Save the Humans!

Beware the government's latest climate change power grab

David Harsanyi | April 22, 2009

Get ready for a dazzling display of environmental alarmism this week as Washington takes up the evils of modern living.

When it comes to the Earth's demise, no one is innocent. Take, for instance, the recent story about a group of scientists who are wagging their scrawny fingers at our rotund brothers and sisters for contributing to the planet's demise by relentlessly stuffing their pudgy faces. (Eat green; be green!)

You see, eating more means humans must produce more food—and more carbon dioxide. It means we must raise more soon-to-be juicy steaks that have a tendency to emit greenhouse gases that reek. You might find the thought of regulating food intake and livestock flatulence a bit bizarre, but hey, if it means saving the Earth, why not?

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency bravely moved forward by finding that things such as smokestacks and breathing, or things related to greenhouse gases, endanger public health and welfare. And because the EPA can regulate CO2, it can have a say in nearly everything we do, with little regard for silly distractions, such as economic trade-offs.

We're not talking about your cars or soon-to-be-extinct trucks; we're talking about your scooters and toasters, your dryers and pets (do you really need two dogs? Come to think of it, do you really need two children?), your coffeehouses and Subaru dealerships and organic-produce collectives.

It's not going to be easy. Climate change is the cause of—and caused by—everything. Reputable news pieces regularly allege, without any evidence, that climate change is the culprit in hundreds of dreadful events. From the decline of outdoor youth hockey to the scourge of teenage drinking to the massacre in Darfur, you guessed it; global warming is often the boogeyman.

Who knew that a shift of 0.04 degrees Celsius in a decade could be so terrible?

What's worse than the EPA grabbing power over CO2? Well, leading Luddite and congressman Henry Waxman is worse. His proposal sets carbon reduction goals of 20 percent by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050 and, with cap and trade, effectively nationalizes energy.

This incremental destruction of prosperity is probably going to have to be modified as soon as citizens get a taste of reality. But how could any reasonable or responsible legislator suggest an 83 percent cut in emissions without any practical or wide-scale alternative to replace it or any plan to pay for it all?

When people are on a crusade, I guess, logic rarely plays a part. And when Waxman and friends hold climate change hearings this week, it will feature more than 50 witnesses, the majority, no doubt, prepared to spin some exceedingly (non) chilling tale to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

I suspect that few of them will mention the recent report from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation on cap and trade policy that illustrates all American households would face an annual cost of nearly $144.8 billion per year—"disproportionately borne by low-income households, those under age 25 and over 75 years ... and single parents with dependent children."

Even fewer will mention the new Rasmussen poll that shows that only 1 in 3 voters now believes global warming is caused by human activity—the lowest number ever. Forty-four percent of likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while 7 percent blame some other reason.

This shift in public opinion may be a blip, or it may be a trend. But if we're ever to enact energy policy that is both environmentally responsible and economically reasonable, we're going to need a rational discussion. We haven't come close yet.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

JB|4.22.09 @ 12:13PM|#

Until the environMentals start killing themselves en masse, then they can't be taken seriously.

They are hypocrites who don't even believe in what they spout. If they are so convinced, then they should be willing to sacrifice.

|4.22.09 @ 12:14PM|#

Eating and breathing for me, but not for thee.

|4.22.09 @ 12:16PM|#

No amount of individual action will solve the problem at hand. Changing your light bulbs or going vegan won't help anything because this is a planet-wide emergency. So ad hominems against environmentalist bogeyman are just deliberate distractions.

Earth! Fire! Wind! Water! ... Heart?!?

Then they give the kid a monkey as if it makes up for being über-lame.

HammeredHead|4.22.09 @ 12:18PM|#

while 7 percent blame some other reason.

Lack of Pirates?

|4.22.09 @ 12:18PM|#

Even fewer will mention the new Rasmussen poll that shows that only 1 in 3 voters now believes global warming is caused by human activity-the lowest number ever. Forty-four percent of likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while 7 percent blame some other reason.

This is relevant how? Polls show most people believe in a lot of fairy tale nonsense.

Mike in PA|4.22.09 @ 12:28PM|#

These people make me insane!

The Earth's environment has been changing since the beginning - and it's life that's been doing the changing! How would you have liked to live when the atmosphere was mostly sulfur and ammonia?

When locked in a sealed room, the answer is not to hold your breath, but rather, don't panic and adjust to the changes. That's what life on this planet has always done.

But these enviromentalist loons somehow think they are above nature. What makes them think their climate is the best the world has ever seen? The arrogance!

|4.22.09 @ 12:28PM|#

This is relevant how?

People are too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves; not when Henry Waxman is willing to think for them.

|4.22.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Why fart and waste it

when you can burp and taste it?

|4.22.09 @ 12:32PM|#

But if we're ever to enact energy policy that is both environmentally responsible and economically reasonable, we're going to need a rational discussion.

Fantasist!

Warty|4.22.09 @ 12:43PM|#

Polls show most people believe in a lot of fairy tale nonsense.

Elections, too.

Xeones|4.22.09 @ 12:46PM|#

Shorter Tony: "We can't take the time to THINK about anything! DO SOMETHING! Ia! Ia! Obama f'thagn!"

Warty|4.22.09 @ 12:50PM|#

Yo, fuck your naysaying, Xeones. WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHINNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Naga Sadow|4.22.09 @ 12:51PM|#

Xeones,

Are you suggesting that Tony has a degenerate DNA mutation that will cause him to lose his mind and devour Norry/SugarFree?

Colonel_Angus|4.22.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Finally an environment artical written by someone other than regulation-supporting Bailey.

Space ship earth is self-cleaning. Just look at New Orleans.

Anything that people do will be undone given time. It's not that carbon dioxide doesn't have an effect on temperature, it is insignificant compared to non anthropogenic occurences.

Obamanator|4.22.09 @ 12:55PM|#

There is no time to have a rational inclusive discussion, er debate. We must act quickly and boldly even if we don't know what the fuck we're doing or why. We must never fear monger unless it makes way for our agenda, then by all means.

Tony in 20 Minutes|4.22.09 @ 12:56PM|#

Obama polls numbers are through the roof. He has a mandate for whatever he does!

Xeones|4.22.09 @ 12:59PM|#

Are you suggesting that Tony has a degenerate DNA mutation that will cause him to lose his mind and devour Norry/SugarFree?

I'm suggesting he is some sort of fish-frog abomination, cachinnating his eldritch chorus from some particularly dark, cyclopean corner of the universe, where the laws that govern reality are utterly different and not meant to be known by man.

Or maybe those webbed hands just came along with the extra chromosome.

In either case, you're presuming a lot to suggest he has what we'd call a 'mind.'

|4.22.09 @ 12:59PM|#

Fear-mongering will destroy us all! Ignore my warnings at your peril!

Colonel_Angus|4.22.09 @ 1:02PM|#

"No amount of individual action will solve the problem at hand. Changing your light bulbs or going vegan won't help anything because this is a planet-wide emergency."

Look at it this way. You're not going to be able to do anything to stop me from having bonfires, using my two-stroke weed wacker, using incandescant light-bulbs, or driving my beater car around just for the hell of it.

Naga Sadow|4.22.09 @ 1:04PM|#

If I remember my Futurama correctly even Fry was able to use space and cobbled together particles to create a mind. I would give Tony the benefit of the doubt if only to see him devour SugarFree.

|4.22.09 @ 1:06PM|#

I am inedible.

Naga Sadow|4.22.09 @ 1:08PM|#

You secret a poison like those frogs in the Amazon?

Naga Sadow|4.22.09 @ 1:09PM|#

FUCK!!!!!!!! Secrete! Secrete dammit!

Warty|4.22.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Don't be silly, SugarFree. With a bit of fermentation and emulsification, and with a lot of natural and artificial flavors added, I'm sure you would be nearly as edible as tofu.

Naga Sadow|4.22.09 @ 1:15PM|#

Warty,

Tofu? So he would still be inedible then?

HammeredHead|4.22.09 @ 1:19PM|#

Amazing proof that Global warming is caused by.... you guessed it ... the sun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm

If you read between the lines and apply your global warming knowledge.. Minimum solar activity in 1700, maximum solar activity 1985. Earth warming from around 1720 to 1998, and then cooling.

Despite how obvious the correlation is, these scientists are bending over backwards in the article to say global warming is real and getting worse.

Gilbert Martin|4.22.09 @ 1:21PM|#

"Even fewer will mention the new Rasmussen poll that shows that only 1 in 3 voters now believes global warming is caused by human activity-the lowest number ever. Forty-four percent of likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while 7 percent blame some other reason."

Hence the reason for the full court press to jam all the legislation through right now by the eco-socialist wackos both inside and outside the Obama administration.

Time is not on their side. They must attempt to use both the global warming scare and the recession as a double rationalization to "save" the planet and magically fix the economy by "creating" gobs of "green jobs".

The recession will subside eventually and since they have no actual proof that man is making the planet warmner, the precentage of the population who are true believes in the green religion isn't likely to be going up either.

They have a leftist president and a leftist Congress. They have to get it jammed through now.

|4.22.09 @ 1:24PM|#

this is a planet-wide emergency

What is a planet-wide emergency?

But if we're ever to enact energy policy that is both environmentally responsible and economically reasonable, we're going to need a rational discussion.

This, of course, assumes the conclusion that we need an "energy policy."

Amazing proof that Global warming is caused by.... you guessed it ... the sun.

I have long had a serene confidence in the thesis that the global average temperature of a planet circling a variable star will (a) vary and (b) the primary cause of such variation in temperature will be variations in the energy input from said star.

Warty|4.22.09 @ 1:31PM|#

Naga, shhhhh.

|4.22.09 @ 1:31PM|#

So, does this mean that Gaia can apply for TARP funding?

|4.22.09 @ 1:35PM|#

Planet wide emergency. Except, apparently, for the east side of Antarctica.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/Antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking-/articleshow/4418558.cms

But that's probably just an anomaly. Forget I said anything.

|4.22.09 @ 1:44PM|#

Fear-mongering will destroy us all! Ignore my warnings at your peril!

Very good. You seem to be a quick study, if I may say so.

Amazon Frog|4.22.09 @ 1:49PM|#

Secrete! Secrete dammit!

I'm working on it. Chill, already.

Thorn|4.22.09 @ 1:50PM|#

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

JB|4.22.09 @ 1:52PM|#

No amount of individual action will solve the problem at hand.

If enough of you leftist twats commit suicide, it will have an impact. That will take your carbon footprints off this planet.

But you are too much of a coward, Tony, to actually stand up for your beliefs. You will spout your tripe, but not back it up. Hypocrite.

Naga Sadow, Soylent Corp. Shar|4.22.09 @ 1:53PM|#

Pay no attention to Thorn. Simply a disgruntled ex-employee.

*glares at Thorn*

|4.22.09 @ 2:09PM|#

Dey took aaaarrghhh gobs!!!!!

|4.22.09 @ 2:13PM|#

But if we're ever to enact energy policy that is both environmentally responsible and economically reasonable, we're going to need a rational discussion. We haven't come close yet.

Good luck with that.

StatistiNazi|4.22.09 @ 2:51PM|#

You're right that environmentalism should not be allowed to destroy the economy (expect the debate over how much it should be allowed to affect it to continue forever), BUT if 44 percent of likely voters believe that global warming is a long term trend unrelated to human activity and 7 percent don't know or think it's aliens or something, doesn't that mean that 49 percent of likely voters DO believe global warming is caused by human activity?

In case you missed the significance, 49 percent would make that group of voters the largest group...

|4.22.09 @ 3:07PM|#

But these enviromentalist loons somehow think they are above nature. What makes them think their climate is the best the world has ever seen? The arrogance!

Arrogance is being scientifically illiterate and proud of it.

People who want massive action on climate change aren't protecting the status quo just for the sake of the status quo. There is a certain narrow set of environmental conditions that make life possible on this planet. There is an even narrower set of conditions that make human life possible, and one narrower still that makes human civilization possible.

If you want to just ride the wave of history and not care whether millions or billions of lives will be affected, knock yourself out. Better yet, shoot yourself. Que sera sera, right?

Rational discussion? Start with getting some awareness of the subject before scolding others for their lack of reason. Don't worry, I know you won't.

Pop|4.22.09 @ 3:16PM|#

"This is relevant how? Polls show most people believe in a lot of fairy tale nonsense." [Citation Needed]

|4.22.09 @ 3:18PM|#

It's funny how we use poll numbers to say we shouldn't pursue policies to mitigate climate change on one hand, but then ingore poll numbers when it comes to other issues we favor like gay marriage.

Of course whether climate change is occuring or not doesn't really depend on polls just the science.

Anyway, the majority of the problem could be solved by a carbon tax with an equal and opposite reduction in the income tax. That would account for the externalities of pollution, while at the same time increasing the returns for work.

Of course people avoid this very simple idea because it has the "T" word (tax) in it.

|4.22.09 @ 3:27PM|#

"Rational discussion? Start with getting some awareness of the subject before scolding others for their lack of reason. Don't worry, I know you won't."

That's exactly what I suggest you do, Tony. I just finished reading a book by two climatologists, "The Climate of Extremes". I suggest you read it. The authors agree that there is a human footprint, but that there is no evidence that we face the extreme climatic scenario that people like Gore and Hansen paint.

|4.22.09 @ 3:32PM|#

There is a certain narrow set of environmental conditions that make life possible on this planet. There is an even narrower set of conditions that make human life possible, and one narrower still that makes human civilization possible.

It must really suck to be as dumb as you.

|4.22.09 @ 3:37PM|#

It must really suck to be as dumb as you.

I doubt he's smart enough to realize it.

|4.22.09 @ 3:42PM|#

bookworm,

Scientific literacy means putting all available evidence in context. It's not reading some book you found and proclaiming it Truth.

Patrick Michaels, known industry hack, is not regarded as a serious voice in climate science. Like other fringe skeptics, he is known because of his opposition to mainstream science.

Now there is no harm in reading a book (except when it misleads you with its distortions and hackery), but if you take that as the end of the story and refuse to address the mainstream consensus on climate change, you are not being scientifically sound, but rather suffering from extreme confirmation bias.

|4.22.09 @ 3:43PM|#

P Brooks what on earth could possibly be controversial about the paragraph you quoted?

|4.22.09 @ 3:51PM|#

"I have long had a serene confidence in the thesis that the global average temperature of a planet circling a variable star will (a) vary and (b) the primary cause of such variation in temperature will be variations in the energy input from said star."

Agreed! So we have both reached the observable scientific conclusion understood by the Neanderthal, the big ball of fire in the sky is what drives the weather.

Perhaps one day Tony will evolve into at least the intellectual level of homo erectus and achieve the mental capacity to understand the same thing. Perhaps not.

And while "global warming" I mean "global climate change" is completely bogus Man-bear-pig is REAL.

Paul|4.22.09 @ 3:52PM|#

If one believes that money informs opinion, the problem we have now is that government is waving a purse containing billions of dollars for research if, you know, your project can show a link to global warming, no matter how tenuous. So naturally, every biologist, plant bioligist, anthropologist etc., is now "discovering" a link to global warming in their studies.

This problem is so heavily politicized it may be decades before we know the truth, what percentage is being caused by CO2, what by solar forcing...

|4.22.09 @ 3:55PM|#

Every single national and international scientific organization accepts that climate change is real, caused by humans, and potentially catastrophic. None of you geniuses here are smarter than every scientific organization on the planet.

I understand why CATO has a motive to distort climate science. What I don't understand is why normal people like you guys who aren't paid flacks have an interest in doing so.

|4.22.09 @ 4:00PM|#

If one believes that money informs opinion, the problem we have now is that government polluting industries are waving a purse containing billions of dollars for research if, you know, your project can show a link to deny global warming, no matter how tenuous. So naturally, every biologist, plant bioligist, anthropologist etc. quasi-credentialed paid industry hack is now "discovering" a link to global warming refutations to mainstream science in their studies.

