their supposed moral and intellectual superiority; it allows them to hold others to an impossible standard that they–in their private jets, limousines, and 40-car motorcades–have absolutely no intention of ever living up to themselves; it allows them to threaten business and industry, and to prattle openly in safety about communist redistribution of wealth among others of their vile ilk; it allows them to indulge their longtime dream of One World Government; it allows them to feel smug about the benevolence of their rule while requiring not a single sacrifice of any of them.

The only thing missing is some sort of gun-control proclamation; throw that in and they’d be orgasming in the Paris streets. And let’s not forget this little perk, too:

After all, the politicians have got to protect their phony-baloney jobs, which leads us to the other notable thing about the Paris Agreement. It contains an awful lot of provisions about further meetings and ceremonies and reports and the creation of a new Ad Hoc Working Group that will require a lot of staff. So all of them will meet and do this all over again every five years through the end of the century. So the really binding and effectual part of the agreement is the solidification of a vast, permanent, global warming bureaucracy that will still be eating expensive dinners in desirable foreign locales long after you and I are dead.

And every dime of it at the expense of their respective hapless taxpayers, who don’t believe a word of their tripe, know full well that Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) is a monstrous scam, and yet refuse to put an end to them.

For a liberal-fascist, what’s not to like?

Share

Governing against the will of the people: what it looks like

This.

What do you call it when elites fly their private jets to an international climate change conference to forge a deal with despots that caps American prosperity without our consent? You call it progressivism.

It’s estimated that around 50,000 carbon-spewing humans will be participating in the Paris climate conference this week. But while President Obama was taking his working dinner at the three-Michelin-star L’Ambroisie, public protests were banned in the aftermath of the Islamic terror attacks. Liberté, not so much. No one inside the confab seemed too disturbed.

It took a handful of gunmen only one night to impede free expression in Paris. Yet, according to the president, a massive and expensive effort to curb the 0.1 to 0.2 C of warming we might see over the next decade — the worst case scenario predicted by alarmists — is the most critical project facing mankind.

Why not? True believers are rarely dissuaded by reality.

They never are. But what better way for them to generate the panicked stampede that will allow them to glom more power for themselves and their cronies than through base deception and fearmongering–especially over a “crisis” of their own manufacture that amounts to no more than a natural cycle on an ever-changing planet? It dovetails perfectly with all their own natural tendencies and inclinations, especially those towards pompous self-importance, the trumping of logic by rampant and maudlin emotionalism, and sheer megalomania.

Share

A real crime

Billions for a phony “crisis,” but not one penny for a potentially all too real one.

Of course, the intelligence agencies and the military must be vigilant and do their best to head off an EMP attack by a hostile power. If a nuclear bomb is exploded in Manhattan and 2 million people are killed, there will still be 318 million people left in the U.S. with their productive capacity intact. But a successful EMP attack could put the entire country back in the 19th century for years.

An EMP attack requires both nuclear weapons and missiles to loft the weapon into near space. For that reason it is dangerous to allow our enemies to develop either missiles or nuclear weapons. It is extremely naive to suppose that our enemies lack ingenuity or to suppose that our intelligence agencies can effectively spy on them. It is also naive to suppose that we are well prepared for eventualities or that nothing will surprise us. The very fact that outside of the military we are totally undefended against an EMP attack is proof that our homeland security people are lethargic and not in the least bit alert to danger. That much of EMP technology is classified does not hide information from our enemies as much as it hides information from the Congress and the people, encouraging complacency.

The notion that nuclear weapons can only be acquired by establishing a vast industrial infrastructure to produce enriched uranium or plutonium is naive. The weapons can also be acquired from someone who has them or has access to them. The same considerations apply to missiles.

Yeah, somebody like, say, Obama’s bestest bosom chums in Iran, maybe? Nah, that can’t be right. Never mind.

Much is uncertain about an EMP attack. It might not be as bad as the worst case. It might turn out that our infrastructure is fairly resistant. We don’t know a lot because not enough testing has been done. We do know that relatively minor efforts at hardening could make a huge difference in national survival. Yet nothing is being done.

For some reason best explained by psychiatrists, we are spending vast sums, potentially trillions, to reduce CO2 emissions in order to protect ourselves from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Besides the fact that AGW is supported by the worst sort of junk science, even if you believe the junk science, reducing U.S. CO2 emissions will have practically no effect because CO2 emissions and growth in CO2 emissions is concentrated in Asia. To compound the craziness, vast sums are being spent on windmills and solar electricity, rather than nuclear power. Solar electricity suffers from not working at night and wind power has the problem that the wind isn’t always blowing. Nuclear power is the one type of CO2-free power that is scalable, reliable and technically mature. It is also resistant to EMP.

What is the threat poised by the imaginary global warming? According to the promoters, in 100 years it will be slightly warmer. Chicago will become as warm as St. Louis. Reality is that the Earth hasn’t warmed in 18 years and some experts think we may be on the verge of a cooling cycle. Predictions of AGW are based on computer models. The Earth is not following the computer models and vice versa.

This should scare everyone: “The Department of Energy has been charged with orchestrating the wholesale modernization of our nation’s electrical grid.”

It certainly should.

Share

Obama to subjects: pay up, serfs!

Your energy bills are necessarily going to skyrocket.

Obama is to fossil fuels what locusts are to crops.

The administration is coming up with Draconian regulations on coal plants Monday and they are worse than originally planned.

A government official promised on Tuesday that regulations will cost taxpayers as much as 80% more for electricity but the New York Times said the “administration argues that the rules will save the average American family $85 annually in electricity costs and bring additional health benefits.” You read that correctly.

This is the government engineered unFree Market at work. Read on.

We were promised a savings of $2500 a year in our health insurance premiums but they are skyrocketing. This energy debacle appears to be going down the same road. All of this is to control us. Coal is not bad enough to warrant this overreaction but the president wants his ideology in place.

The NY Times reports, “the most aggressive of the regulations requires the nation’s existing power plants to cut emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, an increase from the 30 percent target proposed in the draft regulation.”

They added, “That new rule also demands that power plants use more renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. While the proposed rule would have allowed states to lower emissions by transitioning from plants fired by coal to plants fired by natural gas, which produces about half the carbon pollution of coal, the final rule is intended to push electric utilities to invest more quickly in renewable sources, raising to 28 percent from 22 percent the share of generating capacity that would come from such sources.”

The administration could not get a cap and trade bill passed so the president took out his pen and phone and is putting through a cap and trade bill that will probably negatively impact the lives of the middle class Americans he purports to help. If the president wins in court, it will force every state to implement his cap and trade.

Leftist think tanks like ThinkProgress predict lower energy bills but that is not what Barack Obama promised in January 2008 they, like their Tin God, are liars.

Fixed that last bit for ya. But that promise from 2008, which is the quote I used to open the post, is in fact the truth of the matter, and a rare moment of real candor from the lyingest Leftist ever to dupe an electorate. As I said yesterday: they hate capitalism, fossil fuels, and human freedom so much that they’d prefer to see you starving and freezing in the dark than enjoying the benefits of those things. This they call “progress,” and you WILL by God get with the Progressivist program and do as they tell you…or else.

And all in service of a lie: there’s been no “global warming” for going on 20 years now, and if there was, it damned sure wouldn’t be due to CO2, which is neither a “pollutant” as closet commies like Obama claim nor the cause of any such phonus-balonus “warming.” Taken altogether, it’s almost a perfect storm of “liberal” deceit, manipulation, and fantasy, with costs that are going to be all too real–and downright catastrophic for the average American Joe footing the bills for this nonsense.

If only there was some way we could “thank” our God Emperor and his royal henchmen properly, eh?

(Via Bill)

Update! The bottom line:

Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is imposing the Clean Power Plan on all fifty states, requiring each state to close down coal-burning electric plants, and shift to other sources of electricity — natural gas burning plants, nuclear plants, solar and wind power generators — in order to reduce carbon emissions by one third. New York will be less affected because it gets almost all its electric power from nuclear, natural gas, and hydroelectric plants. But nationwide, about 40 percent of electric power is produced by coal plants. Forcing these utilities to close will burn consumers with higher electric bills. It will also send hundreds of thousands of jobs a year up in smoke, as employers pay more to operate their businesses, according to Heritage Foundation economists.

And for what? The purported benefit is to avoid an imperceptible 0.02 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures by the year 2100. That’s the official EPA estimate of the benefits of this Clean Air Plan. You must be kidding.

As I keep saying: don’t assume his motivations can be judged in accordance with the traditional American politician’s. He is a dedicated neo-Marxist One World Government guy, and he doesn’t give a single solitary damn about how his edicts may harm mere Americans. He’s advancing an agenda he considers to be much larger than us: he intends to bring our entire economy, and our very lives, under micro-managed government control. If it wasn’t for “carbon pollution” and “global warming,” you can be very sure he’d find another excuse for it–another crisis he wouldn’t dream of letting go to waste.

Share

“A grid where wind and renewables play a prominent role is an unreliable grid”

Why, it’s almost as if the Barrackorrhoids are doing it on purpose or something.

But nah, that can’t be it. Can it?

Wind power is a failure mainly because we lack the will to build a transmission infrastructure that can bring the electricity from places with high winds (like Wyoming) to other places where it is needed (the cities of California). Here is a web site that brings forward a well funded plan from billionaire Anschutz that has been dogged by ridiculous environmental barriers at every turn. If this was China that line would have been completed years ago; instead they are hundreds of millions of dollars into regulatory and environmental reviews that aren’t even related to actual technical or design challenges.

The US has benefitted immensely from the fall in natural gas prices caused by entrepreneurs who figured out fracking and revolutionized the industry. This wasn’t governmental research; it was done by the private sector. The success of fracking in the USA is also enabled by our property rights system – individuals have an incentive to allow drilling on their land because they can reap the rewards in terms of royalty payments; we are like Saudi Arabia except the riches don’t go to oligarchs and dictators, they go to the people that own the land as well as the companies that innovate and turn that gas and oil into something useful at the pump or heating your home. We also have a well developed infrastructure for gathering and transporting natural gas that was also built by the private sector which benefited from the de-regulation of the natural gas industry back in the 1980s.

Note also that coal plants are being added all around the world and incremental US coal usage is a “drop in the bucket”. The current administration is attempting to price coal out of all US markets through taxes and incentives which, in the end, will have only a minuscule impact on carbon world wide because of the massive expansion of coal power in China, India and even in Europe (which has seen a “coal renaissance” since nuclear is now often not viewed as a viable option and fracking hasn’t taken ahold there).

In another bitter irony, raising the price of electricity for negligible reductions in US carbon emissions (which will be more than offset by rising carbon use elsewhere, as noted above) will have a disproportionate impact on the poor.

They want us starving and freezing to death in the dark. This insistence on reverting to centuries-old (but politically correct!) technology to replace more efficient means of power generation to run a population-dense modern industrial society is what they’re pleased to refer to as “progress.” Bottom line?

We are very lucky that the plummeting price of US natural gas, which is a phenomenon of the private sector not of government, has given the USA a windfall on our energy policy that has so far at least partially made up for our idiotic policy mistakes.

Try as our political/bureaucratic masters might to kill it off, capitalism still seems to find a way–thank goodness.

(Via WRSA)

Share

News flash: WE’RE ALL DEAD!

Film at eleven?

Eight years ago, the much-maligned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an artifact of the UN, declared that mankind had only eight years to drastically reduce carbon emissions if it wanted to hold global temperature change to less than two degrees Celsius. Crossing the two degree threshold would, some experts said, unleash positive feedback mechanisms that would cause temperatures to careen out of control. Granted, the IPCC did not say that the world as we know it would end in May of 2015, merely that the race to save it would become hopeless if we did not take meaningful action to reduce carbon emissions.

In the meantime, we’ve increased them. China has led the way with its carbon-belching coal-fired power plants, while Japan and most European nations have failed to meet the goals they agreed to under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Just this month, atmospheric CO₂ levels hit a milestone of 400 parts per million. At this late hour, if you’re still cajoling the rest of us to live a spartan nineteenth century lifestyle for the sake of the planet, you probably hate science.

Dire predictions are the bread and butter of the climate alarmist community. In January of 2009, NASA scientist and climate zealot Dr. James Hansen predicted eco-doom just a little sooner. “We cannot afford to put off change any longer,” said Hansen. “We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”

Which hasn’t happened. As an odd twist of fate, America has reduced its carbon emissions, though only as an inadvertent byproduct of economic decline and stagnation, something President Obama would rather not take credit for. Actual legislation to combat climate change appears to be way down the list of his priorities, ranking behind healthcare and repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. President Obama has failed to shepherd a carbon tax plan through Congress, mostly because he hasn’t tried very hard.

James Hansen should therefore conclude that his hero has failed humanity through his inaction. Obama has not been a leader on reducing CO₂ emissions and now the window of opportunity has closed.

Yet some doubt lingers as to whether even James Hansen believes James Hansen. If he believes that it’s too late to do anything, why is he still talking?

Okay, I’ll bite: because he’s a Progtard religious zealot in love with the sound of his own voice and overawed by his own intellect, like all the rest of ’em? In sum:

When predictions miss the mark over and over again, prudent science-loving people recheck their calculations and revisit their assumptions to see what went wrong. But climate dogmatists have too often declared the science settled to admit any gaps in the theory. Consequently, the theory of global warming, or climate change, or whatever we’re calling it this week, need not provide any valid predictions. It can churn out one overblown horror story after another for nearly three decades and we’re all supposed to believe that the science is sound.

At some point the question must be asked if the forecasters of apocalyptic scenarios even believe them themselves. It seems that they don’t.

Nope. But they still expect the rest of us to, and to bow down before them and let them reshape our entire existences to fit their top-down, command-and-control, one-size-fits-all neoMarxism.

As John Ringo always says: use the boot, don’t piss on ’em.

(Via Maet and Erik)

Share

Playing God

Geoengineering: is there a downside?

Oh, yes. Milton Friedman famously noted that if you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand. Geoengineering would give the government control over the planet’s thermostat.

Consider an analogy: For the past hundred years, control over the money supply has been given to the Federal Reserve. Led by a group of experts in economics and business, the Federal Reserve is justified as a means of tempering the boom and bust cycle of the pre-central bank period. But the economy, it turns out, is really complicated, and nobody’s perfect, so occasionally the Fed makes mistakes that plunge the globe into a crippling depression.

Now imagine the equivalent of the Federal Reserve, but for global temperature. Maybe it would be based in Washington, DC (shudder); maybe at the United Nations (double shudder). No doubt, it would be staffed by the world’s most eminent experts who made it through the political vetting process. Yet one wrong move, one over-reaction or under-correction, and the planet could turn into a hothouse or be headed into a new ice age. That could be really bad. When the earth’s temperature dropped a couple of degrees during the “Little Ice Age,” this led to crop failures, wars, revolutions, and other nastiness that may have killed off upwards of a third of humanity.

And that’s not the worst-case scenario. Because there is no world government (thank God), setting a single target temperature for the planet would be very difficult. Some countries might prefer a warming world. Others might want it chilly. The resulting conflict could lead to a new Cold War (pun intended). Because geoengineering is so cheap, planet-changing programs are well within the reach of poorer nations and even some wealthy individuals. That’s a lot of chances to screw things up royally.

Are We All Going to Die?

Yes.

Well, THAT’S a relief, anyway.

Share

SCIENCE!

Wrong again.

Unless you’ve spent the last few weeks in solitary meditation on a remote island, you couldn’t miss the wave ofmedia stories breathlessly proclaiming that 2014 was the hottest year in recorded history. As usual, the coverage was laced with alarm about the menace posed by climate change, and with disapproval of skeptics who decline to join in the general panic.

Among those seizing on the news to make a political point was President Obama, who used his State of the Union address to voice disdain for those who don’t share his view. “I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists,” he scoffed. “Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But…I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities.”

Well, I’m also not a scientist. But I do know that what NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center actually reported was rather less categorical than what the news accounts — or the White House — might lead you to believe. As both government agencies made clear in their briefing materials, the likelihood that 2014 was the planet’s warmest year is far from a slam-dunk. Indeed, the probability that 2014 set a record is not 99 percent or 95 percent, but less than 50 percent. NOAA’s number-crunchers put the probability at 48 percent; NASA’s analysis came in at 38 percent. The agencies rationalize their attention-getting headline on the grounds that the probabilities were even lower for other candidates for the label of “hottest year in history.”

But other compilers of the standard global temperature datasets have been more circumspect. The report from the UK Met Office noted only that “2014 was one of the warmest years in a record dating back to 1850.” Given the size of the margin of error, it acknowledged, “It’s not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.” Similarly, the Berkeley Earth summary of its 2014 calculations explained that last year’s bottom line was statistically identical to other recent years. “Therefore,” it noted candidly, “it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.”

All of which reasonably leads to the conclusion not that the planet has been relentlessly warming, but that the warming trend that peaked at the end of the 1990s has neither resumed nor reversed. Global warming has more or less been on hold since the turn of the 21st century. That hiatus poses something of an inconvenient truth to those who believe that anthropogenic carbon-dioxide is the key driver of climate change, since CO2 emissions have continued without letup.

You don’t have to be a scientist to realize that climate is complicated and hard to get right.

Nope. But you do have to be a “liberal” to be simultaneously arrogant and ignorant enough to gloss right over the inevitable uncertainty about things which are simply too big for human minds to encompass and twist the meaning of scientific theorizing for use in advancing your same-old-same-old totalitarian/neo-Marxist agenda. And your hubris has to be damned near boundless to mock religious types in other contexts (excepting Moslems, natch) and natter obnoxiously on about Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) “Denialists” while elevating pseudo-science to a feeble mockery of religion itself.

Share

Rope: broke

Never once been right. Never will be wrong.

The broader environmental movement has had its share of similar problems, as the usual neo-Malthusians make the usual neo-Malthusian predictions — the most famous of which was the Simon-Ehrlich wager, in which environmentalist and Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich made a fool of himself by making dire predictions about the scarcity of basic commodities over the decade leading up to 1990. (He also said that he’d be unsurprised if the United Kingdom had ceased to exist by 2000. It’s still there.) Our first secretary of energy, James Schlesinger, predicted in the 1970s that we were on the verge of running out of oil and gas, with only a few decades’ worth remaining. He was wrong. In 2004, purported energy expert Paul Roberts wrote “Say Bye-Bye to Cheap Oil” in the Los Angeles Times, in which he stated as though it were uncontested fact that “the world’s surplus capacity is disappearing.” Oil prices currently are tanking. Newt Gingrich was mocked in 2012 for arguing that, with the right energy policies, gasoline prices might be driven down to $2.50. “Never gonna happen,” all the smart people said. Gas is currently under $2 in many places. The “peak oil” cultists have been predicting that demand for fossil fuels is about to exceed (or already has exceeded) production capacity for decades now. Ask the people sweating about prices of light sweet crude in Houston right now if that’s the case.

If you press the more sophisticated climate alarmists, they’ll generally stay away from even decade-or-two predictions. They have been burned before — those of us who grew up in the 1970s remember the panic about the “new ice age,” and the daft, lunatic plans for covering the Earth’s polar areas in coal soot in order to bring global temperatures up.

The Church of the Climate Apocalypse has therefore wisely decided to forgo its earlier habit of imitating UFO cults and moved up the ladder of respectability a step or two toward naïve biblical literalism, the Baptist youth-camp version of theology. You know what I’m talking about: If you point out to one of these DIY Bible scholars that, e.g., there are two different Gospel accounts of the death of Judas — one reporting that he hanged himself, the other reporting that he basically exploded like Mr. Creosote in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life — the answer you will get is: “The rope broke.”

Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”): is there anything it can’t do?

Never mind; don’t answer that.

Share

“Science,” settled: YOU’RE DOIN’ IT WRONG

About the only thing that’s truly settled is that what they’re doing ain’t science. I’ve said before that it’s religion, but I’m gonna stop doing that, because that really amounts to a slander of religion, at least some of which is honorable and groping for answers with sincerity and integrity…unlike these fraudulent hysteria-pimps.

You’ve heard the warnings: Global warming could doom humanity. Overpopulation and deforestation will destroy the planet. We’re going to run out of energy.

It isn’t happening right now, experts say, but it could happen in a few decades.

Yet, decades ago, experts warned that many catastrophes would happen now – by the year 2015. Yet they have not. FoxNews.com found five predictions that went astray.

And they’re merely–ahem–the tip of a very large and growing iceberg. They’ve never yet gotten one damned thing right–and besides that, there’s one other way in which they’re totally reliable:

Dr. John Holdren, who currently serves as the White House Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, made dire predictions about global warming in the 1980s.

Paul Ehrlich cites Holdren in his 1987 book “The Machinery of Nature”, noting that: “As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”

Holdren told FoxNews.com that he does not view that as a prediction.

“As accurately reflected in the quoted passage, my statement in the 1980s about potential impacts of climate change on food production by 2020 was not a ‘prediction’ or a ‘forecast.’ It was, precisely, a statement about what ‘is possible,’ ” he wrote in an email to FoxNews.com.

He added that new regulations are the best way to avoid catastrophe.

And there you are: the only way to avert their disaster-fantasies is, always and forever, to give them more power. Gee, what a coinkydink. Lucky we have them around to look out for us, eh?

(Via Insty)

Share

“Sometimes, it seems like we need to save science from its popularizers”

Mostly because what they’re peddling ain’t science, but religion. Or a thin Lefty substitute for it, anyway.

Now here’s the twist on this story. It turns out that Bill Nye is himself a “skeptic” challenging the established scientific consensus on another issue: genetically modified organisms. This is described as being “much to the dismay of the plant science community,” and the justification Nye gives is more than a little vague: “although you can know what happens to any individual species that you modify, you cannot be certain what will happen to the ecosystem.” So to the “consensus” that says GMOs are safe, he replies with a vague wave of the hand: who knows, maybe you’re wrong.

Apparently, when he does this, it’s “skepticism.” If you or I or Senator James Inhofe do it, it’s “denial.”

Somebody’s in a state of denial, I can tell you that.

It would be easy to complain that they just don’t make public advocates of science like they used to. But my own generation of scientific heroes had their own blind spots. Sagan pushed the dubious “nuclear winter” theory—as if an atomic war wasn’t horrific enough on its own and had to be embellished—and was responsible for helping to launch the global warming dogma. Isaac Asimov bought into the overpopulation hysteria, hook line and sinker, declaring in 1988 that it was going to “destroy it all” for mankind. Since then, the global population has risen roughly from five billion people to seven billion. The US population has grown from less than 240 million to more than 300 million. In both cases, the average person is wealthier, healthier, and better off than they were before. I find it particularly amusing that Asimov used the analogy of people sharing a crowded bathroom, given that the average house is larger than it used to be, with more bathrooms, while the average family size is smaller. So don’t worry. There’s plenty of room in the bathroom.

The old Malthusian notion that population is doomed to increase faster than our ability to find and exploit natural resources has long been refuted (see Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource), and one of those refutations was the spectacular fizzle of the “population bomb.”

The lesson here is not that science is worthless or that its popularizers are frauds. Even geniuses can make errors and go off the rails, particularly when a theory seductively reconfirms their existing political prejudices. The history of science is full of bogus ideas and quack remedies that seemed to be the best “science” had to offer at the time. The unique achievement of science has been its ability to correct itself. Every conclusion is subject to testing and independent confirmation—and it is open to being overthrown by any cantankerous skeptic who can put together the data to disprove it.

But this only happens when respected, famous figures—or some guy who’s been on TV a lot—don’t try to set themselves up as unquestionable authorities.

Well, yeah, sure–but how’s THAT gonna boost their boundless egos, keep the government grants rolling in, and advance their Leftist agenda?

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix