Our Way or... Well, Our Way

Should the EPA have the authority to police greenhouse gases?

We don't need a cap-and-trade deal. What we need is a RICO trial.

Every now and then, apparently, history challenges us with a crisis far too important to be left to the democratic process or the vagaries of public opinion. In these instances, the enlightened, the powerful, the moral must act swiftly.

So sayeth the Obama administration this week, empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to police greenhouse gases as a danger to public health and welfare, thus giving the agency discretion to regulate ... well, anything it pleases—or, I should say, whatever is left.

"These long-overdue findings cement 2009's place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform," explained EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "This continues our work towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national security and our economy."

Jackson, of course, is an administrator, not a policymaker. She is charged neither with meditating on our energy cravings nor with solving our national security dilemmas. She isn't charged with tackling the nation's economic problems, either. In fact, any more assistance from D.C. on that front and we all will be peddling frozen apples in the bruising cold.

What Jackson has done, though, is inadvertently offer the strongest case against the EPA's dubious decision on carbon dioxide. If the EPA's actions really converge on as many spheres of public life as Jackson asserts, then a single crusading regulatory agency is in no position—and should have no authority—to regulate all of them.

No worries, we're told. The EPA wouldn't do it. It's a bluff. It has other things in mind. In this case, it is all about hastening much-needed "action" on climate change by employing a technique universally known as blackmail.

The timing of the EPA announcement gives President Barack Obama the ammunition he needs to make a climate deal in Copenhagen, where leaders from around the world have gathered for one last chance to save mankind—until they all fly to by-then temperate Mexico next year for the last last chance to save mankind.

Obama, as we know, has no authority to enter into a binding international treaty (isn't the Constitution irritating?), as any treaty must be ratified by the Senate—a Senate that won't pass a cap-and-trade scheme any time soon if we're lucky.

Now that the EPA can duplicate any suicidal emissions pact world leaders can cook up (exempt: emerging nations, poor nations and nations that value prosperity), the president would not need to ratify a thing. And who needs treaties when the Obama administration already has threatened the Senate with unilateral regulations on greenhouse gases unless a cap-and-trade bill is passed? The administration need only mirror the agreement it can't make.

In effect, the EPA is warning most of the nation's businesses that burdensome regulations are coming unless the president is suitably mollified with a law that severely caps carbon emissions. In other words, figure out your own punishment, kids, or we'll have to come up with one for you. You know, choice.

The administration also acts as if this were the last chance to save mankind, when, in fact—on the heels of the ClimateGate scandal, sagging poll numbers on warming hysteria, and genuine economic worries (worries that would be exacerbated by more growth-inhibiting regulations)—it might only be its last chance to cram through a framework for harsh emissions standards.

Granted, there are a few obstacles standing in the way. Votes. People. Process. And so on ...

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

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ed||

    giving the agency discretion to regulate ... well, anything it pleases or,
    I should say, whatever is left.

    Oh, there's more. There's always more. For instance, today I woke up and took a long walk, emitting carbon dioxide as I respired. Did I exhale more than My Fair Share?

  • JB||

    Control based on retarded whim.

    Scientists can't even explain blue lights in the sky, but yet they claim to have a thorough understanding of Earth's climate?

    What a crock of shit.

  • ||

    And yet you know enough to know that scientists are wrong about AGW.

  • JB||

    I know they are wrong when they claim to understand the climate well enough to tell people they should spend trillions of dollars.

    They don't; it's a lie at this point.

  • ||

    Just because you disagree with their policy advice doesn't mean you know enough about the subject to know that they are wrong about AGW in general. You still haven't explained how you know the climate scientists are wrong about AGW.

  • ||

    I know enough...they have no proof that AGW exists. And if Al Gore, one of the dumbest bastards to ever live, believes it then it's wrong

  • ||

    Why the hell do you think they don't have proof? Are you fucking retarded? Why do I have to keep repeating myself to you idiots?

  • JB||

    Holy fuck, you dimwitted dense retard, go read what I wrote.

    I know they are wrong about their certainty. They have not presented enough evidence and data to prove that current climate changes are caused by human beings.

    The climate has changed all the time before humans even existed. Humans might be impacting the climate 1%, 20%, 75%, or 95% right now, but that is not certain and not settled.

    I do think there is some evidence that humans have an impact on the climate. I have yet to see any scientist claim that impact is above 90%, and I have yet to see much evidence pointing that way.

  • ||

    Can I see your PhD in climatology please?

  • JB||

    I don't need a piece of paper with words on it to follow most of the science in this field.

    Go find me one research paper, citation, or news article naming a climate scientist who claims that human beings are responsible for 90% or more of the current warming. And I want to be able to see that data backing up that assertion.

    Go look, you won't find it.

  • ||

    What the fuck does "90%" have to do with anything? All they need to show is that man-made pollution has a negative effect in order to justify some kind of tax system. I don't give a fuck if pollution only affects the climate by 1%, if you're affecting others with the shit you produce, then you're going to have to pay to clean up the mess. Why is this so hard to understand?

  • JB||

    You just posting there is affecting me negatively.

    I now demand you kill yourself as recompense.

    Do it.

    Spending trillions of dollars because humans have 1% impact on the climate isn't just monumentally stupid; it's evil.

    People like you should be tortured, die screaming, and then have their souls raped for eternity.

  • ||

    Did I advocate spending trillions of dollars on anything??? If you litter on my lawn, you have to pay for it. If you pollute and it affects my property, you have to pay for it. You can't get around that by claiming that I'm trying to spend trillions of dollars. You are either deluding yourself, retarded, or both.

  • ||

    I'll sell you mine. Cheap.

  • ||

    No thanks

  • ||

    There's no proof. The models do not work. Get over it.

    Outside of the GHE the rest is wild ass speculation for which there is no evidence much less proof.

  • ||

    If they weren't wrong why have they engaged in a campaign of lies?

  • ||

    This isn't the Illuminati. There is no conspiracy. There is no web of lies.

  • ||

    Try again. I didn't say there was a conspiracy. I said they engaged in a campaign of lies. I think the motivation is simple economics. You get funded if you say there's AGW. You don't get funded if you find to the contrary.

  • ||

    That's idiotic. No one is pocketing the funding; it goes straight to research. Why would they lie to continue research if the research is supposed to show the truth? How do scientists personally benefit from funding? You people have no idea how scientists work.

  • JB||

    These guys are doing there jobs for free?

    Wow, you are ignorant.

  • ||

    That's idiotic. No one is pocketing the funding; it goes straight to research.

    You're barely coherent.

    Pay me a quarter million a year and I'll prove AGW better than any of these bozos and I won't be stupid enough to leave email trails.

    Give me a grant for a few million to research 'green energy' and I'll produce all the 'research' you can read for as long as you pay me.

    Apropos of nothing.. did it ever occur to you that everyone in outfits like the American Cancer Society would lose their jobs if we found a cure for cancer?

    The money is going into pockets. Just not yours or mine.

  • ||

    So you and JB are saying that I could send a letter to the NIH saying that I am going to research how to turn lead into gold, and they'll send me $50 million???

    You are both fucking delusional. First of all:

    "Pay me a quarter million a year and I'll prove AGW better than any of these bozos and I won't be stupid enough to leave email trails."

    You can't, because you don't know jack fucking shit about climatology. Thank you for arguing my point. If you don't have the ability to research AGW, you are not going to get funding. Do you think these researchers just get money sent to them blindly? They have to send in reports about where every single penny is going, and they have to show all the methods and results of research. If they aren't spending the money well, and aren't researching well, they don't get anymore funding.

    "did it ever occur to you that everyone in outfits like the American Cancer Society would lose their jobs if we found a cure for cancer?"

    Did it ever occur to you that

    a. you are fucking retarded

    b. there will always be another research project waiting for a successful scientist.

    c. the main incentive for a scientist to do research is not money (most could make more money working in a dead-end office job, I know from personal experience), but to advance science? Do you know how much the average scientist gets paid?

    d. ALL OF THE ABOVE

  • ||

    So you and JB are saying that I could send a letter to the NIH saying that I am going to research how to turn lead into gold, and they'll send me $50 million???

    Do you have syphilitic dementia? You're incoherent.

    You can't, because you don't know jack fucking shit about climatology

    Incorrect. You're projecting. I'd be happy to debate the science with you, but of course you can't because you can't be bothered to research it and ultimately you don't care. To you, it's a religion and I'm a heretical unbeliever.

    you are fucking retarded

    Right right. We got it already, Appeal to authority and personal attacks.. the inevitable last resort of the intellectually incompetent.

    I get it. I'm talking about science and you're arguing your faith. We won't come to a conclusion unless you want to discuss the science.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Actually they don't claim that. They acknowledge they don't know everything about the climate and that nature acts beyond their understanding. However they go ahead and write poorly written computer programs with built in bugs to generate future climate predictions that they further acknowledge are inaccurate in the near, middle and long term.

  • JB||

    Sorry, but if you are advocating for spending trillions of dollars (which some of these scientists are), then you are implying that you understand the climate well enough to make decisions like that.

    Those scienticians and their fellow religious cultists are lying when they make those claims. There is evidence for human impact on the climate, but they overstate that evidence.

  • ||

    The science behind AGW and the politics of what to do about AGW are two different things. Climatologists are not lying about the science.

  • JB||

    Yes, they are. In addition to fudging data, they are destroying data.

    That is fact.

  • ||

    Check the graph comparing the CRU data to the other climate researchers. Where is the made up data?

  • JB||

    They also aren't two different things when those same 'scientists' advocate for specific policy proposals as many of them have done.

  • ||

    Exactly, so what does that have to do with the validity of the actual science?

  • ||

    It's true. That man has no dick.

  • Suki||

    LOL, first thing I thought should be in the missing alt text too.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Thirded. A good "alt" alt-text would have been "it's true, the Obama administration has no dick"

  • ||

    I think the Obama administration has more dicks than it knows what to do with.

  • ||

  • ||

    Exactly what are you a doctor of, Mr. Grand?

  • ||

    That's the best line in the movie.

  • ||

    If they go ahead with this, it will kill any chance of recovery. Then the Republicans can run on revoking the EPA's jurisidiction over this in 2010. Then the Dems will be left with the option in 2011 of filabustering/vetoing efforts to kill this monstrosity and owning the bad economy or alienating their derranged supporters on the left. It is going to be fun to watch. Bad for the country but fun to watch. But I think this nonsense is going to finally be the bridge too far.

  • Tony||

    Republican stupidity went a long way to destroying the power and prestige of the U.S. If Republican stupidity destroys the planet, it will really piss me off.

  • ||

    OTOH, Obama getting ass-raped by Ahmonnajihad and his pal Hugo totally has prestigious and powerful again.

  • ||

    has us...sheesh

  • Suki||

    At least we are not the bullies any more. That is the important part.

  • ||

    If you had to choose between pitching and catching you would rather catch?

  • Suki||

    Us girls always catch for guys.

  • ||

    In The EPA offices or Gaza?

  • Suki||

    LOL, that sounds like win.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    No the important thing is making sure the global economy is fair to the citizens of all nations just not the US. If that means rolling back the quality of living for the citizens of the US then so be it.

  • Old Mexican||

    I am going out on a limb and say that the fact that you will be pissed will not keep me up at night.

  • Suki||

    I missed that. Can you repost?

  • Old Mexican||

    I am going out on a limb and say that the fact that you will be pissed will not keep me up at night.

  • ||

    That looks like two limbs, OM.

  • Old Mexican||

    Well, that's all I got...

  • ||

    Most folks have four limbs. Are you okay?

  • Old Mexican||

    No, that's all I got to go out on... I would have to gather more limbs, and that ain't easy.

  • Suki||

    The next bonfire night is just around the corner.

  • ||

    Yes Tony because on the US emmits CO2. And it is not like INdia and China aren't going to tell piss ants like you to fuck off and build modern economies like we used to have.

    With any luck you will get angry and leave and go somewhere, anywhere else. It can only improve the collective IQ of the country.

  • ||

    Better yet, have him go directly to China and Chad AKA Brainy Smurf can arrive in India as our emissaries so they can personally tell them how stupid, short-sighted and enviromentally destructive they are.

    Let's see how far those two's collective sales pitches get them.

  • Chris||

    Will I be able to get it on pay-per-view?

  • ||

    And right on que Tony shows up to show the kind of moron that the Dems will have to answer to if they chose to destroy the economy. In some ways I almost feel sorry for the Dems. When Tony is the guy who you have to appeal to as a base, what the fuck chance do you have?

  • Tony||

    Better than having to be beholden to mouth-breathing anti-intellectual right-wing religious freaks.

  • ||

    You are the AGW zealot, right Tony? Doesn't that make you the religious freak here? Of course, you are too dumb to realize that, so I thought I'd be nice and point it out to you.

  • Tony||

    Yes and I also practice the Darwinist religion as I've been accused of by mouth-breathing anti-intellectual right-wing religious freaks on the topic of biology.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Let me guess you are a ass-breathing pseudo-intellectual left-wing eco-freak.

  • Old Mexican||

    You know, I never wanted for the US to have ANY power, nor did I care for the prestige - countries don't have sensibilities, only individuals do.

    I care more for Americans being free, that's all.

  • ||

    Keep sucking Tony....it's only called a blowjob?

  • ||

    destroying the power and prestige of the U.S

    It is terrible I know. Other nations and the very citizens of the US are less likely to agree to US policing the world. It is a fucking travesty I tell you.

    If Republican stupidity destroys the planet, it will really piss me off.

    Name one Republican who had anything to do with Climategate. It would seem if the AGW will destroy the planet and climategate prevented us from doing anything about it that it is the authors of those emails who are to blame. If the evidence for climate change is strong then why did these assholes create such a scandal by preventing the very evidence of AGW from being public??

    If the planet is destroyed (even the most severe predictions in the IPCC report do not claim that AGW will destroy the planet by the way) it will because of Jones, Mann Briffa, and others were complete assholes, not because the opposition party, who are out of power, acted like an opposition party.

  • ||

    Tony,

    You've proven yourself an idiot time and again. We're convinced. No need to go over the top.

  • juris imprudent||

    I don't think we've established WHO is the bigger idiot though - tony or Chad.

  • ||

    I think that's the half time show for the superbowl this season.

    First one to escape from the paper bag wins!

  • ||

    Get the bags wet or we'll never see the second half.

  • ||

    Ad hominem attacks are an indicator of troll presence.

  • ||

    One says "Potatoe" and one says "Potahtoe".*

    In the end, does it even matter?

    *Intentionally misspelling to underscore that both are on par with Dan Quayle.

  • jester||

    No, Bono will save the Earth during an amazing extravaganza.

  • ||

    when it's bono, it an "extravagina".

  • Ska||

    Holy shit I'm using that line.

  • jester||

    Then with his extravagina appearance fees he'll pay his carbon offsets, then jump on a jet to preach at his next revival. His first class seat will be surrounded by seats he purchased for his sunglasses, his hat, and his gloves...just to keep his bononess secure from any annoying neighbor that might want an autograph or to strike up some small talk.

  • ||

    Worry not. St. Bono of the Immaculate Perspiration has a Bono-Mobile.

  • ||

    Both.

  • Tony||

    Well I'm honored just to be nominated.

  • jester||

    Republican stupidity did destroy power and prestige of the US with the Iraq War, War on Terror, Patriot Act, ad nauseum but that isn't what really sucked. What really sucked was that it wasted American's wealth on displaying that 'power' in a needless war to 'bring democracy' to Iraq all the while undermining the Bill of Rights, separation of powers, etc.- the truly sad victims of the stupity. If America meant prestige and power to you, well then, we just viewed America differently. To me it was about economic and personal freedom.

    And finally, the Republicans delivered a less-free America into the hands of an administration hell-bent on making it even less free. So in your book they did something right.

    The next statement, destroying the planet, is a stretch. Let's put it in perspective. Suppose Republicans do not torpedo the goals of the administration. Further suppose that China and India and a lot of other nations ruled by corrupt leadership decide to cheat or refuse to play along. Will they become rogue nations? If so, will the enviro-friendly nations be prepared to enforce the resolutions so easily made by deliberative bodies like the UN? Will anti-enviro-fascists be classed with islamo-fascists?

    Think back to Iraq and the WMD issues before Operation Shock'n'Awe. Can we really be sure that this climate treaty is enforceable or are we just doing something to say we did something? Kinda like TARP. Did TARP work?

  • ||


    Will they become rogue nations? If so, will the enviro-friendly nations be prepared to enforce the resolutions so easily made by deliberative bodies like the UN? Will anti-enviro-fascists be classed with islamo-fascists?

    +1

  • ||

    There can be only one solution for the AGW-denier rogue states who belch too much CO2. And we must do this to them to save the planet...

    NUKE'EM!
    Nothing says "green" like nukes, at least green in the dark.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "wasting america's wealth"?

    More tax money has been spent on entitlement programs in this country than has been spent on all the wars combined.

    And freedom and the Bill of Rights had already been torn up by FDR's New Deal long before the Bush administration ever came along.

  • jester||

    I never said it was the largest wealth-wasting event, nor did I imply that passing the Patriot Act was the largest freedom-squelching event. I was addressing the sins of the Bush Admin. which represents the (most) 'current' incarnation of the Republican Party.

    I don't disagree with your assertions of course.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    If so, will the enviro-friendly nations be prepared to enforce the resolutions so easily made by deliberative bodies like the UN?
    Considering we owe China over a trillion dollars I am going to go with no.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    No mention of Democrat stupidity, I see. Par for Tony.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Republican stupidity went a long way to destroying the power and prestige of the U.S. If Republican stupidity destroys the planet, it will really piss me off.


    Global warming is not going to destroy the planet, despite James Hansen's warnings about Earth's oceans boiling away.

    Tony, we could plunge Earth's temperatures back to what they were inn the eighteenth century with a few hundred megatons' worth of hydrogen bombs. Why don't we do that now if global warming will destroy the Earth?

  • ||

    BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE STUPID

  • Michael Ejercito||

    BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE STUPID


    How so?

    It is much cheaper, much faster, and much easier than controlling emissions worldwide.

  • ||

    Who is going to pay for them? Where are we going to detonate them?

  • ||

    Both parties are complicit in destroying economic prosperity from which the power and prestige derives.

    Neither party will destroy the planet, unless Obama tries to repudiate the debt and China gets a mad on.

  • ||

    I wonder. In a similar fashion, I would like to see the republicans denounce health care and claim they will reverse whatever the dems do after they take control of both houses in 2010. Hey, if the dems are willing to sacrifice their jobs by voting for it, let them know their sacrifice will be worthless in the end.

  • ||

    A-freakin'-Men!

    I agree completely. Why is it a foregone conclusion that if the Dickocrats shove this down the throats of the American people, we can't simply overturn it in 2010? Obama may veto but a majority in the House especially could cut the testicles off any legislation regardless of what Obambi wants.

    I've been asking the question on various forums for months. Why is this a fait accompli if it passes? Take it up as the 2010 GOP campaign platform--"Pull The Plug on ObamaCare!"

  • cmace||

    They shoudl go after the number one greenhouse gas: water vapor. But its kind of hard to blame clouds on the free market.

  • ||

    Actually it would be easy. Power plants, be they coal, natural gas, biomass, oil or nuclear boil water that turns the turbines that generate the electricity. All of these plants release tons and tons of steam in the process.

  • BakedPenguin||

    You know what really generates a lot of water vapor? The sun. Get rid of that, and we'll really move forward against global warming.

  • ||

    Better yet, eliminate plants. Eliminates the need and demand for CO2 in the first place.

    Since we can't tax the pesky bastards anyway, eminent domain!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The EPA can always tell us how long to boil water for cooking.

  • Old Mexican||

    In effect, the EPA is warning most of the nation's businesses that burdensome regulations are coming unless the president is suitably mollified with a law that severely caps carbon emissions. In other words, figure out your own punishment, kids, or we'll have to come up with one for you. You know, choice.

    Something like "choose your poison."

    "Ok, what will it be? We can just beat you to death, or we can first rape you for a while and THEN beat you to death? What's your pleasure?"

    Man, I wish I was Bruce Willis and had a Katana in my hands . . .

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Something like "choose your poison."

    "Ok, what will it be? We can just beat you to death, or we can first rape you for a while and THEN beat you to death? What's your pleasure?"

    Man, I wish I was Bruce Willis and had a Katana in my hands . . .


    There is a third option.

    Tell those EPA people to take those regulations and shove them up their vaginas!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The EPA is not some independent 4th branch of government.

    It was a creation of Congress and is subject to the power of Congress.

    Congress could and should pass a law that explicitly prohibits the EPA from regulation CO2 emmissions in any way.

    If the Republicans were smart, they would start making that part of the congressional campaign platform for the 2010 elections.

    Elect enough people opposed to the EPA trying to blackmail the whole country and then kick the legs out from under the EPA.

  • ||

    If they have any balls they will.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    In other words, don't hold your breath (unless mandated to do so by the EPA).

  • ||

    My neighbor is a heavy breather.  I just turned him in to the EPA.

  • ||

    We need to turn in people who fart, too. Methane, you know.

  • ||

    Where's that farting bread aisle lady the SugerMan told us about?

  • ||

    Tony has had to cut the number of obscene phone calls he makes to his old boyfriend in half in order to do his part.

  • ||

    For the record, despite Tony's claims, I was never his boyfriend. Only idiots date their stalkers.

  • ||

    Even restraining orders don't stop Tony.

  • B.P.||

    "Every now and then, apparently, history challenges us with a crisis far too important to be left to the democratic process or the vagaries of public opinion."

    Strangely, we have about six of these types of public opinion-bypassing crises happening at once.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Everything is a crisis in the reign of Obama the 1st.

    And, of course, every one of them is Bush's fault - one way or another.

  • jester||

    Bush delivered us into Obama's hands, so you are essentially correct sir.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    No, the voting public did that.

  • jester||

    Ok, you're right. Bush's bad policies drove the voting public (whatever that is) to seek an 'alternative' who is Obama.

    Jeez. Quit picking on me.

  • ||

    Word. America has the Bush clan to thank for opening up the running lane for the Man-Child.

  • ||

    The timing of the EPA announcement gives President Barack Obama the ammunition he needs to make a climate deal in Copenhagen

    Coincidence! This announcement has NOTHING to do with Copenhagen!

    How could anyone believe the President would politicize the Science? That's just crazy talk.

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, from another post. This is for dessert:

    Tony: How about any of you deniers explain why putting 90 million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every day should have no effect on anything?

    Because the atmosphere weighs about 6 x 10 to 15 or 6,000,000,000,000,000 tons, Tony, dear, darling, sweetheart.

    THAT'S why.

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, and the plants eat that stuff up. They seem to L-ove it...

  • Old Mexican||

    This is my second reply to Tony. Enjoy:

    Oh, I am not saying it will have ZERO effect - it will have LITTLE effect. And I know this because of two things: One, CO2 is plant food - they LOVE that crap. And, 90 million each day is about 3,285,000,000,000 or 3,285 billion tons per Century, which is about .00054 the total weight of the atmosphere or 0.005%

    For comparison, currently CO2 represents 0.038% of the atmosphere.

  • Tony||

    You're not saying anything, you're just pulling things from your ass and asserting them as facts. How the fuck do you know it will have "little" vs "large" effect? Are you just assuming it, sort of guesstimating? Because that's what it looks like.

    Oh and deforestation isn't really helping with the excess CO2.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    You're such a pussy, Tony.

  • Suki||

    But it sure is nice to curl up by the fire with beloved boyfriend. That is the sacrifice I make.

  • ||

    So, are you then arguing for MORE deforestation, since those plants aren't getting on the stick and sucking up more CO2?

    Are you shilling for artificial trees now, Tony?

    That would be consistent with your enviro-wacko crackpot green control freakishness.

  • jester||

    Denmark and Ireland have very low deforestation rates. So does Iceland. We should follow their lead.

  • buzzoo||

    Iceland has low deforestation rates?

    really? REALLY? You just said that with a straight face?

    Their current ecosystem is largely treeless because of the massive deforestation from the first settlers. Let alone the volcanism.

  • ||

    It's the magic of math.

  • Brett L||

    What? Tony, US has more forest today than it had in 1949. It seems that the same fertilizer and pesticides that destroy our streams also allow us to cultivate more crops on less land, thus allowing much cultivated land to revert back to its natural state. That and better land/forestry management by evil paper companies.

  • ||

    We don't have to assume anything. CO2 has been 15 times higher than it is now and the temp was cooler.

    You need to find a new religion. I hear Islam is very intolerant to facts too. You should like it.

  • juris imprudent||

    DURR HURR HURR

    Plants crave CO2.

  • ||

    Instead of trying to reason with Tony, maybe we should just squirt him with water...

  • Ska||

    Add vinegar to taste.

  • Tony||

    And CO2 makes up about 0.0387% of it. What the fuck exactly is your point? Do you think you're actually saying something here?

  • Old Mexican||

    Yes - that the amount of CO2 is TOO SMALL to be significant.

  • Tony||

    It's a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. Even in that small concentration. Therefore, increasing the concentration traps more heat. These are elementary facts, dude.

  • ||

    An MIT meteorologist refutes your elementary facts.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....25400.html

    "Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

    "About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's."

  • The Gobbler||

    These are elementary facts school, dude.

  • Tony||

    But not just any MIT meteorologist, one who denies the link between smoking and lung cancer and who regularly takes paychecks from oil companies for "consulting"!

    I'd link 1000 climate scientists who don't agree with him, but you'd just dismiss them as paid-off hacks.

  • ||

    So you're saying that your side of the issue has more paid-off hacks than our side of the issue?

  • Tony||

    No. I'm saying Richard S. Lindzen is a paid-off hack, and it's curious why you'd choose to cite him among all the other climate scientists in the world, if you were truly interested in objective facts and not just pushing your preconceived bias.

  • ||

    Tony. The guy graduated from Harvard and is a professor at MIT. He has a degree in atmospheric physics.

    How much more qualified could he possibly be?

    "who regularly takes paychecks from oil companies for "consulting"! "

    - sounds like you called him a paid hack to me...

    If the climate of the earth where as fragile as you insinuate, the human race would have died off long ago.

    It takes an asteroid hitting the earth to cause a dust cloud to kill off the dinosaurs, yet somehow the ecosystem is fine.

    Suddenly, some extra CO2 in the atmosphere is a crisis...

    Just doesn't add up...

  • Chad||

    How much more qualified could he be? Not much.

    But he is still 1/1000th as qualified as the totality of scientists on the other side of the scale.

  • Suki||

    Hang Chad.

  • anonymous||

    So, how many people do we have to get to believe that AGW is not happening before consensus reality is reconfigured to eliminate it?

  • ||

    But he is still 1/1000th as qualified as the totality..

    Come on Chad, spice it up a bit. Don't hang on appeal to authority so much. Can't you throw in some tu quoque or circular reasoning?

  • Tony||

    Haha... This is much closer to what we call the fallacious appeal to authority than what we do when we cite the established facts as understood by just shy of everyone in the world whose opinion matters. Throwing MIT and Harvard around doesn't change the fact that he's one guy who holds a fringe view of the topic.

    Yes I did call him a paid hack. Maybe he believes what he says, but there are also many other qualified people to consult, but that you won't because you don't like what they have to say.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    It takes an asteroid hitting the earth to cause a dust cloud to kill off the dinosaurs, yet somehow the ecosystem is fine.
    Actually the latest theory is that the dinosaurs survived the asteroid and were killed by a later event. The asteroid hit 300,000 years before the mass extinction.

  • ||

    Irony meet Hypocrisy....My dear guests, I am your host, Mr. Anthony.

    Welcome to My Fantasy Island.

  • juris imprudent||

    HERETIC! Burn the scientist! BURN HIMMMMMM!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Something like "choose your poison."

    "Ok, what will it be? We can just beat you to death, or we can first rape you for a while and THEN beat you to death? What's your pleasure?"

    Man, I wish I was Bruce Willis and had a Katana in my hands . . .


    Oil companies are the cleanest, most ethical companies in the world, providing energy and jobs to millions while setting prices that encourage conservation whenever the supply is low.

    Environmentalist parasites have the same value as the Anopheles mosquito, destroying the CRFC industry over an ozone hole that only existed over the one place in the world where no one lives, who led the campaign to ban the use of DDT and thus allowing malaria to make a comeback...

  • CatoTheElder||

    I'm pretty sure that Lindzen questioned the statistical significance of the correlation between 2nd hand tobacco smoke and various health effects rather than smoking per se.

    Studies conducted for the EPA tortured the second-hand smoke data severely, but couldn't get confessions at the 95% confidence level. So the EPA arbitrarily lowered the hurdle to 90%.

    Prof. Lindzen's PhD is in applied mathematics. His contrarian view on second-hand smoke is a valid criticism of how political science has infected real science.

  • Neu Mejican||

    "Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

    If this were economics and you said a single factor in the economy was going to result in 2% inflation, would you consider it an important factor? Would 2% inflation be no big deal?

    "About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's."

    This is an apples to oranges comparison for a lot of reasons.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Or would 2% growth be a better analogy? I think so, actually.

    So, would something that resulted in 2% growth in the economy be no big deal? Unimportant? Not worth mentioning?

  • Chad||

    What is your evidence for that statement, OM?

    Your body, like the climate, is complex. A mere ONE part per million of something like VX nerve gas will snuff you out in a minute. Clearly, complex systems can be completely thrown out of whack by much less than the 100 ppm of CO2 we have added to the atmosphere.

  • Chad||

    Actually, I just looked up the toxicity of VX. I was wrong. One part per billion will turn you into mush.

  • Brett L||

    I call bullshit. From wikipedia: "VX is the most toxic nerve agent ever synthesized for which activity has been independently confirmed[5]. The median lethal dose (LD50) for humans is estimated to be about 10 milligrams through skin contact and the LCt50 for inhalation is estimated to be 30–50 mg•min/m³.[6]"

  • ||

    Brett, not quite that much, though you are certainly more correct than Brainy Smurf.

    "The estimated LCt50 (the product of concentration 50 times time that is lethal to 50% of the exposed population by inhalation) ranges from 10 mg-min/m3 for VX to 400 mg-min/m3 for GA."

    CDC Muscurinic Receptor Inhibitors

    Chad, yes, climate is complex, like the body, but the body is much more predictable in regard to diagnosing and treating disease. The reason we know agents such as this affects homeostasis is we know the narrow limits in which the body functions.
    The same cannot be said of the climate, since functional limits have yet to be identified, much less conclusively proven. Epic fail on analogy.

    With this AGW, it is far from conclusive that there is an actual problem, much less there is an actual solution with a proven outcome.

    Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

  • Chad||

    Hmm, I saw 1 mg-min/m3. Your number are closer to 50-100 ppb. Either way, thats three orders of magnitude smaller than the CO2 concentrations we are making.

  • ||

    Except that the historical evidence doesn't seem to support the AGW contentions re CO2. 1) Past temperatures have been higher, and CO2 concentrations higher, without any runaway greenhouse effects. 2) High CO2 concentrations follow high temperatures, not the other way around. 3) Sea levels have done little in the last 150 years as CO2 went from .028% to .038%, so it's hard for me to foresee catastrophe if they go to .048% or .058%.

  • ||

    They say that 6 inches will flood many places in the world but I don't see 50-ft waves swamping anything in Hawaii.

  • Chad||

    Global warming can't "run away" because blackbody radiation scales as a fourth power. It can, however, swing by up to 10C.

  • ||

    Global warming can't "run away" because blackbody radiation scales as a fourth power. It can, however, swing by up to 10C.

    I love these moments of lucidity you have. It's too bad you don't follow the logic to the conclusions.

    If it could swing by 10C why didn't it when CO2 was 2000ppm? Or 700ppm?

  • ||

    A mere ONE part per million of something like VX nerve gas will snuff you out in a minute.

    And one part per million of CO2 will do nothing at all.

  • ||

    damn it, where's my squirt bottle?

  • Guy||

    David Harsanyi should go live in Israel.

  • OMG||

    F*CK YOU bigot

  • ||

    So... Under the Public Option they're going to force us all to exercise and lose weight, then under the EPA's guidelines, they're going to fine us for the CO2 we exhale while we're compliming with the first mandate.

    I feel like we should all start singing old timey slave spirituals any day now.

    "Swing low, sweet chariot..."

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: TheOtherSomeGuy,

    I feel like we should all start singing old timey slave spirituals any day now.

    But we will be taken care of sooo well...

    (Oh, man... Will Malcom X's speech about field slaves and house slaves be relevant now? You know, us the productive ones being the field slaves, them the Statists being the house slaves?)

  • Fred||

    There is not no such thing as the global warming. It is just a liberal plot to keep us from going to war in iraq to fight for out rites in iraq.

  • jester||

    Our 'liberal' seems quite committed to continuing the fight in Iraq.

    The Iran War has been temporarily postponed to start the War on ClimateChange.

    A lot of people who are against the War on Terror don't deny there are terrorists. They just have a perspective that terrorists will not rule the world unless we wage war on rogue nations and trash personal freedoms with the PATRIOT act.

    Similarly, not believing that the War on ClimateChange is as big of a threat as others think or that it is winnable is in no way denying that climate changes. When you use 'deny', you lie.

  • Two Press Secretaries in One!||

    An amusing release from Brad Dayspring in Eric Cantor's office notes the gradual, almost minutes-long evolution of the Obama administration's views on playing the blame game:

    1:56 PM: "The American people have watched for decades people playing the blame game. If the blame game put people to work, we would all be rolling money," he says. "That doesn't get anybody a job." – WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

    1:57 PM: Asked to respond to GOP criticism that Obama spends too much money, Gibbs replies: "The largest driver in our fiscal irresponsibility were a series of programs that weren't paid for" - the Bush tax cuts, prescription drug bill, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. – WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
  • juris imprudent||

    What good press secretary can't speak out of both sides of his mouth?

  • The real conspiracy||

  • anonymous||

    It was pretty clever of them, getting all these prominent scientists to behave unethically, suspiciously, and perhaps illegally while tampering with raw data in undisclosed and probably indefensible ways, and failing at statistical analysis.

    Unless... wait a second...

    Unless the CRU guys are actually working for the oil companies! Because the oil companies profit from global warming. Like everyone else in the developed world with access to inexpensive fossil-fuel-based energy! Actually, that widens the list of suspects quite a bit.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Technically the atmosphere wieghs 5,811,021,629,005,824,000 tons
    but that is a rough estimate. 90 million would be .0000000015 precent of that.

    Wow mister, that's cool

  • ||

    I posted this link on another thread, but I just realized just how well the link describes our dear Tony. What do you do for a living, Tony? My guess you are a 5th or 6th grade social studies teacher that has spent too much time reading his "Weekly Reader".

    Climategate and the Hamster Effect

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/c.....er-effect/

  • Tony||

    Not that it's any of your business, but I live off the teet of the oil and gas industry.

    And I bet I've read more books this year than you have in your entire life.

  • ||

    So we're being lectured by a guy who either

    (a) lives off of the industries that he believes are destroying the planet? or

    (b) doesn't think that AGW is really a crisis, otherwise he would find another teat to suck off of.

    I don't see any alternatives.

  • ||

    or

    (c) he's a sockpuppet who says things to rile people up and does a damn good job of pressing people's buttons?

  • ||

    but but he's just so wrong...and stupid...

  • ||

    So would this constitute a:

    (a) Leech?

    (b) Lamprey?

    (c) Tapeworm?

  • Tony||

    I could be a mole.

  • ||

    I could be a mole.

    I've often suspected you're a libertarian who makes lame arguments so they can be easily refuted in order to strengthen the position of articles here on reason.

    It's one reason I don't jump on the 'make gratuitous personal insults against Tony' bandwagon.. I think you may be a martyr for freedom.

    Even if not you do us a good service.

  • ||

    My literary dick is bigger than yours!

  • Herman Melville||

    I doubt that...

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Your literary dick just seems bigger because it is white...

  • T||

    Somebody who read so much should know how to spell 'teat'.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Hmmmm so that makes you a third shift gas station attendant?

  • Suki||

    My guess you are a 5th or 6th grade social studies teacher that has spent too much time reading his "Weekly Reader".

    My guess is 4th grade student since 5th graders are way too smart. Seen it in the TV.

  • Jim||

    LOL @ Tony...I thought my PC had a douchebag filter...

  • Jim||

    Better than having to be beholden to mouth-breathing anti-intellectual right-wing religious freaks.

    This is the best part...because if you don't drink the Obama KoolAid you're a religious fundamentalist neo-con. How do you have time to read all of those big books and still spend so much time trolling?

  • Jim||

    And I bet I've read more books this year than you have in your entire life.

    Doubtful, but I'm pretty sure I've dated more hot girls this month than you have in your entire life.

  • Tony||

    You would be right.

  • gas||

    I actually took a Global Climate Change course while working on my degree in earth science. My professor for the course was working on remote sensing of vegetation in Alaska to determine climate change. His expert opinion- "Global climate models (GCM's) at this time cannot account for the vast number of variables and data points required to give an accurate picture to something as complicated as our atmosphere." That settles the debate for me.

  • Chad||

    I have a feeling you are taking something he said out of context, quite deliberately.

  • juris imprudent||

    Ah, the stupid contest IS ON!

  • ||

    Chad wins...

  • Burrow Owl||

    Was there ever any question?

  • ||

    This is the way I see this argument:

    On one side you have Tony, Chad, and MNG. They all believe that AGW is real. There basis for this belief is the major scientific consensus. They have no personal incentive to take this position.

    On the other side, there's all the libertarians who reject the major scientific consensus on AGW. They cite various sources and ideas of debatable expertise in order to show that the major scientific consensus is wrong. However, their initial rejection of AGW is not based on any of these cited reasons. Their initial rejection comes from the fear that admitting AGW as true would mean that there is a problem that libertarianism cannot fix.

    So basically , it's the motives of the major scientific consensus vs. the motives of the AGW rejectors. I think the choice is clear hear: scientists get the benefit of the doubt that their opinions are based on factual data and logical reasoning, while AGW rejectors have a preconceived opinion that was not a product of the scientific process.

  • MNG||

    I love the "we can't trust all those scientists because of TEH BIAS" around here.

    Yeah, no bias on libertarians side, just the idea that if people believe AGW is true then we will all live in the dystopia from Anthem...

    It's incredible. Ideology blinding good sense.

  • ||

    It's not even that, there's nothing about libertarian philosophy that means you can't make people pay for the pollution they produce. Being against pollution taxes is not necessarily a libertarian stance.

  • MNG||

    I've long argued that here. Pollution harms the person and property of others, hence it should be an ok target of government coercion.

    The question is, is it really harmful to persons and property? Being against that answer being yes because it would lead to government coercion to stop it is like pretending no one would ever assault anyone because then you wouldn't have to pay taxes for police...

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Actually that your contribution to the general "pollution" far outweighs the pollution of your property you have no grounds to expect police protection. Using your assault analogy, if you choose to hit yourself in the face that is your business, whining that the police won't stop you from doing it doesn't create a desire for action on my part.

  • ||

    Um, how exactly does the pollution that I produce negate the pollution that is on my property? Also, he isn't talking about police protection, he's talking about the government saying you can't produce this amount of pollution. If I produce pollution that effects others, I have to pay for it. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how much other people have been polluting, they have to pay too. Whenever you pollute, it affects others; it isn't like "smacking yourself in the face."

  • ||

    You're reading the situation wrong. Most people started with the default position that the media and authorities wouldn't lie about something like this. I certainly did. It's only when I started examining the 'science' that I became skeptical. Climategate is doing the same for many more people who didn't look before.

  • ||

    So let me get this straight. You originally believed the major scientific consensus. Then you "examined" the science and found it to be wrong. Do you know enough about climatology to make that call?

  • ||

    Yes, I do now. It took me about six months. YMMV.

    And yes at first, of course I thought it was true. But of course I was concerned enough to look into it.

    If you're sincere and not just a statist shill you should research all sides of the issue. It's really not that complicated. If you have college math, preferably calculus, and some statistics you can follow the rest.

    Look into it.

    And before you say 'I have looked into it', be aware I'll ask you to address real flaws in AGW 'science'.

    Some of which I have mentioned, and all of which have been ignored by warmists here, just as they are shouted down by the 'authorities' who decline to debate the real issues.

  • ||

    How does believing the major scientific consensus about AGW make me a "statist shill." Do YOU even know why you say these things?

    I don't need to refute what you think are the flaws in AGW, because neither I NOR YOU are qualified enough to understand AGW fully. Why don't you send them to actual AGW scientists instead. That way you should be able to convince those who can.

  • ||

    How does believing the major scientific consensus about AGW make me a "statist shill.

    Jesus, do you post perpetually drunk? You should read what you are replying to.

    I don't need to refute what you think are the flaws in AGW, because neither I NOR YOU are qualified enough to understand AGW fully.

    Speak for yourself. I could debate Gore. (and would love to)

    The difference between a scientist and a religionist is a scientist wants to understand. You just want to believe. So you won't make the effort to understand.. who needs knowledge when you have faith, right?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    On the other side, there's all the libertarians who reject the major scientific consensus on AGW. They cite various sources and ideas of debatable expertise in order to show that the major scientific consensus is wrong. However, their initial rejection of AGW is not based on any of these cited reasons. Their initial rejection comes from the fear that admitting AGW as true would mean that there is a problem that libertarianism cannot fix.


    How so?

    Does libertarianism oppose the use of an H-bomb or a few dozen for any reason?

  • ||

    How so what? I cannot answer your question if I don't know what you are referring to.

    "Does libertarianism oppose the use of an H-bomb or a few dozen for any reason?"

    I would say it opposes the use of an H-bomb because it would harm the lives and properties of innocents. But not knowing the context of your hypothetical situation, I can't tell. Could you explain what this has to do with what I said?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Carl Sagan and four other scientists proved in 1983 that the dust from the cap of mushroom clouds resulting from A-bomb and H-bomb explosions will be suspended in the upper atmosphere, having a cooling effect.

    That is the TTAPS study, the most important groundbreaking scientific paper since Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

  • ||

    Still don't get what that has to do with anything. Are you saying I want the U.S. to use H-bombs...?

    Also, please explain what "How so?" is referring to.

  • Tony||

    Fucking broken record.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    You know it when you see it, Tony.

  • ||

    when you realize that overconsumption and an inability to leave a small footprint is a result of fiat currency and an exponentially expansionist monetary system, then paleolibertarianism (a la B J Lawson) is the only real way to sustainably fix Global Warming - anything that the left tries to do is merely a patch on a fundamentally broken system.

  • ||

    Not really. What if everyone had to pay a fee in order counter-act the pollution produced. That doesn't contradict libertarianism. You pay to clean up the mess you make.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    You find a way for me to pay for the mess I and I alone create then we can talk. As it is every plan mentioned would require me to pay for not only my messes but the messes of others.

  • ||

    Not if you pay for only the amount you produce. That is actually relatively easy to calculate. Even if it wasn't, lack of a practical payment plan still wouldn't justify everyone dumping their waste onto everyone else.

  • ||

    Even if it wasn't, lack of a practical payment plan still wouldn't justify everyone dumping their waste onto everyone else.

    That's true but CO2 doesn't qualify.

  • Burrow Owl||

    So basically , it's the motives of the major scientific consensus vs. the motives of the AGW rejectors. I think the choice is clear hear: scientists get the benefit of the doubt that their opinions are based on factual data and logical reasoning, while AGW rejectors have a preconceived opinion that was not a product of the scientific process.
    reply to this

    Dude.

    (1)Consensus isn't a legitimate part of the scientific process.

    (2) Factual data and logical reasoning are rather scarce and/or non-existent with regards to the AGW position.

    (3)"AGW rejectors"= "deniers"

    Major fail.

  • ||

    Dude.

    (1)I never said consensus is a part of the scientific process, I said it is the only way that non-scientists can compare the merits of scientific arguments they are incapable of fully understanding.

    (2)Yes, yes climatologists are all retarded babies who shout their preconceived political opinions without doing any research at all. Please refrain from making idiotic generalizations about climatologists since you obviously know very little about what it means to be a scientist.

    (3)Note that I did not actually use the word denier here. I was referring to those who reject the consensus view on AGW. So quit shitting your pants over nothing.

    Major fail, brah.

  • ||

    I said it is the only way that non-scientists can compare the merits of scientific arguments they are incapable of fully understanding.

    Wrong.

    Just because you are incapable don't assume other people are. Before I read many of your posts I wouldn't even have thought you were incapable but now I'm not so sure.

    Here's a question for you.

    In history can you point to a 'scientific consensus' that tried to suppress the opposition politically, that turned out to be correct in the end?

    If the science worked they wouldn't need to send out the warmists zealots to suppress the truth.

  • MNG||

    "That settles the debate for me."

    You took a class while working on your BA and your teacher told you it wasn't true and that settles it for you?

    That?

    Holy shit that's stupid.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Actually mainstream AWG scientists state the same thing as his teacher.

  • MNG||

    On the one hand deniers go "we don't care about your experts! They are all bought off/part of a nefarious socialist cabal/an appeal to authority/collectively hallucinating etc." You have to be more skeptical of these experts blah blah blah.

    And many of the same people then say "hey, I found this one expert who says AGW is bogus, well that settles that!"

    In-fucking-credible.

  • ||

    Wow, you can rant. On the one hand the believers go "we don't care about your skeptics! They are all bought off/part of a nefarious coal/oil cabal...blah blah blah.

  • MNG||

    That's never been my line. I don't care about your skeptics b/c they are a clear minority. Try to pay attention.

  • MNG||

    Sometimes minorities are right of course. It's just more probable, with expert opinion that the majority opinion is right. I hope the skeptics are right as AGW, if true, is a bad thing for all concerned. But it's telling to me that the skeptics have not convinced many of the experts.

  • ||

    Hey, 100% of the "experts in religion" (i.e. the priests) say that God is real and that I owe him my life and soul...

    I still don't go to church and tithe.

  • ||

    Yes, scientists are equivalent to priests. Why are we stopping at climatology? Let's just reject all science. It's all gotta be biased because scientists are all retarded and don't know any better about their areas of expertise than we do.

  • ||

    Yes, scientists are equivalent to priests. Why are we stopping at climatology? Let's just reject all science.

    Strawman. I'm shocked.

    It's just the warmists who are trying to suppress information.

    Don't impugn real scientists.

  • ||

    Sometimes minorities are right of course. It's just more probable, with expert opinion that the majority opinion is right.

    Actually every scientific theorem which turned out to be right was propounded by a very small minority.

    Evidence proved them right and the majority could not refute the evidence. This is the way real science works.

    It is telling that the warmist situation is instead behaving as a religion. It has to because the facts don't support the theory.

    That's the problem. That's the whole problem.

    The models don't work.

    It's been cooler when CO2 was much much higher.

    It hasn't been warming recently.

    CO2 changes lag temperature changes.

    If there was a feedback mechanism how did we ever cool when the temp was high or the CO2 was higher?

    All these are problems. And the burden of proof is not on anyone who dares point out the emperor is not wearing clothes.

  • ||

    "Actually every scientific theorem which turned out to be right was propounded by a very small minority."

    You are so right. Yeah so the creationists have to be right about evolution being wrong because they are the minority. We should just reject every single scientific theorem that is currently backed by major scientific consensus, duh.

    You have no expertise in climatology. You have no reason to suppose the majority of climatologists' haven't used facts to formulate their opinions. You're argument is founded upon preconceived bullshit: that climatologists must be wrong about AGW, therefore we can say their conclusions are not supported by the facts.

    Quit talking out of your ass. Argue the politics, not the science.

  • ||

    You are so right. Yeah so the creationists have to be right about evolution being wrong because they are the minority

    What state do you live in? Not the minority where I am.

    Quit talking out of your ass. Argue the politics, not the science.

    Nice fail:) You're the on who made the ad populum appeal. I just pointed out it's wrong.

    If that's the best you can do, it seems you're not equipped to debate, at all, politics or science.

    I would address the rest but it's just repeated ad hominem, ad populum, ad verecundiam and unfounded assertions.

    Everything I said was a fact. Tell me which you find fault with and I will provide references.

    Try me.

    Bring some coherence or accept you're just a second rate statist whiner like Tony who can't carry an argument.

  • ||

    "What state do you live in? Not the minority where I am."

    The minority in all the states that I've lived in, and the U.S. in general.

    "Nice fail:) You're the on who made the ad populum appeal. I just pointed out it's wrong."

    It would be a true ad populum appeal if I did (or even could) say that AGW is true because the major consensus says it's true. What I did say was that the only way the layperson can compare the two sides of AGW is through ad populum. You, on the other hand, made an appeal to the minority, which is an even less logical appeal.

    "If that's the best you can do, it seems you're not equipped to debate, at all, politics or science."

    It's the best any layperson can do, better than an appeal to the minority, at least. Also, I never made an ad populum appeal about politics. So fuck off.

    "Everything I said was a fact. Tell me which you find fault with and I will provide references."

    Facts that are meaningless without context, which you cannot fully provide. Deny this fact: Pollution affects the property of others. That's all I need to prove to justify my political point.

    "Bring some coherence or accept you're just a second rate statist whiner like Tony who can't carry an argument."

    Again, another statist label pulled out of your ass. Please explain how I am a statist. (Remember: you actually have to point out statist things that I have said, not that you want me to say)

  • ||

    Forgot to add that my argument is an appeal to experts. And since there are experts on both sides, the best way for a non-expert to choose sides is ad populum. I don't say AGW is true because most people believe it is true, but because most experts believe it is true. This isn't really a pure ad populum appeal.

  • ||

    This isn't really a pure ad populum appeal.

    You've employed both fallacies. As well as strawman and reductio and ad hom.

    Don't worry you're in good company with Tony.

    Deny this fact: Pollution affects the property of others. That's all I need to prove to justify my political point.

    And that is called begging the question.

    That's not a fact, it's an assertion and a flawed one at that.

    You missed the step of showing that CO2 is pollution.

    If CO2 was a pollutant, in the context of the discussion, you would be correct.

    Can you explain how CO2 was seven times higher than today in the Ordovician ice age? No? Well that's ok because neither can warmist 'experts'.

    Ok forget the science, since you want to ignore it.

    Even if you were right what good would sending more industry and jobs overseas where they will release more CO2 to produce the same amount of goods or energy?

  • ||

    Actually, I dont need any expert to tell me AGW is bogus.

    Good common sense says that we are moving way to fast in this area, and we need to slow down, take stock of our data, and try to determine if mankind is really having any significant effect on our weather.

    And, Global Warming at this point in man's history is not a bad thing.

    Listen to those liberals at KOS and leave the country. I suggest going north...

  • ||

    Yes, if only those retarded scientists had common sense. If only they would stop jerking off and start trying "to determine if mankind is really having any significant effect on our weather." That's not what they're trying to do right now at all.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    There is a difference between AWG, the reaction to AGW and some arguements in support of AGW. Personally I believe that AGW, however I believe that AGW is inevitable and must be adapted to, overstated and distorted by the most vocal of the AWG crowd and that any changes must be made will not come about simply via government edict or because the liberals in power wish them to.

  • anonymous||

    Maybe, but at least climate agnostics usually look at the arguments of the skeptic scientists, rather than simply counting heads.

    Of course, libertarians tend to be contrarians (one reason that there are so many subfactions), so while certain personality types tend to feel better about ideas if everyone else around them agrees, some people get more and more suspicious of those ideas when they start looking suspiciously like a fad.

  • MNG||

    Libertarians denying AGW because of the fear it will induce massive government remind me of my liberal buddies in the 90's facing the evidence that IQ was to a large extent hereditary. "Holy shit that cannot be true because if it is then social engineering is dealt a blow!" They screamed bloody murder, called the psychologists who did that research racists, nazis, part of a right wing cabal, etc...The psychologists were like "WTF?" They couldn't believe their work was being so politicized...

  • ||

    I have to admit that's a good analogy. I'm still skeptical about AGW, though.

  • ||

    As a research chemist, I have to disclose that it is my belief that based on the evidence, global warming is caused by water vapor emissions (agriculture, vehicle exhaust, esp. high altitude airplane exhaust), not carbon dioxide emissions.

  • ||

    problem is, the only lobby powerfuller than the oil lobby is the farm lobby.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    There is the option of accepting that AGW is occurring, however the extent and reaction to it are overblown.

  • jester||

    'the fear that admitting AGW as true would mean that there is a problem that libertarianism cannot fix.'

    You are putting the cart before the horse. Libertarianism is a reaction to the I-can-fix-everything fucks.

    AGW isn't the problem for libertarians. Rather, it is the We-need-to-fix-AGW agendas being thrown at us.

  • ||

    "You are putting the cart before the horse. Libertarianism is a reaction to the I-can-fix-everything fucks."

    But I still think that this is a fear of many libertarians who deny AGW, despite how irrational it is.

    "AGW isn't the problem for libertarians. Rather, it is the We-need-to-fix-AGW agendas being thrown at us."

    I know AGW isn't a problem for libertarianism, but obviously the AGW deniers here think that it is. Why are they attacking the validity of AGW against the scientific majority they don't think that it is a problem? Denying AGW and saying that the plans for stopping AGW are bad are two different things. I've seen both from most people here. I don't think it is reasonable to deny that AGW will affect us in the way that the vast majority of climatologists say it will.

    Either way, libertarianism is not in contradiction with the belief that AGW will affect us negatively, nor is it in contradiction with the idea that people have to pay for the cleanup when they produce pollution. So I don't really see why a libertarian should automatically deny AGW exists, deny AGW will affect us negatively, or deny EVERY "solution" for AGW that is put out there.

  • ||

    "Why are they attacking the validity of AGW against the scientific majority [if] they don't think that it is a problem?"

  • ||

    Simple.

    Since proponents of AGW have conclusively and unwaveringly say "the science is settled," regardless of a specific cause or even a demonstrated genesis and want to hyperbolically apply concrete (and expensive) solutions to a "problem" with a dubious origins, without a shred of evidence that said solutions are even going to have an effect or measurable outcome.

    It is because of this, I am skeptical of AGW's (if it is even an actual phenomenon) theorized destructive potential.

    I am, however, a firm believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

  • MNG||

    I think its quite healthy to make any "solutions" undergo very high scrutiny. Myself I think the current cap and trade bill is a total disaster.

    But this is a seperate question for me than is AGW for real. On that question I say "I dunno about that myself, so I'll defer to the experts." Now to the extent the expert consensus relies on research that we now might think is unreliable or unverifiable that makes me re-think that. But it seems like there is a strong amount of non-CRU related evidence out there drawing pretty much the same conclusions...

  • ||

    Ah, that is where we diverge MNG. To me, the evidence is not convincing to me of AGW any more or less than it suggests natural fluctuation in the course of climate cycles.

    I don't think, as it stands now, that man has such a profound effect as the research suggests. To me, the data set is just too limited and arbitrary with little to no reproducibility, sans computer modeling.

  • ||

    But what makes you think all those scientists who are specifically studying man's impact on the environment are wrong? Why do you not think that "man has such a profound effect as the research suggests"?

  • ||

    I never said right or wrong.

    I said insufficient data to definitively prove specific cause.

    Insufficient data can often lead to a false or erroneous interpretation of results leading to an invalid conclusion.

    Man had no bearing on magnetism, planetary orbital decay, elliptical orbits of both the earth and the moon, terrestrial convection, tectonics, jet streams, tides, barometric pressure, gravity and other physical factors that may have just as much of, if not more, bearing on warming trends. But we have some data from 1850's, and some of it questionable, and we somehow we can extrapolate what optimum settings for the earth should be for an an entity over four billion years old?

    The concept I see here is the other methods have been ruled out, in absence of evidence to the contrary to essentially, "Man did it!"
    I am skeptical of rushes to judgment, especially when that conclusion is definite in absence of reproducibility along clearly defined parameters. As I mentioned to Cahd upthread, the human body, though we don't come close to understanding all aspects of homeostasis, we understand the basic system and can diagnose and treat according to signs and symptoms with usually predictable results. Climate does not enjoy such a level of predictability and certainty.

    The earth has been around a long time, and has gone through extreme and planet altering climate changes way before man stepped foot on dry land. Can man has some effect on his environment? Sure. To the point of altering climate profoundly? Not convinced other cause(s) have not been ruled out or even entertained.

  • ||

    Forgive typos. It's late.

  • ||

    What makes you think that the scientists didn't take all of those things into account when formulating their opinions? I ask again, why does everyone here think that the scientists who came up with AGW are so retarded/biased??? I guarantee that if you have thought of something, the climate scientists have thought of it plus 100. Trust the scientists. They are not idiots.

  • Chad||

    As I have said repeatedly, NATURAL VARIATION IS NOT MAGIC.

    WHAT is naturally fluctuating? Until you guys have this, you have a ten-mile wild hole in your argument.

  • ||

    Sorry, I don't think that logically follows. The AGW folks have to show the changes are manmade. The anti-AGW folks just have to show that something else is causing it. They don't have to identify the "something else," just show that it exists.

  • ||

    Climate cycles dependent on more than the one variable of atmospheric chemical composition. See above response to Heller.

  • JB||

    Holy shit, you stupid fuckwit.

    The Earth's climate was changing all the time long before human beings even existed.

    So guess what, retard? There are fluctuations in the Earth's climate not caused by humans.

  • ||

    WHAT is naturally fluctuating? Until you guys have this, you have a ten-mile wild hole in your argument.

    As opposed to man made CO2 fluctuation that doesn't cause what you predicted it would?

    The burden isn't on skeptics. The burden is on warmists to show their models work.

  • Chad||

    MNG, I haven't any (non-crackpot)scientists question the CRU at all...nor should they.

    Scientists are concerned about PR issues, possible FOIA violations, and the fact that they have to re-check the data AGAIN, which is a big waste of time. I haven't seen one who thinks that re-checking will change anything in any meaningful way.

  • ||

    I haven't seen one who thinks that re-checking will change anything in any meaningful way.

    Of course not because they destroyed the data that might.

  • ||

    So, and this is from your own comments, basically you are skeptical of AGW because the plans put forth by scientists to stop AGW are bad? Do you see the break in logic there? Yes the current plans are bad, but that doesn't say anything about the validity of the conclusion that AGW is real and has negative effects.

  • ||

    The AGW models with high CO2 sensitivity do not work.

    Show me a working model.

  • ||

    Great reply to my comment. What does the validity of a researcher's science have to do with his political beliefs?

  • jester||

    Well I can't speak for everyone, but I think that libertarians tend to react to crisis declarations. Remember when Bill Clinton's impeachment was a 'constitutional' crisis. When WMDs presented a crisis in the Middle East. When the world was on the edge of collapse during the latest and greatest financial crisis. Now the Earth is on the very edge of collapse! Jared Diamond wrote a very best-seller called Collapse!

    Denying a crisis is quite different from denying a problem. It is a matter of magnitude and the magnitude that varying scientists view AGW is certainly varied. It is one thing to say that the consensus of scientists view anthropogenic global warming as a serious potential threat and it is another to view it as imminent destruction.

  • jester||

    'who deny AGW, despite how irrational it is.'

    This is unfair. You would agree if I said that most AGW 'deniers' don't understand or haven't gone over the math so to speak. That is not irrational in itself.

    It would be irrational only if someone knew full well that AGW was truth part and parcel yet chose to deny it because say they didn't like the messenger. I doubt most naysayers of nuclear energy understand why they are against it other than knowing that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and radiation and nuclear reactor meltdown are words(although I think most would agree that understanding the mechanics of a nuclear power plant is easier than understanding the complexities of climate change.)

    I think its fair to say that a lot of 'deniers' (I think they should fairly be called skeptics) are like a lot of 'believers' (fairly called consensus-followers) in that neither really has the ability or hasn't or won't give the time to review the literature on the matter.

    Rather they spot the political alignment with their accompanying remedies and apply their support accordingly. Consensus scientists tend to skew left which means nothing more than that they tend to skew left.

    In such light, it is fair to get in a snowball fight.

  • ||

    I never faulted anyone for being skeptical about apocalypse stories, I was only criticizing those people who rejected AGW or that AGW effects us.

    You took this

    "who deny AGW, despite how irrational it is."

    out of context. I was saying that the fear that libertarianism fails if AGW is true is irrational. But either way, yes I am saying it is also irrational to take a side on an issue without knowing/understanding the facts behind the issue. If the people here could read and understand the arguments made by AGW scientists, but still rejected those arguments because they found something wrong with them, then I would have no point. But I don't think they want to and/or can.

    "Rather they spot the political alignment with their accompanying remedies and apply their support accordingly. Consensus scientists tend to skew left which means nothing more than that they tend to skew left."

    The difference is that good scientists do not go into research with a preconceived political idea about climate change. Good scientists do the research, THEN formulate an opinion. First, you have to concede that it is highly likely that there are good scientists who think that AGW is real and harmful. Second, you have to concede that the number of scientists who have this opinion outnumber the scientists who do not agree with this opinion. So if I want to have an opinion about AGW, then the most logical choice would be to follow the consensus, regardless of my political alignment. If the majority scientific consensus was that AGW was false, then I would be on that side.

    The AGW skeptics, on the other hand, do not work this way. They start out with a preconceived notion that if AGW is true, then there is a problem with libertarianism. Now you could argue that no, they looked at the opinions of the scientists on both sides, and they decided the skeptics were right. But this would be illogical because they probably can't fully understand the arguments to compare them. The only logical way to compare the arguments that you can't understand is to reason that the side with the most scientists is the side with the best arguments.

    That is the unbalanced difference between skeptics and followers.

  • jester||

    'The difference is that good scientists do not go into research with a preconceived political idea'

    They don't have to to come out with an ideological bend. The shrillness (or lack) of their response will depend on how much they value different aspects of nature. The fault I see is that many people project their appreciation of nature (an aesthetic response)into one that the loss of this or that species or population will ultimately lead to the demise of mankind.

    I fully empathize with the aesthetic response. I can appreciate even the lowliest of weeds. But I don't buy into the 'loss of biodiversity' leads necessarily to mankind's demise' argument. It is a false argument. For example, Jared Diamond laments the demise of inhabitants of Easter Island. But on modern review jet airplanes bring in a tourist economy that most likely rivals that of Rapa Nui in its heydey.

    I would agree with mr Diamond that there would be a lost beauty in the culture foregone. But I would also argue that something replaced it that might not be as easily apreciated probably because it resembles more of us and less of the exotic. This is an aesthetic bias. I think Collapse is a beautiful example of a brilliant, talented scientist showing off his human aesthetic biases beutifully.

    I have always thought an art for art's sake argument works and is truly honest.

    Even the WWF realizes this. The Panda is their logo, not some desert pupfish from the Great Basin.

    Indeed a place like New Zealand has survived massive extinction of its native fauna and guess what? Human population has flourished.

    Does that mean that I do not lament the demise of multiple moa species as well as many more obscure microfauna? Absolutely not.

    I am merely pointing out that scientists are capable of being wistful aesthetes like the rest of us and that they should be careful when predicting doom and gloom based on or even influenced by these very human emotions.

  • ||

    Non sequitur after non sequitur. Why are you so sure that "aesthetics" and emotions are such big deciding factors, or a deciding factors at all, in scientists' opinions? Climate scientists tell us things because that's what the data tells them, not because they are afraid their beloved panda bears will die. Scientists are not idiots. They are scientists because they do not factor trivialities into their decisions. That's what being a scientist is.

  • jester||

    Reread and try again. That was a very dishonest reply. I implied none of what you claim.

    If you not being able to follow an argument is non-sequitur, I can't help you.

  • ||

    OK, then I'll quote you:

    "The shrillness (or lack) of their response will depend on how much they value different aspects of nature.[!]"

    [Lots of non-sequitur about aesthetics and nature...]

    "I am merely pointing out that scientists are capable of being wistful aesthetes [!] like the rest of us and that they should be careful when predicting doom and gloom based on or even influenced by these very human emotions.[!]"

    Note the places where I added emphasis. Now tell me how this doesn't accurately portray what you said:

    "Why are you so sure that "aesthetics" and emotions are such big deciding factors, or a deciding factors at all, in scientists' opinions? Climate scientists tell us things because that's what the data tells them, not because they are afraid their beloved panda bears will die. Scientists are not idiots. They are scientists because they do not factor trivialities into their decisions. That's what being a scientist is."

  • ||

    your wall of text == appeal to authority

    address the science

    just because you can't understand the science this doesn't mean other people can't

  • ||

    No, it's an appeal to experts. I can't address the science. You can't either because you are not an expert. Do you claim to be an expert? If you are, why aren't you working in a climatology research project?

  • ||

    No, it's an appeal to experts.

    That is appeal to authority. Same thing.

    I can't address the science.

    Then you won't get far trying to yell down someone who can.

  • Tony||

    So why can't you just shut up and let those of us who aren't nihilists fix your problems for you? I don't want not to mitigate global warming. I like my climate the way it is. You want to sit in the corner sucking your thumb and declare that nobody in the world deserves positive collective action to solve a global problem because it violates your precious little code.

  • anonymous||

    "I like my climate the way it is."

    Crimethink: Assertion of individual property rights over commons, entity "Climate".

    Diagnosis: Enemy of the People, Second Degree

    Prescription: Re-education, followed by metabolic carbon mitigation procedures.

  • OMG||

    "I like my climate the way it is" ...

    Glad to know that the weather is and always has been a constant until capitalism came along. We'll just get the government to fix that climate thing

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    AND fix that capitalism thing.

  • MNG||

    "AGW isn't the problem for libertarians. Rather, it is the We-need-to-fix-AGW agendas being thrown at us."

    Well put.

    I can respect the concern that attempts to "fix" this or that problem could likely lead to things being worse off.

  • ||

    And I think a lot of the suspicion about the proposed solutions is justified. The Copenhagen types want to regulate CO2 emissions, but don't want nuclear power or any geo-engineering fixes. They want to tax rich countries and give to poor ones. In other words, the same old solutions, just with a new rationalization.

  • MNG||

    See I agree here. I think most of the "solutions" I've read about have major problems both in theory and practice. To me this is where libertarians should fight the fight.

  • anonymous||

    I thought the big scandal of Copenhagen was a secret agreement among rich nations to screw over the rising poor nations (the pre-nouveau-riche?)

    As with health care and abortion, it's an internal clash (and similarly, seems to be "power" versus "values", which may eventually lead the left-wing base to the same sort of disillusionment that wrecked the GOP).

    The big problem with regulating CO2, versus pollutants that are primarily industrial byproducts, is that A) the issue is global and requires an international authority or voluntary national cooperation, and B) essentially everything affects CO2 somehow including any number of natural processes. Just existing produces CO2. The legal authority to regulate CO2 would be the UN's commerce clause.

  • Piltdown Man||

    STFU MNG

  • ||

    Great job. I'm sure that "NO YOU SHUT UP!" will convince him to not talk, rather than an intelligent argument that refutes his points.

  • Silentz||

    And really, the only one that has earned the "Shut the Fuck Up" is Loneweirdo.

  • OMG||

    Not cool. MNG hasn't earned it.

    At least her recognizes that libertarians are not in favor of pollution ... in fact, it is a form of theft in that it allows someone to impose costs on another without bargaining for that right and inherently would be opposed by libertarians ... we fear the government's "cure" of the problem (if there truly is a problem) would be worse than the disease

  • Chad||

    If you fear straightforward, market-oriented solutions such as C&T or a carbon tax, what solutions DON'T you fear?

    Saying you are against a crime, but also against any policy that would punish it, is pretty specious.

  • ||

    C&T will just move more emissions to China, India, et al where they emit more per unit of goods or energy produced. This will not solve the problem, even were it a problem, but in fact make it worse.

  • G Mc||

    No mention of the SC case that paved the way for (indeed nearly mandated) this move by the EPA or the policy-wonk consensus that, in the short term at least, any regulation will likely be limitied to already negotiated restrictions on automotive emissions?

  • MNG||

    I'd like to see non-coercive measures tried a bit more. Look at all the people who are willingly reducing their carbon footprints. The market has started to supply ingenious products helping people do that. I mean, look at this:
    http://www.fosters.com.au/medi.....3899EC.htm

    Markets can do some pretty neat shit, eh? As awareness of the problem grows maybe we should give them more of a chance to see what can be done...

    I'd like to see an education campaign before we engage in coercive techniques.

  • ||

    I also wish environmentalists would pay more attention to Bjørn Lomborg. It makes sense to use a cost-benefit analysis when tackling big problems, but unfortunately too many don't like that approach. They'd rather ban SUVs than (say) feed Beano to cows, even if the latter did more to prevent global warming. [Note: AFAIK the Beano for cows thing is not a solution promoted by Lomborg.]

  • Tony||

    Please let's don't pay more attention to the Dane.

  • ||

    Why not?

  • ||

    OK, what's wrong with Lomborg?

  • Tony||

    He's another non-climatologist who gets outsize attention for his opinions on climate change because he's a contrarian.

  • Neu Mejican||

    To his credit he feels the AGW is both real and a real problem. He just uses questionable methods in an attempt to put together a cost-benefit analysis. He needs to sit down and have a long talk with Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

  • anonymous||

    Environmentalism per se is an intuitive moral philosophy, not a utilitarian or scientific one (consider the materially insignificant distinction between "artifice" and "nature", and the irrational fetishism of the latter).

    They might use scientific language for the credibility it has among the pro-rationality crowd, but so do creationists and the guys on Ghost Hunters.

    That's not to say that rational humanists can't have an agenda that overlaps with the environmentalist agenda at times; sometimes what's good for people is good for the environmentalist conception of "nature" or "the planet". And sometimes what's good for people is bad for the natural status quo.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    MNG,

    Right on! The guys that make "fat tire ale" are doing that too and I think it's wonderful. They are even employee-owned like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky talk about. The difference is that these things were done,like you said, without coercion. Morality at the point of a gun is not morality.

  • ||

    Market have done a lot based on spurious propaganda.

    If AGW were shown to be true it would do a lot more.

    The value of climategate is that, if it is true, it may now be proved. Warmists have been hiding behind media and politics to avoid doing good science. People are more and more concluding this means they have nothing.

    Now some real science can get done. But we're not going to accept policy papers that don't show the work or the data anymore, so get over that.

  • ||

    I just don't get these conspiracy theories (and yes that is what they are). If not from real research and good science, where did the idea of AGW come from? Did the Rothchilds (or liberals trying to take over the world) create AGW in order to gain power over humanity? Then I guess they bribed the scientists (because everyone knows scientists are untrustworthy and will say anything for money) with funding to do fake research and lie about AGW. Guess what, that's basically what you are saying and it's a retarded conspiracy theory. No one came up with AGW to control us. It was proposed by scientists based on data and research. Scientists don't just say whatever you want them to say in order to get funding. AGW is real and it has negative effects. Get over it, you've lost this fight and you don't have the scientific knowledge to argue it. What you should be doing, instead of launching an anti-science campaign, is protesting the idiotic politics of AGW like C&P.

  • ||

    snipped some masturbatory blather about conspiracy theories which I haven't seen proposed in the first place

    What you should be doing, instead of launching an anti-science campaign

    I'm for science. I'm for rationality. You're for blind belief.

    You're entire argument boils down to repeatedly whining that you don't understand and that means no one else can so that means we must trust the experts who are defined as only those particular researchers who confirm your religion.

    Sorry. If you had real science on your side you wouldn't need to shut people up so badly.

    You want nothing to do with science.

    Google 'scientific method'.

  • ||

    The least we could do is enact an amendment first.

    1) Congress may make laws regarding the emissions of substances when such emissions should cross state borders.

    2) No such law shall be construed to restrict the natural emissions of any individual.

  • ||

    But anyways. I don't see what the fuck the problem is. We're at peak oil and we're near peak coal. So let's say we burn the shit out of everthing and belch it out as CO2. We'll at worst get another doubling of the CO2 levels. no big deal.

  • anonymous||

    It's a valid question: if you assume we use as much fossil fuel as we can acquire, but that we start to run out, then what does that do for long-term prediction of AGW, even assuming the consensus model?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It's a valid question: if you assume we use as much fossil fuel as we can acquire, but that we start to run out, then what does that do for long-term prediction of AGW, even assuming the consensus model?


    It depends on what we use as substitutes.

    Nuclear fission will not emit greenhouse gases other than water vapor (from the steam used to drive turbines).

    Combustion of natural gas or firewood will emit greenhouse gases.

  • ||

    Well said.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Please let's don't pay more attention to the Dane.

    I'd like to not pay any attention to Copenhagen. Unfortunately, that's not an option.

    They'd rather ban SUVs than (say) feed Beano to cows...

    I'd rather feed Jack Beeno to cows. Seriously, though, you're right about the political "solutions". They're heavy on the political and light on the solution. Which explains why nuclear is seldom talked about by the proponents of AGW. (To be fair, there are few that advocate nuclear.) And the moratorium on breeder reactors is just insane, given that they almost completely solve the problem of nuclear waste.

    Solar & wind both have issues which seriously inhibit their use. I don't know how people can seriously think they could make up 5% of the nation's energy combined.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And I'm repeating words again. Again.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Any shift to a low carbon energy system will include a wide variety of technological solutions. The cost and complexity of nuclear (which is a centralized solution) is one of the main factors limiting it as the primary solution.

    Distributed, on-site power generation is more easily implemented on a wide scale for lower cost, for the most part. It will probably be a bigger piece of the future energy system. Nuclear, however, is moving in a direction that allows it to be part of the distributed power generation system.

    http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

    On a bang for you buck level, large nuclear reactors are probably money pits rather than a panacea. But nuclear will be part of the mix in the long term.

  • ||

    Data fabrication and algorithm manipulation are not the only important issues here.
    Equally important is, they were mixing up imaginary fabricated non-measured data from the last 2000 years with the measured ones (and altered) from the last 150, using arbitrary temperature standards. They have set up reversed computer programs that proved their predictions. Non-scientists, charlatans, many honest believing people and political hacks have been accepting and using the greatest scientific hoax for political and for economic purposes. Try to change the course of human history based on at best of a doubtful if not a fraudulent “scientific” theory. They have created a religion, but at least most religious leaders are believing what they are preaching, this scientists knew that they were lying or bending and creating truth.
    But the real travesty is that they were peer-reviewing each other's work! They had control of their own process. It was a closed-loop system comprised of several dozen researchers in an incestuous, self-affirming academic relationship. That is how the debate was over.

  • Neu Mejican||

    This is a cartoon fun-show version of the reality. It is an excuse to dismiss the work of literally thousands of hardworking, careful scientists.

    If you want to see group think in science, String Theory is a better place to look. The difference in climate science is that it is an empirical science. There are plenty of scientists trying to poke holes in the AGW hypothesis. So far, they haven't been able to put together a good empirical argument against it.

    The moderates, (let's say Hans Von Storch) mainly criticize very narrow conclusions related to precision of measurement, time-scales, reliability of data, etc... The climate models go through appropriate vetting, testing themselves against blinded data sets under scrutiny by skeptics and pass mustard as reasonably skilled models, which for the most part make conservative estimates.

    As for the debate being over...well, some of the facts are not disputed, while others are. It is a meaningless phrase when it is not tied to a specific narrow scientific claim.

  • ||

    I can't believe nobody mentioned the Simpsons Movie in which the EPA makes a glass bubble around the town - EPA the villain!

  • Neu Mejican||

    Environmentalism per se is an intuitive moral philosophy, not a utilitarian or scientific one (consider the materially insignificant distinction between "artifice" and "nature", and the irrational fetishism of the latter).

    This statement over-reaches. It is true that there are environmentalists for which this may be accurate, but there are large numbers of the environmentalist community that would be more accurately described as pragmatic.

    Like any other system, of course, the things they value are, to a degree, subjectively determined (not more arbitrarily than any other system of valued concepts/objects).

    However, it seems to me that many people come to environmentalism based on a scientific understanding that humans are a part of a larger system and that our health and happiness rely on that supportive system remaining healthy. The anti-scientific position would be to assume that we are somehow special and can adapt to any arbitrarily large degradation of that supportive system (no matter the cause).

  • JB||

    But if it's nature causing 80% of the changes, then we are better off dedicating resources dealing with that 80% than stupidly addressing 20%.

    On the history of this planet, humanity is a recent blip and we know the climate was changing long before we arrived on the scene.

  • Tony||

    The facts just don't back up your assertion that nature is the main culprit. Where is the CO2 coming from?

    And yes, human civilization is very young. And now CO2 levels are higher than they've been in 650,000 years, which is much longer than human civilization has been around. Whether caused by nature or not, the problems would cause civilization to cope with an environmental situation it has never, ever faced before. Whatever variables you throw in one thing is certain: lots of people will die in such a radical change from the status quo that has supported civilization.

    I really don't understand this "the climate has changed in the past" stuff. Of course it has. Every time it does the composition of the biosphere changes with it. The only goal here is protecting human beings by mitigating radical changes to the environment to which they are biologically accustomed.

  • ||

    Where is the CO2 coming from?

    Begging the question.. well done! A novel fallacy!

    CO2 deltas aren't in dispute. The fact that the warming is not in evidence despite increasing CO2 is the problem.

    The fact that CO2 has been much higher when there wasn't warming is the problem.

    The fact that they had to edit the data to evade the fact that CO2 changes lag temp changes is the problem.

  • Tony||

    What's it called when you decide to unilaterally dismiss a fact and then accusing anyone citing that fact of question begging?

  • ||

    What's it called when you decide to unilaterally dismiss a fact and then accusing anyone citing that fact of question begging?

    Beats me.

    What's it called when you assert someone said something they didn't say? Oh.. that's called lying.

    Current CO2 concentrations aren't in dispute. You begged the question.

    This is a technique in which you change the assertion in an attempt to ignore the fact that there is no relation of the assertion and what you are ultimately trying to show.

    The discussion is about whether CO2 is a problem or likely to be one and if so can we do anything about it.

    You said "The facts just don't back up your assertion that nature is the main culprit. Where is the CO2 coming from?"

    This is begging the question.

    But since you begged it.. man very likely has some affect on CO2. But certainly man wasn't the cause of vastly higher CO2 concentrations in the past.

    You're welcome for the free lesson.

  • Kroneborge||

    The supreme court already ruled that the EPA had a DUTY to decide if C02 should be regulated. Thus if their scientsists do believe that C02 is a problem, then it was their job to regulate it.

    If the congress doens't like that, then they can exert their authority and remove C02 from the EPA. Course they won't do that will they.

  • Geotpf||

    This is the correct answer.

  • JB||

    Who cares what a bunch of retarded fetuses dressed in robes have to say?

    CO2 is a natural gas emitted by animals and used by planets.

  • JB||

    Argh. Plants!

  • Tony||

    What's your point? Why should the fact that it's used by plants and emitted by animals preclude the fact that higher concentrations in the atmosphere lead to warming?

  • ||

    Why should the fact that it's used by plants and emitted by animals preclude the fact that higher concentrations in the atmosphere lead to warming?

    The problem is is the data don't show that.

  • Tony||

    The data don't show what? There is more CO2. There has been warming. Which concrete fact of the universe are you arbitrarily dismissing now?

  • ||

    There has been warming.

    There has been cooling.

    There has been cooling when CO2 has been rising.

    I'm not dismissing any facts. I'm stating them.

  • ||

    Wow, I can't believe the AGW climatologists never thought of that. You must be some kind of super genius or something.

  • Kroneborge||

    It means that the EPA was REQUIRED by law to come to a decision. You don't agree with their decision, that's fine.

    Get congress or the courts to over turn it. Or submit letters to the EPA when they do draft regulations.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Yeah, write letters to a government agency. That'll stop 'em in their tracks.

    My God, are you seriously saying the EPA should have the power Dems seek for it to have?

  • ||

    What will scientists' do if they don't receive their monthly (funding) welfare check from the government? Get real jobs?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Good question.

  • ||

    They'll move on to another project that is economically self sustaining, probably creating the technology and doing the research that improves your quality of life. I'm sorry, what do you do for a living?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Me? I have a private-sector job. Transportation industry, to be exact.

    Which will wind up being fucked if we let the EPA turn into something it should not become.

  • ||

    I was talking to the imbecile who suggested that scientists "get real jobs."

  • ||

    The first episode of Stossel was about climate change. Great show, you can see it on youtube (see link).

    Note that Jerry Taylor, energy analyst for the Cato Institute, does not deny AGW. He says that the chances of a climate crisis are very very small, and that current plans are way too expensive. His solution: (which can be seen at 3:15 of part 4 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related) Consumers pay the true price of pollution causing fuels! Haven't I been trying to tell all these things to you AGW denying idiots???

  • ||

    You should move on from multiple punctuation to all caps. I hear that helps when you haven't got a logical leg to stand on.

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement