Skip to comments.Game Over for the Climate (we're doomed, DOOMED, I tell you!)
Posted on 05/10/2012 8:09:06 AM PDT by pabianice
GLOBAL warming isnt a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves regardless of what we do.
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate. [AIEEE! - Ed.]
Canadas tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planets species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.
That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. Californias Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
To give any kind of credence to their ravings is to support them in their insane quest. They must be disavowed, for their intent is evil beyond any previous human example of evil.
There is some strong consensus science behind the greenhouse effect and the rise of CO2 causing some beneficial warming. Even the Stern report, heavily biased towards all forms of speculative catastrophe admitted that warming has short run net benefits. What the leftists refuse to admit is that mankind will flourish in the long run without their help regardless of any climate change or not; and mankind will wither away if they are put in charge of anything. I refuse to let the leftists define the debate with their tactics (equating skepticism with denial, etc), but I also refuse to ignore science which is very well established.
Oh, OK, JAMES Hansen.
SAVE THE PLANET!
REDUCE OUR NATION”S CARBON FOOTPRINT!
Exterminate a Liberal Alarmist, thus eliminating his emissions.
“...but I also refuse to ignore science which is very well established.”
There is no way to separate science from ethics, though it is very tempting to try to do so. But far worse is agenda driven pseudo-science.
Trofim Lysenko is the best example. He created scientific theories based on Marxist philosophy, that disputed the real science before it. And because it was backed by the Soviet government, because it supported their philosophy, Lysenko was able to suppress real scientists who knew what he was doing was fake.
Sound familiar? The biggest clue that the theory that *man* is responsible for climate change, is a fraud, is that they adamantly refuse to provide a “negative case”. That is, some situation, any situation, in which their theory is *not* taking place.
Say you have a theory that if you hit a fresh chicken egg with the hammer of a claw hammer at 10 mph, putting its force into the egg, it will damage the egg. Lots of very specific criteria there. The negative case would be if this is done and it does not damage the egg.
Is that so hard? Yet they refuse to give any situation that would disprove the MMGW theory. “If ‘x’ happens, then GW is *not* man made”.
I never have understood why these people who are so dedicated and such true believers don’t start the ball rolling by offing themselves and their families first. Think about it; Oskar Schindler only saved a few hundred people at the end of WW2, now those people number in the tens of thousands. There must be several million global warming believers world wide; if they would just kill themselves and their families now they could probably reduce the global population by close to a billion in just two generations.
By the late 2000's we started getting winters with weaker polar vortexes (including east coast snowstorms). It looks to me like solar factors were at least partly responsible. But then the alarmists said that this was a predicted effect of AGW. I looked into it carefully and traced the idea back to a single modeling study in 2005 by an obscure group that got quoted directly and quoted by derivation. That's when I throw the BS flag at the alarmist sites (politely of course). But they mostly cherry pick the "science" in those cases.
If we want better proof against the key issue, high sensitivity, then we might only have to wait a few years. If the reliable measurements (satellite may be good) show a drop or enough steady years, that would disprove high sensitivity and the potential for "catastrophe".
Joe Wilson...I think we need to write our Congresscritters to erect a monument to Joe Wilson (I know we don’t have the money but I’d donate heavily to him) for his prescience, ability to tell the truth and downright gonads to affront the communists.
dinosaur sharting ...Is that kind’a like a wet fart? I’m not from your end of town.
Hansen is a disgrace.
Worse than that, he's dangerous.
Ah, but what is worse is that "we" are paying this feckless, maroon's salary and no one within the Gubmint is willing to reign him in and thus allows him to spew his lies and scaremongering on "our dime" as well as abuse his position with NASA to advance his faux, Gore-Bull Warming hysteria with the mantle (sp?) of purported bona fides considering his position.
Not to worry, the Pubes in Congress will B-slap him and NASA any day now; and I am going to win the Powerball this Saturday night.
As a great rule of thumb, I have found out that pseudo-science, that is, using “science” to bring about social change that you cannot get otherwise, is very reliant on several devious tricks.
The first of these is “raising public awareness”, as a goal.
I had my first real experience with this scam before large capacity toilets were banned by the federal government.
Being from a desert state, the assumption was that saving water is important. A reasonable assumption. But all the emphasis was put on residential water conservation. Again, on the surface it sounds reasonable.
Until you look at water use in the state. Some 98% of the fresh water was used for #1 agriculture, #2 mining, and #3 business. The bulk of the rest was used for recreational water, things like golf courses that consume large amounts. And only a little more than 1% was for residential use.
This was puzzling. Why put all the conservation effort on to the smallest user of water? Even if it was wildly successful, it would achieve nothing.
“It’s important to raise public awareness!”, was the response. Nonsense. But then it got much, much worse.
The state mining industry, for purely financial reasons, decided to not buy all that fresh water, to instead recycle the huge amount of water it used. Nobody had asked them to do that, they just did it on their own to save money.
But this meant that overnight, the state had 1/3rd more fresh water. Wee! Victory, right?
Nothing changed. Still the now obviously “water conservation” propaganda, still directed at residential users only, continued. Huh?
Because, as one of its advocates succinctly put it, “raising public awareness is the real goal!”
That is, that this was never about water, or the lack thereof, or even solution to real shortage. It was about convincing the public that water was in shortage, so its supply had to be carefully managed and rationed *by the government*.
This jaundiced my eye at an early age, so I started paying attention to what such scoundrels were doing, no longer looking with the positive image of “starry eyed idealists”, but as people with a far more cynical and insidious agenda in mind.
The next big leap in understanding happened with a real environmental issue, one that was again touted as being an important reason to have government control and rationing over “shortage”.
Some bright, creative individuals came up with a simple, inexpensive solution to the problem, and were shouted down, because the only *permitted* solution was through government control and rationing. And the truth dawned that actually *solving* the problem had nothing to do with it. That those backing this agenda were utterly indifferent to the problem itself, and truly did not care whether it was solved or not, as long as they got what they wanted.
The final leg to this came with the MMGW problem. Because no matter the specifics of the problem, or even if it *was* a problem, did not matter to those advocating the theory.
James Hansen, for example, had in his early career proposed and supported Man Made Global Cooling. And yet, his *solutions* to MMGC were *exactly* the same as they have been for MMGW! That is, more government control and rationing. Since shortage obviously does not exist, it must be created, by *stopping* the production of energy.
Something that Obama and the Democrats are trying very hard to achieve.
But it goes beyond that. In the 1970s, there was the science fraud, butterfly expert, Paul R. Ehrlich, even whose name irritates me, because he was named after the great scientist Dr. Paul Ehrlich, one of the best scientists who ever lived.
In any even P.R. Ehrlich’s fake crisis, The Population Bomb, which was an utter failure, still proposed *exactly* the same draconian solutions that Hansen proposes.
That is, much more powerful government and rationing of everything.
The old East Germany was the end result of what such people crave. It was noted that even color and music were rationed, solely for use to promote the state. The only paint people could buy was white, gray and black.
Because they were utterly incompetent at handling the big issues of their nation, East Germany was a showpiece of decay, despair, environmental degradation, horrific pollution, dehumanization, nanny government of every aspect of the lives of its people, perpetual shortage of everything, etc.
In other words, it was paradise, as far as Obama and company, the MMGW crowd, and such scoundrels are concerned.
This being said, the issue of the real science, by real scientists, about global warming and whether it is man made, becomes almost incidental to stopping these people. For them, science is just a tool to be corrupted for their schemes, nothing more.
In the final analysis, even if the Earth substantially warmed, any harm it might cause is much, much less than what would be causes if such people ever again attain their goals.
It is not very productive to stop them by appealing to irrelevancies. For example discussing alternative theories of warming that conclude that a N2/O2 atmosphere (no CO2) would result in evaporation and essentially the same global warmth as we have with CO2. Those make me cringe, but I always read them to make sure I haven't missed something. Inevitably the people proposing the theory have missed a lot of physics (e.g. absorption of radiation). People can discuss these alternatives in a scientific forum, but disseminating them to the lay public as fact or representing it as mainstream controversy is a grave disservice to the public.
It is more productive to stop the takeover by demonstrating that after enormous expense the production of alt energy is trivial (not counting good old fashioned dams and biomass - results from a strong economy that uses a lot of wood). One can also point out that the models that predict catastrophe (which are not believable) also predict that doing anything short of destroying the economy will not change the temperature outcome. Or one can point out that Europe's moving their manufacturing to China to satisfy Kyoto accomplished nothing.
My preference is a more complex argument that the "high sensitivity" science is not well founded. Often it uses paleo data to prove some number which can't be quantified without a model which is in fact the same model used to make catastrophic predictions from today. Early versions of that model (e.g. Hansen 1981) predict temperatures too high which basically shows that there is no great amount of positive feedback (sensitivity of about 1.5C).
It's a complex argument that loses a lot of people so I'm not satisfied with that approach.
Couldn't agree more. I'd even contribute to such a monument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.