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

The illusion of debate

Adams makes the case that the climate change debate is way off track:

Rex is talking about climate models that predict the future. Chelsea is talking about the scientific method. Those two things are not the same topic. Scientists would not claim that their models are “science.” They are simply tools that scientists built. Rex is talking about tools. Chelsea is talking about the scientific method. You can’t reach agreement if you aren’t even on the same topic.
Chelsea’s tweet exchange is representative of the debate illusion around the country. It goes like this:

Believer: Climate scientists are correct because the scientific method is reliable over time, thanks to peer review. The experts are overwhelmingly on the same side.

Skeptic: The prediction models are not credible because prediction models with that much complexity are rarely correct.

Believer: You troglodyte! You know nothing of science! The scientific method is credible!

See what happened? The believer was discussing science and the skeptic was NOT discussing science. These are different conversations. The prediction models are designed by scientists, but they are not “science” per se, any more than a microscope is “science.” Both are just tools that scientists use.

If you are a climate skeptic, and you want to make your case in the strongest possible way, start by agreeing with all of the “science” of climate science. Make sure you specify that your skepticism is outside the scientific realm, and limited to the prediction models that are not science.

That will explode some heads. (I’ve tested this.)

I should pause here to tell any new readers of this blog that I don’t know the truth about climate science, and I don’t have any way of knowing whether the models are accurate or not. My interest in this debate is to get both sides out of their illusions. The science is not the models, and the models are not science. You can trust the science and still question the prediction models without being a troglodyte.

For the sake of completeness, some skeptics also point to alternative hypotheses for warming, including orbital variations and solar flares. That is a genuine case of science versus science. And at the moment, the scientific community has a strong preference for the Co2 explanation.

Now that I’ve outlined the illusion, watch how often you see it play out. It’s the sort of thing you don’t notice until you are first alerted to it. Now you’ll start to notice how often the Chelseas of the world conflate the science of climate change with the prediction models as if they have similar credibility.

The models are bunk; they’re based on necessarily incomplete knowledge about an ecosphere which we only have the merest rudiments of grasping, the entirety of which is currently far beyond our reach. We don’t have anything like complete knowledge of how it functions, how each part influences the whole, and we maybe never will; ergo, the models will always leave data out that will turn out to have impact in ways we simply cannot understand.

Worse, the Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) community of “scientists” has betrayed the principles of true science in two ways, both important but one of which fundamentally undermines their credibility almost completely. For one, they’re heavily politicized, and dependent on government funding for their research and salaries. Since the evident aims of the Global Warmening crowd are at base political—their solution to both global warming AND global cooling has always been the exact same thing: more redistribution of wealth and government control of the economy—rather than simply establishing observable and verifiable facts about the level of human influence, if any, on our planetary ecology…well, I shouldn’t have to draw anybody a picture of the reliability of their conclusions and the “research” supporting it.

The description of them as “watermelons” (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) remains as apt as ever.

Worse, though, is the fact that skepticism and open debate is the very foundation of the scientific method; when anybody tells you “the science is settled”—a means not of furthering debate, but of suppressing it—you can be sure right away that they’re not talking about or even interested in science at all. True science is hardly ever entirely settled; skepticism before all the facts are in is not only healthy, it’s vital. Plenty of “settled” science has been tossed out by further experimentation encompassing more recent and complete knowledge, previously nonexistent methods and equipment, and such-like.

It amuses the hell out of me when these people sniffily talk about our sure knowledge that the earth is not in fact flat as some sort of support for their argument; back when that debate was being conducted, they would have been firmly on the side of those who claimed it was flat. The science to that point was indeed “settled”; those who argued against it were derided as crackpots and lunatics. It was only after direct observation and confirmation by experimentation that our knowledge about the nature of the globe was confirmed. Unexpectedly, for most people, including the overwhelming majority of that era’s scientific community—not that THAT has an at-all-familiar ring to it.

And we have no such confirmation of man-made global warming, cooling, what the hell ever, now. All we really have are computer simulations that are based on incomplete data; a hatful of past predictions about future weather patterns that have turned out to be wrong every single time; and current predictions that are conveniently centuries—even millennia—off, and therefore by nature nothing more than wild-ass speculation, at best only half-educated guesses presenting no real risk of humiliating debunking to those making them, since they’ll all have long since become worm food.

In the shoolkid legend of Christopher Columbus (which isn’t exactly accurate, by the way; Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, and the longstanding use of celestial navigation all argue against it), he risked not just his belief in a spherical planet and the possible loss of prestige and position should he be wrong; he put his very life on the line proving it. That would make him not just a far more honorable man than our present-day Flat Earthers; it makes him way more of a scientist than they’ll ever be, too.

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

SCIENCE!

The real thing, I mean: based on observed, verifiable data gathered in an impartial fashion to reach a conclusion that either supports or rejects a reasonable hypothesis. Not the AGW religious-cult variety, which is falsified data ginned up to support a pre-ordained conclusion for the purpose of advancing a proto-Marxist political agenda.

The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now steepened up since then based on the latest data collated by Professor Humlum of the University of Oslo.

As Figure 1 show, North Atlantic heat content peaked in 2004. The decline since the peak has been steeper than the rise. What would be the reason for 2004 being the peak year? Part of the answer may be that 2004 was the second peak of Solar Cycle 23 with a big increase in the proton flux. Another part of the answer may be that there was a big fall in the Ap Index in 2005 down to solar minimum-like levels followed, a couple of years later, by a discontinuity as the level fell through the floor of the established minimum level of activity.

This is data from the main part of the North Atlantic Current. The average temperature has fallen 1.0°C from 2006 to 2016. That is a trend of 1.0°C per decade but with 60% of the cooling in the last two years. Europe’s climate has responded with snow down to 2,000 metres in August in Germany this year. And how much lower can the North Atlantic temperature go? The lowest point on Figure 1 was in 1973 during the 1970s cooling period and corresponds to a fall of a further 1.5°C. At the decadal trend since 2016, we would get there in 2031. At the trend of the last two years, we would get there in 2021. That is supported by what is happening to solar activity. Over those last two years the F10.7 flux has been in a steep downtrend…

Figure 5 shows that the F10.7 flux is in a steep, orderly downtrend that will take it to the immutable floor of 64 about three years before solar minimum is due. After that comes Solar Cycle 25. Back in 2003, esteemed solar physicists Ken Schatten and Kent Tobiska warned that:

“The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”

They got the decline of Solar Cycle 24 right and the North Atlantic cooled in response. If they get the “Maunder” part of their prediction correct too, then it will be some years before North Atlantic cooling bottoms out.

And that “bottom” will be mighty chilly indeed, if the Little Ice Age is any indication. One thing, and only one thing, is certain: we’ll find out in due course. And no amount of growth in government will do the slightest thing to change the outcome, despite the forked-tongued blandishments of AGW cultists and others for whom more government power is the “solution” to every problem.

(Via Insty)

Share

Bring it on!

After the air conditioning woes all this week—still unresolved; it’s currently 84 in here as I type this—this is sounding really good to me. No, I am in no way kidding around.

Make the most of this summer because it could be your last decent one: winter is coming as the planet enters the most devastating cooling period since the 65-year Maunder Minimum of the 17th and early 18th centuries.

This is the dire forecast of Professor Valentina Zharkova, a solar physicist at Northumbria University, who has based her prediction on sun spot activity – known to be a significant driver of global climate – which is currently very low and likely to get even lower during the next three solar cycles.

She has spoken about her research and her battle to get it taken seriously by the climate establishment in an interview with the Global Warming Policy Forum.

Well, that’s just ridiculous. What the hell kind of Right Wingnutzzz!™ crackpot would believe the sun has anything whatever to do with Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”)?

The Maunder Minimum occurred during the depths of the Little Ice Age, a period of feeble summers and bitingly cold winters, war, pestilence and famine. It wasn’t all bad: rivers like the Thames in London froze so thickly they could accommodate Ice Fairs; and it’s said that the slow tree growth induced by the cold gave the wood in Stradivarius violins their special timbre. On the whole, though, a descent into a new mini Ice Age would be massively debilitating both to the global economy and people’s living standards. Since the Little Ice Age ended in the middle of the Nineteenth century, we have all got used to the comforts and agricultural advantages (such as being able to grow wheat in more northerly latitudes) of living through a period of global warming. A second Little Ice Age will come as a very nasty shock.

That shock will be felt most especially by the world’s climate alarmist Establishment, whose scientists and learned institutions have staked their reputation on the idea that CO2, not solar activity, is the prime driver of climate and that the planet is on a warming trend not a cooling one.

Oh, they’ll just turn on a dime like they did after the Global Cooling panic in the 70s, and propose the exact same “solution” for it that they did for the AGW scam, which happens to be the same solution they propose for absolutely everything, no matter what: more government, less freedom. Count on it; far from feeling any shock at all, they’ll continue on just as they always have. And they’ll go right on shamelessly acting as if they have the slightest shred of credibility with anyone not a card-carrying commie like they are, Red in tooth and claw. No way will they give up that easy; that would require a sense of shame, and there’s never been any credible evidence that they have any of that at all. As I said: count on it. It’s the one sure thing in all of this, and the safest bet there ever was.

(Via Bill)

Share

First thing we do…

Steyn slogs on.

More fool me. This sclerotic court system can’t expedite nuttin’. The case has now been stalled for two years in an interlocutory appeal. If you don’t know what an “interlocutory appeal” is, consider yourself lucky. If you do know, you’ll be thrilled to learn that one of the questions at the heart of this interlocutory appeal is whether, under the relevant DC law, the interlocutory appeal is even interlocutorily appealable at all. Fascinating! Adding to the fun, as I noted in my recent testimony to the US Senate, one of the judges hearing the interlocutory appeal, Vanessa Ruiz, takes up to three years to issue an opinion.

In most court systems, that would get a judge removed. But not in the District of Columbia.

No free man should be expected to languish at a court’s convenience as the decade rolls by, so my attorneys have now filed a renewed request to the trial judge, Frederick Weisberg, to get the hell on with it – or, in legalese, a “Renewed Request for Expedited Hearing and to Lift Stay of Discovery”. In it we remind His Honor of his words way back when:

There has been too much procedural delay already in this case.

That was April 2014, since when there have been another two years and two months of procedural delay.

When it takes three years to get an interlocutory opinion, the issue is the court’s credibility. My legal chums at Popehat and the Volokh Conspiracy seem to think that, when I gripe about the dysfunctional DC courts, I’m somehow showing disrespect for the justice system. Au contraire, it’s because of my profound respect for justice that I would like this bizarre perversion thereof to return itself to the community of functioning Common Law jurisdictions. (While we’re at it, this judge in the Trump University case seems all too typical.)

Ah, but our “justice” system has precious little at all to do with justice, and it’s working as intended here: this column is the first peep we’ve heard from Steyn in a week, whereas before becoming ensnared in the Amerikan “justice” system he was able to manage two regular columns a week, a few books, and daily posts at the Corner as well. In other words, Mann and our failed court system has managed to effectively shut Steyn down, de facto suppressing his right to freedom of expression for the duration, without ever having to see a single thing actually adjudicated.

The “right” to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of your peers is just another one that no longer exists in the FUSA. If you don’t believe it, just ask Steyn. This is what I mean by “the liberal way of war,” and it’s of a piece with the rest of their nefarious tactics: sneaky, underhanded, dishonest, impenetrably opaque…and damned effective.

Share

Fear, fire, foes, awake!

The Scouring of the Shire: first up, Glenn posts a USA Today column wherein he calls out liberal AG’s for using the power of government to enforce Goodthink and punish Badthink on Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”):

Not everyone believes that the planet is warming; not everyone who thinks that it is warming agrees on how much; not everyone who thinks that it is warming even believes that laws or regulation can make a difference. Yet the goal of these state attorneys general seems to be to treat disagreement as something more or less criminal. That’s wrong. As the Supreme Court wrote in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”

Yet prescribing such orthodoxy seems to be just what they have in mind. Their approach is — and I use this term quite deliberately — thoroughly un-American. In pursuing this action, they are betraying their oaths of office, abusing their powers and behaving unethically as attorneys.

Of course, they’re by no means alone in those offenses–by which I really mean crimes. But pessimistic and cynical as you know me to be about such things, it’s still barely possible that there might be a ray of hope:

From the comments:

These AG should be met with howling crowds whenever they show their faces. The people and businesses that give them political contributions should get the same treatment. They and their supporters should be publicly shamed at every opportunity. These are the tactics that the left uses and they should receive them in return tenfold.

Plus: “Howling crowds should bring their friends ‘Tar’ and ‘Feathers’.” Yeah, we’re moving right down the Pauline Maier spectrum.

By which he means this:

In this classic account of the American revolution, Pauline Maier traces the step-by-step process through which the extra-legal institutions of the colonial resistance movement assumed authority from the British. She follows the American Whigs as they moved by stages from the organized resistance of the Stamp Act crisis of 1765 through the non-importation associations of the late 1760s to the collapse of royal government after 1773, the implication of the king in a conspiracy against American liberties, and the consequent Declaration of Independence. Professor Maier’s great achievement is to explain how Americans came to contemplate and establish their independence, guided by principle, reason, and experience.

Which brings us to this, perhaps the Comment of the Decade, offered on another topic entirely but still perfectly germane:

All the talk about bathrooms misses their point.

Every knee must be made to bend.
It’s not about the knee.
It’s not about the bending.
It’s always about the making.

Church Ladies off their meds.

Which brings us to the real question, the seemingly eternal question: just how fed up are we with liberal-fascist tyranny, anyway? Enough? Or not quite yet?

Update! More on the AGW issue specifically, from Zman:

Even if we assume anthropogenic global warming is a real thing, an assumption that is increasingly dubious, “solving” it is an engineering problem, not a moral one.  To be a moral problem makes assumptions about the future that are matters of preference, not moral certainty. The Mesozoic Era was much warmer than today, with little difference between winters and summers on most of the earth. The planet was teaming with life, including the dinosaurs. Life, including humans, may flourish in the balmy future.

The science is not the point, of course. This is a crusade for guys like Gore and the others in the New Religion. The point of the crusade is to fail, which is inevitable with something like climate change. There is no “perfect” climate or even a correct range. Climate is by definition a dynamic thing.  No matter what happens to temperature data, the weather and government policy, the global warming cult will be out on the streets, banging their pots and pans, telling us to repent. For these people, we are always eco-sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia.

Even weirder, they have no intention of actually suffering for their faith. Instead, they want to make you suffer. Al Gore can buy “green credits” like indulgences because he is worth close to a billion. That means he gets to live like a royal, enjoying your suffering as you try to work the new gas can. His mansion is lit up like Versailles, while you squint in the florescent haze of your eco-friendly CFL. It’s suffering by proxy, where they sacrifice their time to watch you suffer as a result of their policies.

What strikes me about it is the utter pointlessness of it.

Oh, there’s a point all right. It’s about the Making. It always is.

Share

A passing thought

Know what I find highly amusing? Lots of people argue that Trump’s proposal to deport illegals and build a wall on the southern border–forcing Mexico to “pay for it” by cutting off money transfers from illegal aliens back home–is simply absurd. Impossible, they say. Can’t be done, they splutter. Madness, they fume.

In other words, a US president and the entirety of the almighty federal Leviathan simply lacks the power or ability to secure a national border. Not even all of ’em, just the one.

Yet many of these same people also argue, sometimes even in the next breath, that we simply MUST “fix” climate change. And that–si si puede!–we can.

The eternal condition of the climate of an entire planet, a climate whose only constant has been change ever since there has even BEEN a climate, is completely under the control of us puny humans. A national border, though–a minuscule fraction of the land area of that same planet–is simply beyond our ability to influence.

Yeah. Right. Why, it’s almost as if they’re not arguing in good faith and have some sort of hidden ulterior motive or something.

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

“Green Doomsayers Were Dead Wrong on Oil”

When have they ever been right? About anything? But it’s helpful to remember that it’s not so much that the Watermelons are wrong, exactly; it’s that they’re deceitful, hiding their true Marxist agenda behind a smokescreen of concern for Gaia.

It would be hard to find anyone in all of America who has been more wrong on the American energy story than Barack Obama.

In a 2008 Speech in Lansing, Michigan, presidential candidate Obama was all doom and gloom about oil, advising: “We cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing.”

Then in 2010 from the Oval Office he solemnly declared: “We’re running out of places to drill,” and he jeered that the oil and gas industry might want to start pumping for oil near the Washington Monument.

During a 2011 weekly address he referred to oil and gas as “yesterday’s” energy sources.

These stupid predictions of the end of oil have been going on for most of the last century. Just over 100 years ago, the U.S. Bureau of Mines estimated total future production at 6 billion barrels, yet we’ve produced more than 20 times that amount. In 1939 the Department of the Interior predicted U.S. oil supplies would last 13 years. I could go on.

The wonder is that smart people like Nobel prize winners Krugman and Obama haven’t learned anything from history and instead keep regurgitating these myths about “running out.”

The real wonder is that anybody still thinks of these two lying jackasses as “smart.” They might be crafty; they might be cunning; they might be, and in fact are, devious as hell. But as I’ve maintained for years, none of those things are necessarily synonyms for “smart.”

And apropos of nothing, could there possibly be a more annoying, intrusive, pain in the ass website than the WashTimes? Every time I see a link to them, I have to ponder for a moment whether it’s worth the hassle of clicking over…and usually, I don’t.

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

Mask on, mask off

From gun confiscation to Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) to the fascism that is the beating heart of their “progressive” subterfuge: they’re showing their true faces all over the place of late, aren’t they?

World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the “whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The most persistent hobgoblin of the last quarter-century has been global warming, now called climate change but eventually to be known as extreme weather, or some such other fright-inducing name. The climate activists are constantly bombarding us with warnings, hectoring, hysteria, pleading and threats. Apocalyptic books have been written and shrill movies made, all in an effort to slow man’s combustion of fossil fuels.

Included among these is a new documentary “inspired” by Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” If the title isn’t enough to give away Klein’s motives for attacking the climate “crisis,” then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

Klein says she “spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there.” Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It’s just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” Figueres said in Brussels last winter.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

And there you have it: Watermelons, green on the outside, red through and through.

But any thinking person has to wonder: if their program is so wondrously beneficial, how come they have to swaddle it in such a thick blanket of lies, as if their ideology would blow away in threadbare tatters were it ever exposed to the fresh breeze of truth? Oh, that’s right, I forgot: because they’re so much smarter than we are, and are the only ones who really know what’s best for us, deluded fools that we are. It’s actually sort of logical, if only in a circular kind of way.

(Via Walsh)

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

Science, at last

Yer doin’ it wrong.

“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win,” wrote Ayn Rand. And, with considerably more charm, Mark Steyn wrote, “It’s a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog feces and mix ’em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former.”

Nowhere are these axioms more true than in the field of science. Science — that process of hypothesis, observation and experimentation by which humans understand the workings of material things — mixed with just about anything becomes more of that other thing than itself. Mix science with theology, for instance, and you have theology.  If you strip Richard Dawkins of his eloquence and undoubted scientific erudition, his argument against the existence of God can be restated like this: “Gawrsh, Mickey, it looks random to me, so I guess it’s random, uh-huh.”

Likewise, if you mix science with meddling overbearing government, you get meddling overbearing government. Note these recent stories about nutrition. The scientists who help compose the federal nutritional guidelines that govern what goes into subsidized school lunches have finally admitted that eating cholesterol — as in eggs, say — doesn’t actually increase your cholesterol, and skipping breakfast, well known to make people fat, doesn’t make people fat. At the same time, the researcher who once found important evidence for the existence of gluten sensitivity recently proved pretty much beyond a doubt that gluten sensitivity (barring celiac disease) doesn’t actually exist.

Put all these discoveries together and what you realize is that when a meddlesome overbearing government fronted by Michelle Obama mandates school lunches that are universally decried as “gross” by people who eat school lunches, that’s not science — it’s just meddling overbearing government.

That’s all the pseudoscience pushed by “liberals” ever really was; meddling overbearing government just finds science a convenient fig leaf to hide behind, that’s all. When your answer to every problem, no matter what it might be, is bigger, more intrusive, and more powerful government, you’re promoting a political agenda, not a scientific one.

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

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

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