Paul|4.22.09 @ 4:03PM|#

Tony, your link points to an article whining about how "right wingers" felt that the film The Day After Tommorrow wasn't a realistic depiction of the effects of global warming. Then the article makes hay for an entire paragraph about the Cato institute... then finally gets to Patrick Michaels, suggesting in a roundabout way that because he's received monies from coal energy companies, he's a bad person and we should ignore him. Then the article returns to the Day After Tomorrow, complaining bitterly that Michaels was attacking this piece of utter crap fiction. The rest is quotes from other climatoligists saying Michaels is a big meanie and a poopy head.

Try linking something with more substance. You know, like someone debunking his research with numbers. Not a whine-fest about how Michaels didn't think The Day After Tomorrow should be the wake up call that Moveon.org thought it should be.

Talk about flat earth society...

|4.22.09 @ 4:06PM|#

One can prove that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax by answering one simple question: What one environmental emission affects every industry in the nation? The answer, of course, is CO2. I rest my case.

Mitigating AGW is just too well aligned with the left's agenda to be taken as anything but a hoax. Yes, yes, yes, scientists are proving...blah, blah, blah. I'm a Ph.D. scientist and I know all to well the politics of awarding research grant money. That combined with the fact that 6 out of 7 academics define themselves as liberals and you've got the recipe for the biggest fraud in world history.

This is not denying that the planet is warming...just that blaming human activity is a religion and no more.

"I understand why CATO has a motive to distort climate science. What I don't understand is why normal people like you guys who aren't paid flacks have an interest in doing so."

Because the science is fabricated and instead of being a pursuit of knowledge it has been twisted to satisfy the real goal of petty tyrants, such as yourself, which is to regulate our lives steal our freedom and confiscate our wealth.

Paul|4.22.09 @ 4:06PM|#

None of you geniuses here are smarter than every scientific organization on the planet.

Or better known as "None of us is as dumb as all of us".

|4.22.09 @ 4:13PM|#

Patrick Michaels, suggesting in a roundabout way that because he's received monies from coal energy companies, he's a bad person and we should ignore him.

The fact that he is a paid industry shill doesn't cause you to question his credibility just a little bit?

|4.22.09 @ 4:15PM|#

NAL, Marshall,

Either of you have one single shred of evidence that all scientific organizations in the world are distorting science for some nefarious plan that nobody has even been able to articulate?

Does CATO pay you to be this obtuse?

|4.22.09 @ 4:24PM|#

Your comment "all scientific organizations in the world" is patently absurd. Even if most do believe in "global whatever we are calling it today" there have been several recent well published articles refuting the idiocy of the chicken littles.

Why not simply say "everyone agrees with me" it amounts to as powerful an argument.

And, considering how much money "climate scientists" get from the government I have to wonder why you are not suspicious of them?

Oh, yeah, government "good" industry "bad".

It isn't incumbent upon me to disprove that the sky is falling. It is incumbent upon the people who use limited computer models that don't work into next week to prove why on earth they would be right about the next century.

They can't predict the weather tomorrow, but they understand global weather?! Now who is being "obtuse"?

|4.22.09 @ 4:25PM|#

"Now there is no harm in reading a book (except when it misleads you with its distortions and hackery), but if you take that as the end of the story and refuse to address the mainstream consensus on climate change, you are not being scientifically sound, but rather suffering from extreme confirmation bias."

Tony, do you believe Gore and Hansen represent the scientific consensus? I say they are the ones who are hacks.

Paul|4.22.09 @ 4:26PM|#

The fact that he is a paid industry shill doesn't cause you to question his credibility just a little bit?

Well of course it would, but I think you've missed the point. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that if the money comes from Western Fuels, the research is tainted, but if it comes by way of the Federal Government, then the money is clean, honest and uncorrupting.

Here's a link that Sugarfree provided yesterday, which basically outlines when the funding shifts, how quickly (and how tenuously) the links to global warming get woven into the debate:

Even scientists have grown bored with question of habitat loss, tweaking their grant proposals to emphasize the climate angle no matter how tenuous the connection. Saving the Amazon is so 1980s.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216012/pagenum/all

|4.22.09 @ 4:30PM|#

"It isn't incumbent upon me to disprove that the sky is falling. It is incumbent upon the people who use limited computer models that don't work into next week to prove why on earth they would be right about the next century."

Speaking of weather models, it is the models that predicted the lowest rises in temperatures that have come closest with the historical record. Yet, it's the most extreme predictions that get the attention of the media and the politicians and poor Tony.

DavidW|4.22.09 @ 4:31PM|#

Let's admit some basic truths here:

1) Human prosperity will affect the environment in some way or another.
2) You can't get anything for free.
3) You can't have everything.
4) If we humans are to live in harmony, we must compromise so that we may get the best of all worlds.
5) Using force instead of respect and cooperation is a recipe for disaster.

Paul|4.22.09 @ 4:34PM|#

Tony, do you believe Gore and Hansen represent the scientific consensus? I say they are the ones who are hacks.

Gore: Worst spokesperson for Global Warming. Ever.

If Gore's on your side, rethink your position.

Here's a case where a local Seattle Hack spewed out some numbers (which were flat fucking wrong) and arguably set the global warming debate back: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003618979&zsection_id=2002111777&slug=warming15m&date=20070315

The debate in Seattle started with Mark Albright, a part-time UW meteorologist and, until this week, the associate state climatologist.

After reading [Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels'] February essay in The Times, Albright sent an e-mail to colleagues saying he didn't see evidence that snowpack was steadily shrinking, much less by 50 percent.

A back-and-forth ensued, involving Albright, co-worker and meteorologist Cliff Mass, and several scientists with the UW's Climate Impacts Group, a federally funded team of researchers that plays a prominent role analyzing climate change in the Northwest.

All quickly agreed that the 50 percent number was wrong. It may have originally come from an editing error in a 2004 report issued by an Oregon panel of scientists.

By the way, that Hack Nickels is considered a luminary on climate change action by the left. Hack. Hack on stilts.

Gilbert Martin|4.22.09 @ 4:37PM|#

"It isn't incumbent upon me to disprove that the sky is falling. It is incumbent upon the people who use limited computer models that don't work into next week to prove why on earth they would be right about the next century"

Exactly.

No one is required to prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on those who claim humans are (1) causing global warmning (2) that they are capable of quatifying the effects of said change (3) that they are capable of quantifying that the "remedies" they propose will in fact work and (4) that they are capable of quantifying that the benefits obtained by said "remedies" exceed the costs incurred of enacting them.

To date, not a one of them has proven cabable of proving any one of those 4.

|4.22.09 @ 4:38PM|#

They can't predict the weather tomorrow, but they understand global weather?! Now who is being "obtuse"?

Still you. Climate over large stretches of time is actually much easier to predict than local weather patterns.

On scientists receiving government grants: I agree there could possibly be conflicts, and science is sometimes distorted by government pressure, but usually by cherry-picking policymakers (see Bush administration), not scientists themselves. If a scientist is doing bad science there are mechanisms in place to expose it. If you don't accept that then you are impugning all of science, many fields of which get government grants.

Now why would governments spend all that money on real science with the goal of extracting bad science? They are perfectly capable of propagandizing without the need to do all the massive climate science that has been done.

So even if I grant it's possible climate science is distorted by government interference, you'd have to imagine a really massive conspiracy that includes the national academies of science of every industrialized country in the world in that conspiracy. And you've yet to provide a motive beyond some vague notion that governments want to expand power for its own sake, and the best way to do this is to produce unimaginably complex climate data in the service of making energy production cleaner. Oh the tyranny!

Yet it barely gives you pause when oil and coal industries pay people to produce dissenting studies, when they have an OBVIOUS interest in the matter as it is directly related to their profits.

|4.22.09 @ 4:50PM|#

"Yet it barely gives you pause when oil and coal industries pay people to produce dissenting studies, when they have an OBVIOUS interest in the matter as it is directly related to their profits."

Tony, can you give us an example where oil and coal companies have paid a scientist to write a distorted report or book?

Colonel_Angus|4.22.09 @ 4:52PM|#

A fucking computer prediction of climate is not science. It is something created by a person to show what their own hypothesis is, not what the actual outcome is proven to be. Someone simply enters data in to a program that they created and get a predictable outcome. There is no way a computer prediction can account for unforseen circumstances and all of the unknown variables that contribute to climate change. There has already been many well known instances where computer predictions did not account for a trend. The person behind it simply covers their tracks by tweaking their program to adjust for what has actually happened. In other words, a computer prediction does not prove a damn thing.

|4.22.09 @ 4:55PM|#

Colonel_Angus,

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing.

Do you really believe you are more equipped to understand this science than all of the national academies of science in the world?

Gilbert Martin|4.22.09 @ 4:59PM|#

Shorter Tony:

1. Bogus claims of appeal to authority.

2. Bogus claims of unanimity of opinion of said authority.

3. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

|4.22.09 @ 5:02PM|#

Tony, can you give us an example where oil and coal companies have paid a scientist to write a distorted report or book?

Here is a little reading on the subject.

|4.22.09 @ 5:04PM|#

Gilbert,

Appealing to scientific authority in matters of science is not fallacious.

With regard to the national academies of science, there is unanimity. I'm not denying there is dissent, but before you believe in what the dissenters say you have to make a good faith effort to understand what the vast majority of scientists say on the subject, otherwise you're simply cherry picking sources that confirm what you already want to believe. This goes for any scientific subject.

Gilbert Martin|4.22.09 @ 5:11PM|#

"Appealing to scientific authority in matters of science is not fallacious. "

You are incabable of proving who is and who isn't a scientific authority.

|4.22.09 @ 5:13PM|#

"Climate over large stretches of time is actually much easier to predict than local weather patterns."

Link? Reference?

You are kidding, right?! If you can't predict the local weather patterns, how can you predict the global climate which they affect? In addition to the sun having no effect on global temperature the Earth's weather doesn't either?!!! It is all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Google and read about "Solar cycle 24" if you dare to challenge your own notions. An ice age, which actually would be detrimental to mankind, is more likely than warming which would would probably produce a net positive effect.

Colonel_Angus|4.22.09 @ 5:54PM|#

As a matter of fact, I have a good understanding the science behind the global climate, you twat. While I am aware there are a large number of organizations that "agree" with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, there is absolutely no consensus of the scale of the effects. What I see is that people with a mainly political interest in the subject have imposed themselves in the science and hyped up the issue to the extreme end of the "consensus". Furthermore, there are many credible scientists within these organizations who have come to dissenting conclusions, who have to deal with the "consensus" and therefore play down their dissent to avoid finger pointing. There is a lot that the "consensus" has to answer for, like why the temperature trends now are any different from what has occurred naturally over and over for millions of years due to solar activity. Or how much carbon dioxide from anthropogenic activity even contributes to warming compared with non anthropogenic occurrences. Or whether there is even a cooling or warming trend going on right now. It is simple chemistry that most atmospheric gasses absorb and retain heat, and that might have an effect on overall temperature. The "consensus" stops there. As time goes on I have no doubt that "global warming" will become an empty issue, and it already is heading there.

StatistiNazi|4.22.09 @ 7:22PM|#

Wow this flame war has been very informative. (sic)

However I think both Tony and his detractors are missing the point. Whether climate exists at all is irrelevant for two reasons:

1. It's unlikely that governments--and especially not the USA on it's own--can (politically OR operationally) have a significant affect on climate change. Politically, regulation or cap and trade is likely to have too many loop-holes and exemptions to matter. Operationally, heavy polluting industry would just move to unregulated markets in other countries.

2. Many people are emotionally attached to different parts of this issue and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's normal. People like the Earth the way it is they like the weather where they live, and they're used to the species in their area. However this tends to make the debate jump straight into how to accomplish goals like "preventing species extinction" or "maintaining current climates" without looking critically at what whether those are good and needed (not to mention feasible) objectives. If you note our ability to survive in space, and grow crops underground (http://www.growlights.net) it seems unlikely that we should have to worry much about surviving less drastic things like global warming. Also, No one has mentioned any of the potential benefits of global warming. (I hear beach front property is cheap in Canada! Seriously.)

Anyway even if things really get out of control fast there are many options for controlling the fall to our likeing. This guy, regardless of his other views articulates some of them quite well: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html

Thorn|4.22.09 @ 7:56PM|#

@Naga

Actually, I'm a police detective. You will now be beaten with a rubber hose.

economist|4.22.09 @ 9:40PM|#

"Anyway, the majority of the problem could be solved by a carbon tax with an equal and opposite reduction in the income tax. That would account for the externalities of pollution, while at the same time increasing the returns for work.

Of course people avoid this very simple idea because it has the "T" word (tax) in it."

I'm actually for this solution. The problem is that the people pushing for a carbon tax usually like the "new tax" part but don't like the "getting rid of old taxes" part so much.

Sam Grove|4.22.09 @ 10:39PM|#

Climate over large stretches of time is actually much easier to predict than local weather patterns.

Actually, not. Trends can be projected and the past record can show patterns of trends,

But none of the models predicted the last decade of cooling, or at least there was no reportage of same.

Sam Grove|4.22.09 @ 10:42PM|#

If I may quote myself:

"I suspect the field of climate science has been populated by those who were propagandized in public schools on how evil capitalism is destroying the environment, so when they think about their careers, they decide to go into environmental sciences to stop the bad guys and save the earth.

They latch onto AGW because it is what they, more or less, already believe.

AGW isn't their discovery, it is their premise."

(previously posted on Cafe Hayek)

|4.23.09 @ 7:38AM|#

Here is a little over looked fact. As the earth warmed up the population grew. Seems that the MORE CO2 produced allows more people to live LONGER. There are NO, ZERO facts to support AL Gore's claims that if the earth warms up a few more degrees we're all gonna die or disease will run rampit. It's ALL B.S.

|4.23.09 @ 11:14AM|#

You are incabable of proving who is and who isn't a scientific authority.

Uh, that's why there exist such things as credentials. I've said repeatedly that all of the national academies of science of all the industrial nations agree on the three basic premises I stated above. If you think they're all wrong, go win your nobel prize by proving it. Until then, you're just spewing nonsense on a subject you don't know enough about because it fits into your preferred worldview.

You are kidding, right?! If you can't predict the local weather patterns, how can you predict the global climate which they affect?

Here's a page that explains what I'm talking about. It was the first to pop up on the google. I recommend further research on your part before you too continue pontificating on things you don't understand and substituting your own "common sense" for scientific reality.

Chad|4.23.09 @ 12:47PM|#

Tony, what is the point of debating these morons. They are too stupid to even know that they have been proven wrong, and are too close-minded to admit it if they ever did grasp the truth.

But none of the models predicted the last decade of cooling, or at least there was no reportage of same.

Hogwash. We understand the "cooling" of the last decade very well. You are, of course, using 1998 as your baseline. If you used 1997 or 1997, you would find a monster warming trend. But even ignoring your baseline cherry-picking, do we know WHY 1998 was way above baseline and why 2008 was below baseline, resulting in a microscoping "cooling trend" if you ignore all the other data?

YES WE DO KNOW. The answer is that 1998 was the biggest El Nino on record. El Nino is a phenomenon related to the Pacific Ocean currents, which bring warm water to the top. THIS HEATS THE ATMOSPHERE, and is why 1998 was so far above the trend line. Likewise, 2008 was a substantial La Nina event, which brings cold water to the Pacific surface and sucks heat out of the atmosphere. Additionally, 2008 was at the low point of the sunspot cycle, which is also related to cooling. While we can't predict La Nina/El Nino, we do know that they shift back and forth every few years. The 2008 La Nina is fading, and probably sometime in 2010 or 2011 an El Nino will begin. Temperatures will rise above baseline and the old 1998 record will be smashed.

Of course, the mere fact that you are looking at individual years rather than 5-10 year moving averages proves you don't know jack squat. You are essentially counting on noise to provide you with something to grab hold of.

Chad|4.23.09 @ 12:54PM|#

R C Dean | April 22, 2009, 1:24pm | #

I have long had a serene confidence in the thesis that the global average temperature of a planet circling a variable star will (a) vary and (b) the primary cause of such variation in temperature will be variations in the energy input from said star.

You can have all the serene confidence you want, but you would be wrong. The variations in earth's average temperature have little to do with changes in the sun's output, especially over time scales less than tens of millions of years. You should place your confidence in variations in the earth's orbital axis, variations in atmospheric chemistry, plate techtonics and the movement of land masses, and even the gradual cooling of the earth's core. There is no evidence that changes in the sun's output have had any significant impact on the observed warming...and it is not as if people haven't been looking.

Colonel_Angus|4.23.09 @ 1:07PM|#

Chad the fucking scientist, he's okay...

Mr. Dumbass, it's just too damn early to tell whether there is any long term trend at all. Temperature data is only reliable for a few decades. And there is no reliable explanation why any warming now would be different from what has occurred naturally thousands of times before.

Doesn't matter, StatistiNazi's comment makes this all pointless anyway. No government is capable of doing a damn thing about it.

Chad|4.23.09 @ 1:12PM|#

Dear Angus...aka, Bigger Dumbass.

You do not wait until you crash to hit your brakes. Instead, you base your decision to hit the brakes on the probability that you will crash.

Right now, our probability of crashing is quite high, as determined by every major scientific organization on earth.

g4m3th30ry|4.23.09 @ 1:48PM|#

Right now, our probability of crashing is quite high, as determined by every major scientific organization on earth.

This has been repeated ad naseum - can anyone prove this?

How many major scientific organizations are there?

Out of them - exactly what are they agreeing on? A general trend? Or specifics such as a small range to where the temp will go?

& Yes, appealing to authority is not necessarily fallacious in and of itself, but it's also not proof of anything.

So you can keep repeating what "every major scientific organization" thinks - but it doesn't prove anything.

Lastly - since I'm sure I'll be called ignorant for failing to believe this BS - but historically, including the last few decades, science has been wrong more often than they are right.

This is true by definition and will continue to be true as we continue to search for more and more data and come up with newer hypothesis - but for one hypothesis to be latched onto this quickly (remember, we were heading towards an ice age just 50 years ago) and seemingly normal people believe in it without questioning is just odd.

Though I guess stem cells falls into this category as well... I'm all for research, but idiotic "scientific" organizations are basically selling stem cell therapies as the next cure all when not one single therapy exists.

Chad|4.23.09 @ 2:33PM|#

What do you define as "proof"? I think your inability to understand that science can never prove anything is what is clouding your thinking.

I think the word "major" is intentionally fuzzy, but I would answer there are probably 100 or so "major" scientific organizations on earth, such as various national academies, or subject specific groups such as the American Chemical Society or the American Geophysical Union. It is irrelevant how you define it, though, because any organization that could even debatably be considered major has released a document in support of action on climate change. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Can you point out where "science has been wrong" in the last few decades? You are really going to have to stretch to find any decent examples, let alone more than science go right.

I find it funny that you think scientists "latched onto this quickly", when the idea of CO2-induced climate change was first suggested by Arrhenius in the late 1800's. And of course, the "scientists thought global cooling was going to happen in the '70s" thing is a completely debunked myth. You obviously don't bother to do your homework.

|4.23.09 @ 3:00PM|#

why are we wasting so much time arguing about proof. climate change isn't about certainty, it's about uncertanity. We don't KNOW for sure what's going to happen. But, that's how it always is for the future. Noboby but a fool is a 100% sure that climate change is, or is not occuring.

That being said if we can aknowledge that there is the possibilty of climate change, it stands to reason that we should take certain cost effective measures to protect against that risk. Just like we buy insurance against the risk of a house fire etc.

If we are wrong, and climate change is a hoax we will just have to get used to the cleaner air and water.

Oh, and let's not forget the other risks about ocean acidifcation from all the extra C02. That has the potenial to be just as harmful as anything else.

JB|4.23.09 @ 3:28PM|#

Stupid fucks like Tony and Chad miss the point that the Earth's climate was changing long before humans even existed.

Climate change not caused by man is the default state of this planet.

There needs to be a large amount of evidence to claim this current bout is 80% caused by man. I've seen some evidence, but nowhere near enough to claim any sort of certainty (especially considering how little we understand about solar science).

JB|4.23.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Can you point out where "science has been wrong" in the last few decades?

Ethanol.

The science was bad, and the application of that science to policy was disastrous.

This is a prime example of the government being retarded when it tries to pick winners. Often their "solutions" are worse than the problem they are attempting to solve.

g4m3th30ry|4.23.09 @ 3:57PM|#

Can you point out where "science has been wrong" in the last few decades?

I said by definition - any science that is trying to understand something that currently isn't understood is going to fail more time than it succeeds... because of course once you've succeeded you have no reason to go forward.

So for every new jump in computer chip technology (or whatever), there had to be failures.

So by definition - science is more often wrong than right. It's simply not possible in the other direction.

As for the myth of cooling, I'm not sure how you define the fact it was a myth.

It happened; due to lack of knowledge about ice ages, the climate in general, and a mild reduction in temps over the 30 years prior, a number of scientists were proffering the idea that we might move into an ice age. (same thing now in reverse, very little real knowledge, very small temp change in a very short time period, but better charts and graphs I assume...)

Sure, they were proved wrong fairly quickly, but what part of what I said is a "myth" exactly?

Colnonel_Angus|4.23.09 @ 4:33PM|#

"Out of them - exactly what are they agreeing on? A general trend? Or specifics such as a small range to where the temp will go?"

This is an important part of the "We must do something" debate. From everything that I have read, especially Chav's precious fucking peer-reviewed journals, there is no consensus about the extent of what might happen. It ranges from "people can contribute to global warming but it is insignificant compared to natural occurrences" on up to "the whole fucking earth will flood". That is why I don't call it a consensus. People like Chav and Tony take advantage of the most extreme, unlikely scenarios, and my reaction to this sort of crap will always be "fuck you and die".

Chad|4.23.09 @ 5:03PM|#

Stupid fucks like Tony and Chad miss the point that the Earth's climate was changing long before humans even existed.

I am quite sure we are both aware of this. I am also quite sure that we are aware that abrupt climate changes are associated with nearly every mass extinction event in the fossil record. I'd prefer avoiding another one. Wouldn't you?

JB | April 23, 2009, 3:31pm | #

Ethanol.

Politicians =/ scientists. Corn ethanol as a cure for climate change and environmental issues has been an argument under attack from day one.

This is an important part of the "We must do something" debate. From everything that I have read, especially Chav's precious fucking peer-reviewed journals, there is no consensus about the extent of what might happen. It ranges from "people can contribute to global warming but it is insignificant compared to natural occurrences" on up to "the whole fucking earth will flood". That is why I don't call it a consensus. People like Chav and Tony take advantage of the most extreme, unlikely scenarios, and my reaction to this sort of crap will always be "fuck you and die".

I disagree completely. It is YOU who keeps focusing on an extreme scenario, not Tony or I. We both fully acknowledge that climate change will be somewhere between insignificant and awful, centered around just plain bad. We then argue that we should invest money in order to mitigate the risks. You, on the other hand, keep clamoring that maybe, just maybe, we might get lucky and nothing will happen, so we don't have to do anything or make changes to our behavior. It is YOU who is arguing that we should base our actions on an unlikely but possible scenario, while Tony and I are basing our policies on the most likely outcomes.

Chad|4.23.09 @ 5:06PM|#

It happened; due to lack of knowledge about ice ages, the climate in general, and a mild reduction in temps over the 30 years prior, a number of scientists were proffering the idea that we might move into an ice age. (same thing now in reverse, very little real knowledge, very small temp change in a very short time period, but better charts and graphs I assume...)

You just don't get it, do you. In the 60's and 70's, scientists figured out the causes of the ice ages, and some suggested that we would eventually go back into one without any interference from mankind. Well, we have sure interfered, now haven't we? During the same time, far more reports of potential global warming due to greenhouse gases were published. Not only did the warming papers vastly outnumber the cooling papers, THEY AREN'T EVEN CONTRADICTORY.

Michael Ejercito|4.23.09 @ 8:14PM|#

I disagree completely. It is YOU who keeps focusing on an extreme scenario, not Tony or I. We both fully acknowledge that climate change will be somewhere between insignificant and awful, centered around just plain bad. We then argue that we should invest money in order to mitigate the risks. You, on the other hand, keep clamoring that maybe, just maybe, we might get lucky and nothing will happen, so we don't have to do anything or make changes to our behavior. It is YOU who is arguing that we should base our actions on an unlikely but possible scenario, while Tony and I are basing our policies on the most likely outcomes.

So will you support a policy of detonating hydrogen bombs at test sites to reduce global temperatures (TTAPS)?

Michael Ejercito|4.23.09 @ 8:16PM|#

Oh, and let's not forget the other risks about ocean acidifcation from all the extra C02. That has the potenial to be just as harmful as anything else.

What is the history of the pH of the ocean?

Chad|4.23.09 @ 10:43PM|#

What is the history of the pH of the ocean?

Slow or no change: Life flourishes

Fast changes: Mass extinction

Really, that is all you need to know. Or if you weren't so lazy, you google "ocean acidification", click the first link (wikipedia), and then note that the first reference answers your question. The projected pH drop is outside of the bounds of anything that has happened in the last 300 million years.

|4.24.09 @ 2:04PM|#

Slow or no change: Life flourishes

Fast changes: Mass extinction

Really, that is all you need to know. Or if you weren't so lazy, you google "ocean acidification", click the first link (wikipedia), and then note that the first reference answers your question. The projected pH drop is outside of the bounds of anything that has happened in the last 300 million years.

No, what I need to know is what actually happened in the past .

|4.24.09 @ 3:08PM|#

There are two quick fixes to ocean acidification.

One is to dump tons of crushed limestone into the ocean. Remember that limestone is basic and huge limestone deposits are formed as a result of retreating seas. The same process is used to reduce acidity of lakes.

Another solution is to raze mature trees and replace them with saplings to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. One might wonder why cutting down trees and replacing them with saplings would reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Remember that saplings grow into mature trees by making cellulose from water and carbon dioxide. Furthermore, carbon in trees is only returned to the atmosphere when it combusts or decays. So burying trees deep underground will prevent the carbon from getting back into the atmosphere.

|4.26.09 @ 9:10AM|#

global warming hysteria scares the shit out of me, really. when the obamatards get their way on this, brace for dear life.

i have reached the point now where i am starting to hope that all this big government bullshit gets passed and that it ruins the lives of ordinary americans, as punishment for their stupidity for allowing this joke to become their president.

call me unpatriotic, whatever, i can no longer identify with this country. sorry.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements