Bid Adios to the Anti-Global Warming Movement

Now that Harry Reid has abandoned cap-and-trade, the movement has no ideas left.

Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's energy legislation, released last Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral. It is kaput! Finito! Done!

This is not just my read of the situation; it is also that of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate-turned-Democratic-apparatchik. In his latest column for The New York Times, Krugman laments that “all hope for action to limit climate change died” in 2010. Democrats had a brief window of opportunity before the politics of global warming changed forever in November to ram something through Congress. But the Reid bill chose not to do so for the excellent reason that Democrats want to avoid an even bigger beating than the one they already face at the polls.

Not only does the bill avoid all mention of an economy-wide emission cap through a cap-and-tax—oops, cap-and-trade—scheme, it even avoids capping emissions or imposing renewable electricity standards on utility companies, the minimum that enviros had hoped for. Beyond stricter regulations on off-shore drilling, it offers subsidies to both homeowners to encourage them to make their homes more energy efficient and the nation's fleet of trucks to use cleaner burning natural gas. This is not costless, but it is a bargain compared with the “comprehensive” action on energy and climate change that President Barack Obama had been threatening.

Krugman blames this outcome on—you'll never guess this!—greedy energy companies and cowardly Republicans who sold out. But the fault, Dear Paul, lies not in them, but in your own weakling theories.

The truth is that there never has been an environmental issue that has enjoyed greater corporate support. Early in the global warming crusade, a coalition of corporations called United States Climate Action Partnership was formed with the express purpose of lobbying Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It included major utilities (Duke Energy) and gas companies (BP) that stood to gain by hobbling the coal industry through a cap-and-trade scheme. Meanwhile, the Breakthrough Institute, a highly respected liberal outfit whose mission is to rejuvenate the progressive movement in this country, points out that environmental groups spent at least $100 million over the past two years executing what was arguably the best mobilization campaign in history. Despite all of this, notes Breakthrough, there is little evidence to suggest that cap-and-trade would have mustered more than 43 votes in the Senate.

This means that lucre is not the only motivating force in politics. Indeed, lobbyists are effective generally when they represent causes that coincide with the will of constituents, which is far from the case here. Voters are reluctant to accept economic pain to address remote causes with an uncertain upside. Heck, they are dubious even when the cause is not so remote and has a demonstrable upside. Take Social Security and Medicare. It is a mathematical certainty that, without reform, these programs will go bankrupt, jeopardizing the health care and retirement benefits of tens of millions Americans. Even though the cost of action is far smaller compared with the cost of inaction, persuading voters to do something is an uphill battle.

Yet even in the heyday of the consensus on global warming there was never this kind of certainty. The ClimateGate scandal—in which prominent climatologists were caught manipulating data to exaggerate the observed warming—has significantly weakened this consensus. But even if it hadn't, climate change is too complex an issue to ever be established with anything approaching iron-clad certainty. Hence, it was inevitable that it would run into a political dead-end.

This is exactly what the Reid bill represents. Indeed, if Democrats backed-off from their grand designs to cut carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 with sizable majorities in Congress and a “celestial healer” in the White House there is little chance that they will ever be able to accomplish anything better at a later date. And if America—the richest country in the world and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases—won't act, there is a snowball's chance in Mumbai that India or China will.

Of course, authoritarian countries have a little bit more leeway than democracies to push unpalatable remedies. But it is not within the power of even China's autocrats to shove an energy diet down the throat of their people on the theory that the pain from it will be short-lived because it will trigger a search for better and cleaner energy alternatives—the totality of the green pitch for action.

This doesn't mean that there aren't a few more whimpers left in the global warming movement before it finally passes. On the international front, the buzz is that the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change currently in the works will be even more alarmist than the previous one. However, thanks to ClimateGate, it will give greater play to alternative voices. “Going forward, the general perception won't be one of consensus,” notes Cato Institute Senior Fellow Jerry Taylor, an expert on energy issues, “but one of increasing appreciation of disagreement on the issue.”

Domestically, green groups will prod the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions more aggressively. But this will be harder to do when Republicans inevitably make gains in Congress in November. Indeed, they will likely revive a Senate resolution floated by Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, banning the EPA from regulating emissions from stationary sources, which lost by just four votes last month. Global warming warriors are also talking about fighting the battle for emission cuts state-by-state. But they will lose on that front too. California, which embraced such cuts four years ago, is already facing a ballot initiative in November to scrap the law, as it loses business and jobs to other states. Indeed, the same collective action problems that prevent global action on climate change will inevitably bedevil state-level action too.

The global warming warriors will likely have to go through the five stages of grief before accepting that their moment has passed and the movement is dead. Thinkers more sophisticated than Krugman will no doubt point to many proximate causes for its demise beyond evil Republicans such as lack of engagement by President Obama, bad economic timing, filibuster rules, what have you.

The reality is, however, that the crusade was doomed from the start because of its own inherent weaknesses. RIP.

Shikha Dalmia is senior analyst at a Reason Foundation and a biweekly columnist at Forbes. This column originally appeared at Forbes.

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.

  • Old Mexican||

    I had a feeling of deja vu....

  • Joe M||

    ...future historians will pinpoint this event as the moment when the anti-global warming movement entered an irreversible death spiral.

    I believe you meant just plain old global warming movement.

  • Nihixul||

    I think the author meant it in the sense that the members of the movement seek to put a stop to (and are therefore anti-) global warming. (It confused me, too.)

  • Joe M||

    Well, in the article itself, he says:

    ...as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral.

    Can't have it both ways.

  • Nihixul||

    True. Now I am more confused than ever.

  • Kurt Y||

    A clear sign of a poorly worded and poorly reasoned commentary. I wish I had that 2 minutes back.

  • ||

    Yea, I've never heard anti used before in this way. It's weird.

  • Joe M||

    ...future historians will pinpoint this event as the moment when the anti-global warming movement entered an irreversible death spiral.

    I believe you meant just plain old global warming movement.

  • ||

    "anti-global warming" movement
    vs.
    anti-"global warning movement"
    It *is* just a bit confusing.

  • Old Mexican||

    California, which embraced such cuts four years ago, is already facing a ballot initiative in November to scrap the law, as it loses business and jobs to other states.

    The answer would be to create a more perfect Union, where the states would follow the Central government in lockstep, marching towards the cliff in unison... Which is what the Obamanites really want, so don't bet on the death of AGW-insanity just yet...

  • ||

    Yes, I think the idea that this is done is remarkably premature. It's likely just a strategic retreat. And a temporary one at that.

  • redefiler||

    Correct Pro.

    You gotta pull the roots to kill a weed. Chopping the top off, eliminates them only until they grow back. The seeds can also produce new weeds, so each season you gotta fire up the ole' wacker and have at 'em.

  • Tim||

    "The reality is, however, that the crusade was doomed from the start because of its own inherent weaknesses. RIP."

    Unless some bonehead Republican decides he needs to green his image and resurrects the whole thing in 2011.

  • ||

    Only Nixon could serve dinners on china.

  • Tim||

    In this case probably John McCain for President 2012. Right after he promises to take down the fence that Senator McCain just finished.

  • ||

    +1

  • Jhon S||

    Uncle Sam will not agree with the exchange of better cosmopolitan climate and his own economics' cutting down

  • Jhon S||

    Uncle Sam will not agree with the exchange of better cosmopolitan climate and his own economics' cutting down

  • ||

    J sub D|7.29.10 @ 12:38PM|#

    It ain't dead. Greenhouse gas emission legislation is just taking a nap.

    Cap and trade may be dead, but governmental efforts to deal with the very real problem of AGW are not. Four, eight or twenty years from now, something will be done to increase the cost of burning fossil fuels.

    Bet on it.

    Hey if Hit and Run can re-run posts, I get to re-run my comments.

  • Paul||

    Now that Harry Reid has abandoned cap-and-trade, the movement has no ideas left.

    The lust for power never sleeps. It's just in a huddle right now.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I have a picture of Charley Rangel to show you.

  • Sam Grove||

    Four, eight or twenty years from now, something will be done to increase the cost of burning fossil fuels.

    I thought they did that all the time.

  • ||

    Why repost one of your more boneheaded comments? There's as much of a chance that warming is a good thing as there is of it being a problem.

  • ||

    the geological science shows that the scale and speed of Co2 increases are similar to those just prior to the major extinction events.

    Just how do you backup your claim?

  • ||

    What was it Mister Clemens said about obituaries?

  • Old Mexican||

    On the international front, the buzz is that the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change currently in the works will be even more alarmist than the previous one.

    The problem with such a tactic is that they risk becoming an obscene joke.

  • ||

    I think pitiable a better word choice than obscene.

  • ||

    And the boys who run Brazil, India, China, Indonesia, etc. couldn't care less. They are not going to stop their economic growth - period.

  • Tony||

    That's the pathetic excuse of a weakling. Are we America or not? We are to date lagging behind most other major countries, developed AND developing, on this issue. We are in fact ceding competitive advantage for no good reason.

  • Cunt||

    BWAHAHAHA

  • Paul||

    We are in fact ceding competitive advantage for no good reason.

    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

  • Paul Krugman||

    Yes Tony, feel the economic bullshit flow through you.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    We would be at a competetive advantage by not copying the stupid fads of other countries... and we happen to be lagging behind all those european countries that are abandoning their green subsidizing bullshit policies because of the economic harm it caused them.

  • Eric||

    Jesus, Tony, no economic concept goes past you without a back-alley rape of what the economic concept means.

    Let me use it correctly: "Comparative advantage dictates that the division of labor among the commentary will broadly fall into that which they are good at. If it holds true, Tony's low commenting value and high annoyance value will lead to him producing a large quantity of the bullshit desired by the commentariat."

  • ||

    ROTFL, +1.618

  • redefiler||

    Tony, There's a reason we are lagging on this, because it's not an issue. Despite much opposition and ranting, and as you've stated we're actually ahead of the curve. Imagine the devastating results to education and science if we had allowed a Mother Nature Cult to sustain the idea of a need for 'environmental policy'. Gives me a tiny bit more hope in the American people.

    The lesson for you is to identify how easily you'd been spun into a little tizzy because of few, weak emotional stimuli.

  • ||

    Yes Tony, we need to invest more in green technology so it can be mass produced by Chinese manufacturing powered by coal.

    You see Tony? By saving the planet you're going to kill it. Ironic eh?

  • Joe||

    I belive these IPCC reports come out every seven years. The last one was in 2007 so isn't it a bit premature for people to decide what will be in the damn thing?

  • Rich||

    a vastly narrower energy bill, minus controversial climate provisions that would have capped carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions

    Right. They'll resurrect that stuff when "the dust settles" or "it's clear the additional revenue is absolutely necessary" or "there's a global crisis" or ....

  • Ya can't make this stuff up||

    They'll resurrect that stuff when "the dust settles"

    Speaking of dust: EPA wants to regulate farm dust
    http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12899662

  • Cap'n NoStar||

    With gas bags like Harry Reid in Washington, there is no end to the hot air puffing up the myth of global warming.

  • Tim||

    Back in the day it was called "The Greenhouse Effect" and the AlGore endorsed solution was a carbon tax. It was stopped when 1994 event came to pass.

    It rose again as Global Warming and Cap and Trade. Now it appears that a Republican surge has stopped it again.

    Third time's the charm...

  • Michael Ejercito||

    According to the United Nations, we had ten years to act to reverse this global warming.

    Miami Herald - July 5, 1989 - 2E SCIENCE

    GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
    A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the...
  • ||

    So we're screwed. It's too late. End of the world party time.

  • Shoeless Chris||

    Sweet! I have been waiting for a chance to wear my post-apocalyptic spiked shoulder pads.

  • Paul||

    Global warming is irreversible.

  • bigT||

    Just wait for the earth to move a wee bit further from the sun or the sun's activity to wane a little and global warming will be long gone.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Well, let's see what the artist formerly known as Prince has to say about it.

  • BakedPenguin||

    shit - that's what I get for having a blind link. Anyone interested, try this instead.

  • redefiler||

    So sad, Prince was talented musically, now he spends a lot of time talking about the terrible threat of 'chem-trails'.

    I think he should maybe just change his name this time to a capital D for dumb.

  • trueofvoice||

    He was right. We're going to see at least another 1-2 degrees warming from what we've already pumped into the atmosphere. If we continue our current policy (which is to do nothing), we'll probably see another 3-4 degrees warming by the end of the century.

    And it's fascinating Dalmia references the non-existent "Climategate scandal", in which no data was manipulated, no results falsified. But, even if it isn't true, I guess we'll go right on telling everyone it is.

  • Apogee||

    ...in which no data was manipulated, no results falsified.

    House of Lords, right? Tell you what, if we do indeed see the 3-4 degrees at the end of the century, I'll pay you $100.00

  • redefiler||

    I'm sure the wild speculation, disregard for scientific method, and intent to mislead were completely sincere, accurate tactics utilized by the UoEA's climate 'researchers'.

    It takes a special kind of jackass to defend that kind of corrupt and malicious behavior. Lay off the meds, and do some better research 'trueofvoice'. I'm thinking you could benefit from a thorough reread of the available data). Pretty easy to find, pretty sad if your grasp fails what was going on at UoEA.

  • ||

    Sweet, for Snooki's sake hopefully there will be enough heat to eliminate winters altogether and balance the racist tanning tax on White women in the northern states.

  • ||

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/art.....n_the_left

    Progressive tears are yummy.

  • DesigNate||

    =10

  • redefiler||

    If only they could be cultivated for harvest. Could probably scale up production quick, since they're naturally 'de-boned'. I bet you could sell them at Trader Joe's. Anytime your weak ideology needs some spice, use a dash of 'prog-tears' in a eco-friendly, child-safe, impractical container.

  • ||

    "... it is also that of Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate-turned-Democratic-apparatchik."

    Don't you mean Democratic-apparatchik-turned-Nobel laureate?

  • RichardNous||

    True that Dave, one don't win a Nobel unless they're a watermelon communist. In fact, Obama won his for that reason alone as he hasn't accomplished anything worthy at the time or to this day.

  • Jeremy||

    "The ClimateGate scandal—in which prominent climatologists were caught manipulating data to exaggerate the observed warming—has significantly weakened this consensus."

    For the record, the climatologists involved were completely exonerated for any perceived wrong-doings.

    While the consensus among the public may have been weakened by this non-event, the scientific consensus (i.e. the consensus important for determining reality, if not policy) is just as strong as it has ever been.

  • ||

    "While the consensus among the public may have been weakened by this non-event, the scientific consensus (i.e. the consensus important for determining reality, if not policy) is just as strong as it has ever been."

    Yeah the fact that they were shown to have destroyed their source data, manipulated the pier review process to eliminate dissent, intentionally lied about their numbers to hide the medieval warming period, and admitted to each other the numbers were not adding up the way they wanted them to and their data was corrupted could never cause anyone to doubt the "science" whatever that is.

    You are not doing your cause any good by lying. Everyone read those e-mails and knows what they said. The more you lie about the content of them the more it looks like that you have something to hide.

  • MNG||

    "manipulated the pier review process"

    Do the ones you don't catch much fish off get bad reviews?

  • ||

    It is good you can make jokes MNG. It is always good to see someone of limited intelligence find their niche.

  • ||

    At least he knows how to spell "peer."

  • ||

    Every man knows how to do something.

  • ||

    tee hee hee

  • ||

    tee hee

  • Tony||

    John what you should be feeling is embarrassment and shame for being swindled by the hype of this stupid propaganda effort. Why should anyone take you seriously about anything when you deny scientific consensus but are perfectly willing to buy the consensus among right-wing crackpot web sites who aren't exactly agenda-free?

  • DesigNate||

    Newsflash Tony...The earth has been warming for the last 26,000 years (you know since that time period where Asians migrated across the Bering Strait to fan out and populate the America's). The idea that humanity has had that much of an impact is completely asinine.

  • Tony||

    It's also the conclusion of decades of climate research. Natural causes of recent warming have been ruled out.

  • DesigNate||

    I love how corporations are these giant evil things to you but scientist and the government would never think to manipulate data to their own ends.

  • Chad||

    If we scientists were smart enough to start the AGW conspiracy back in the 1800s so that we could (somehow, in theory, maybe) get more grant money today, then WE DESERVE TO RULE YOUR STUPID ASSES.

    Game, set, match. Argument over. You just conceeded that scientists are so infinitely smart that you should do EVERYTHING that we say, no matter what. Thanks for playing!

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "If we scientists were smart enough to start the AGW conspiracy back in the 1800s so that we could (somehow, in theory, maybe) get more grant money today"

    Like scientists alive in the 1800s who did some basic early research have any control over what people are doing with it today. You're a fucking idiot. And what do you mean "we scientists", you god damn hack?

  • DesigNate||

    Scientist were so smart 500 years ago they told Columbus he would sail off the edge of the earth.

    Sorry if I don't swallow every little thing science thinks it has right.

  • ||

    actually the scientists of the age were in agreement with Columbus.

    You FAIL.

  • ||

    I for one welcome our new scientific overlords...

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "Natural causes of recent warming have been ruled out."

    By who? Climate research hasn't even scratched the surface of natural phenomenon. There is no where near a consensus on this.

  • Chad||

    Name the natural phenomenon that hasn't been ruled out.

    If you say "the sun", I will immediately conclude that you are both full of shit and stupider than a rock. We are at the bottom of a deep solar MINIMUM and setting record HIGH temperatures. *facepalm*

    Do you think the tooth fairy is causing all these heat waves?

  • Apogee||

    ...the conclusion of decades of climate research.

    ...All conducted by the very same group of individuals involved in Climategate.

    It's a scam, you loser.

  • Miku||

    Do you have any idea how many people are doing research. The research that was implicated in the climate gate is no the consensus, but the consensus is still of more dire consequences than many Climate Change deniers try to claim. Since the industrial revolution climate has been increasing at a rate above trend. The IPCC is holding onto the high end of the uncertainty, but the idea that human's are responsible for increasing the heating trend is held almost universally among climate scientists.
    Also, please do not base the evidence for global warming on what Tony has said. He is generally right, but he really has no clue what he is talking about. I don't really know the specifics.
    The IPCC is not the consensus, and the implications of "Climate Gate" have nothing on the consensus. It implicates the most dire end of the consensus. Climate Gate is really a non story. Lastly, could you please explain this scam Apogee, who the hell personally benefits from the economic slow down, at least short term, that the necessary measures would cause. For those living today nothing will be gained from climate change legislation, but long term our society is poisoning the land for those to come.
    I am skeptical of the cap and trade bill, but not the basic scientific consensus on the problem.

  • Chad||

    Wrong, Miku. The IPCC has actually been *very* conservative, and the data that has appeared since the cutoff for the last report (2005) has almost universally been WORSE than their projections.

  • Miku||

    Short term weather patterns are nothing to base long run predictions on. Global warming is adding to a natural upswing. Long term warming is still difficult to predict, and the rate is hard to predict as well.

  • Chad||

    .001% of past and present climate scientists were involved in "climategate". Why do you lie?

  • redefiler||

    Chad: Your source?
    The burden of proof is on Team Green here.
    If you want to dispute reality, your evidence better be pretty damn sharp. if its to be taken seriously.

    I also should point out that 'climate science' does not trump other scientists who study the atmosphere, solar and geological data in much greater numbers and levels of sophistication. The collective expertise of the entire scientific community does not support the conclusions, nor were they involved in the IPCC's work. Being a climate-scientist is about as meaningful as being an alchemy-scientist or a intelligent-design-scientist.

    But... thanks for playing dummy. We know you don't read the hard details, but you sure know how to get a 'Newsweek' level grasp of reality. I know I always jump on whatever science seen on the page next to Brother printer and Anti-Virus Software ads.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    While the consensus among the public may have been weakened by this non-event, the scientific consensus (i.e. the consensus important for determining reality, if not policy) is just as strong as it has ever been.


    You mean like the scientific consensus that we had ten years to stop global warming ?


    Miami Herald - July 5, 1989 - 2E SCIENCE

    GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
    A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the...
  • MNG||

    A "senior U.N. environmental official"=consensus now?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    A "senior U.N. environmental official"=consensus now?


    It has been ten years since 2000.

    Which nations were wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels?

  • MNG||

    Good lord did you miss the point...

  • MNG||

    And by the way, even if one "senior U.N. environmental official" somehow constituted a "consensus" what he said was NOT that in ten years the nations would be wiped out but that if the trend were not stopped in ten years the result would be said catastrophic predictions (to happen at some date later than the ten year period: the ten year period being the window to reverse the process).

  • Sam Grove||

    So now that the deadline has passed, what next?

    Revision of the deadline would be an admission that it is meaningless.
    Sticking to it means that there's nothing to do about it now.

  • Ron L||

    Right.
    'We have ten years to do something, and if we don't, why something may happen, oh, a hundred years from now!'
    Pretty much sums up the "specific" claims, but ignores the false conclusion:
    'If order to do something we need the government to control the economy!'

  • Apogee||

    ...even if one "senior U.N. environmental official" somehow constituted a "consensus"

    Nice straw man. Nowhere in the statement is there an indication that this is strictly his personal opinion.

    How precious that your old fortune teller's errors are apparently a 'rogue' opinion, yet we're supposed to fill the pockets of current scammers due to a disproven 'consensus'.

  • Craig||

    He was right. It's been ten years and we did nothing and now people are making more catastrophic predictions!!

    By the way, did you ever see Jim Hansen and the IPCC's figure depicting all of the climate forcings with error bars? Two of the biggest negative forcings have huge error bars. (Those for aerosols and cloud albedo as I recall) And the error bars are much bigger to the cooling side. It's quite possible that these cooling effects will lower the most dire predictions. The IPCC reports clearly state the range of predicted sea level and temperature rises but people only focus on the most catastrophic ones. Kind of foolish, IMO. The latest NOAA report in the news this week says that temperatures went up 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 50 years. Big F***** deal. And part of that is natural. Humans and plants will probably do fine with a warmer, wetter planet and the sea level rise is much slower than people realize. People will have time to respond over the next 200 years. This B.S. (repeated every ten years) that we have to act urgently in the next ten years or we are doomed is not good science. And yes, I would know.

  • Chad||

    Perhaps you missed the news, Craig. The lastest finding of cloud feedback actually indicate that it is a weak POSITIVE feedback, not a negative one. The error bars are moderately large, but they swing both ways, of course. The same is true of aerosols, which stands as the only substantial anthropogenic damper on climate change. It is not really a feedback, however.

    http://climateprogress.org/200.....-negative/

    Multiple lines of evidence indicate that doubling CO2 equates to a 3C temperature increase, with a big fat tail in the probability distribution indicating that much higher sensitivity is possible. We are easily on pace to triple CO2 levels, and running the risk of absolute catastrophe.

  • redefiler||

    Wow, really Chad? I guess you're truly fucked then. WTF are you going to do now?

    However since we are at the end of existence, the time you've been honing your environmentalism has been poorly spent, and left you with below-minimum spear building skills.

    When the atmosphere evaporates, your skull will make someone a fine 'end-of-the-world' champagne toasting mug. Congratulations!

    If anyone was left, your epitaph would have read "Chad - His Cult Was Right About Our Sins Against Mother Earth, It Wasn't Jesus Pissed At Us After All!".

    I'm curious though... did you develop a thick skin to protect yourself from laughter/humiliation, or do you favor a buffer strategy and herd in with others of lesser reasoning?

  • Brian Trust||

    Atlantis!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Uh huh.

    The U of East Anglia decided to investigate itself and - surprise - discovered it had done nothing wrong!

  • MNG||

    Because the "U of East Anglica" is a monolithic entity...

  • ||

    And they had no reason at all to cover up fraud at it's most famous department and long time cash cow. No none at all. Jesus. MNG you seem to come up with worse arguments every day. Do you have dimensia or something?

  • MNG||

    Dude, academics are famously supposed to be the types that would cut the throat of their colleagues/institution in a second. From what I remember the egos and infighting were truly incredible.

  • ||

    Because finding the purveyors biggest left wing religion to be a frauds would not be unpopular at all on a college campus. Stop insulting people's intelligence.

  • redefiler||

    John, stop insulting people of lesser intelligence!

    They need those superstitions to feed themselves and navigate the 'poisonous toxins' at the grocery store.

    And just because peasants need to worship nobility, doesn't mean you have to be mean and call them reactionary, marshmallow-headed clods from the 8th Century.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    They are indeed monolithically non-independent of themselves.

  • Shoeless Chris||

    How would you feel if BP did a review of its actions and exonerated itself of any wrong doing for the blowed up well head?

  • MNG||

    I honestly find most academic institutions to be pretty different than corporations. Their missions and organization are usually quite different.

  • Sam Grove||

    Right, academic institutions aren't interested in income.

  • Shoeless Chris||

    I would say that BP would have more of a reason to conduct a thorough and transparent report on itself. Reason being, they are dependent on the voluntary purchase of their product. East Anglia has no such motivation, the product they produce only need support the party line to continue receiving government largess.

  • Ron L||

    MNG|8.2.10 @ 2:22PM|#
    "I honestly find most academic institutions to be pretty different than corporations. Their missions and organization are usually quite different."

    Hey! Dean Wilson! I got a real sucker on the line for you here. Maybe you can get him to write our PR.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    I honestly find most academic institutions to be pretty different than corporations. Their missions and organization are usually quite different.

    Yes, corporations are icky - all that profit-seeking thingy makes any leech cringe in horror...

  • Tony||

    Hallmark of a crackpot... every means by which you're proven wrong is more evidence you're right, because it's teh conspiracy.

  • Miku||

    You are not proving anyone wrong. You are almost certainly correct, but you prove again and again that you do not have the knowledge to prove climate change.

  • trueofvoice||

    The CRU was investigated by the House of Commons and exhonerated. In fact it has been the subject of three separate investigations, none of which has found wrongdoing.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    What use to me are the findings of an investigation by the government of a highly paternalist and socialist country, that happens to be funding the organization they were investigating?

  • bigT||

    While the consensus among the public may have been weakened by this non-event, the scientific consensus (i.e. the consensus important for determining reality, if not policy) is just as WRONGas it has ever been.

    **There, FTFY.

  • RichardNous||

    The Fraud of Consensus by Gary Novak

    Consensus would almost be an irrelevant curiosity except for what it replaces. It replaces evidence.

    There are major contradictions in replacing evidence with consensus. Where does the consensus come from? Supposedly, there was some sort of prior study of evidence. If so, why oppose the evidence; and when is the switch supposed to be made from relying upon evidence and opposing it?

    Supposedly, authorities study evidence, and then lesser persons rely upon the result. There is no place in rational existence for separating the superiority of authorities from the submission of lesser persons. Who decides where that line is supposed to be? Who creates accountability for authorities?

    The whole process of promoting consensus is dependent upon the infallibility of authorities. They never are infallible, and an absence of accountability guarantees their corruption. Power is too corrupt to allow authorities to be infallible.

    Furthermore, there is no method of correcting errors or making improvements with consensus based realities. All corrections and improvements start with one person and increase due to evidence. The promotion of consensus prevents small groups (minorities) from functioning and making improvements.

    **************

    Jeremy, you realize that the so called consensus is based on computer modeling that can't even replicate past KNOWN climates. Find a new religion to satisfy your Christ-complex.

  • chilly willie||

    Jeremy, it was all a whte wash, didn't you read the Reason articles about it? None of the tricky bits were discussed nor the blackballing of contrarian opinions in climate journals.

  • ||

    http://jalopnik.com/5600495/ma.....ue&s=i

    In other news Homeowners' Associations are evil.

  • ||

    Glad I'm out of my old HOA neighborhood. They tried to ban people from parking on city-maintained streets.

  • Shoeless Chris||

    They are voluntary contracts.

  • ||

    That you should never enter into.

  • ||

    ..........that you must sign

  • Ron L||

    ........if you buy there.

  • Satan||

    If you believe that because something is voluntary it isn't evil, we may be able to do business together. Call me.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral"

    Wasn't Obamacare declared dead about a month before it passed?

  • Jen||

    Yes, but that doesn't mean it wasn't dead. I liken Obamacare to a zombie.

  • redefiler||

    Yes but that's the problem with universal coverage, the zombies keep coming in fro treatment, sucking up all the resources but because they are undead, nothing can be done for them. They also eat all the brains, which explains the popularity of that bill with the mindless, gluttony of the zombie D's. They won't stop until they've eaten every brain,

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The global warming scam may be winding down, but the same characters who were pushing it have already concocted a new scam to take it's place - the "green jobs" scam.

    They will peddle that rent-seeking, broken window fallacy as far as they can.

  • Gay Communist Gun Club||

    This article rings as a sad case of know-nothingness.

    First, cap-and-trade was originally a Republican idea hated by most environmentalists. Nonetheless, cap-and-trade, then called "emission trading," was first considered by George H.W. Bush as a way to combat acid rain. It was not officially enacted until 1995, and it subsequently cut the amount of acid rain emissions by half. Then, as now, there were those that argued that it would kill the economy. It didn't.

    Second, the article conflates someone like Harry Reid as a real climate crusader. Both Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace opposed cap-and-trade. And if the best Congress money can buy can't do better than cap-and-trade, its of little surprise.

    Third, if you don't believe that global warming is real, you need to pay attention to what is going on at the North Pole, where it has altered the geo-political landscape. As the ice there continues to melt, countries are jockeying for position to claim the oil and gas reserves. Russia has already planted its flag at the North Pole. China is currently building the world's larger ice breaker in anticipation of the ice thinning more and more each year.

    Furthermore, small island nations such as the Maldives have already seen atolls permanently submerged underwater. The Samoan islands of Saoluafata have seen there coastline retreat by more than a hundred feet in the last decade.

    4) The California ballot initiative to repeal AB23 is backed primarily by two oil companies from Texas. It is not, as this article might have you believe, a grassroots measure. In addition, California still leads the country in venture capital investments, reaching $4 billion in the second quarter this year. Needless to say, most venture capitalist in California favor AB23.

    In sum, this article is long on talking points and short on substance. Movement towards a more energy efficient economy is gaining steam, with or without the government. And if the clean energy revolution is lead by private businesses, as it should be, what have you to say about that?

  • ||

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c.....arctic.png

    The North pole is not "melting". If you people would stop lying, someone might believe you the next time you cried wolf.

  • Tony||

    Hmm, that chart seems to indicate that sea ice is indeed decreasing. Note: we aren't through with 2010 yet.

  • ||

    Tony. It is summer. It goes back up every fall. This year's low is no lower than any of the other year's lows.

  • Tony||

    But the previous 3 were the lowest, and summer's not over yet.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    You want to use "clean" energy commie boy?

    Go right ahead.

    Just don't try to tell me I have to do the same - or expect me to subsidize you for doing it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Gay Communist Gun Club,

    The California ballot initiative to repeal AB23 is backed primarily by two oil companies from Texas. It is not, as this article might have you believe, a grassroots measure. In addition, California still leads the country in venture capital investments, reaching $4 billion in the second quarter this year. Needless to say, most venture capitalist in California favor AB23.

    Hated capitalists hate AB23 but hated capitalists love AB23. Good to see you haven't sold out your principles out of expediency, GCGC...

  • DownsizeDC||

    "Movement towards a more energy efficient economy is gaining steam, with or without the government. And if the clean energy revolution is lead by private businesses, as it should be, what have you to say about that?"

    I think everyone here would applaud! The free market is the only way to solve any environmental problem.

  • ||

    Here, here!!!!

  • Tony||

    How? I'm all for the market playing its part in innovation, but if the deck is stacked against green tech because polluting energy is subsidized by being able to pollute for free, then the market is not working. Make greenhouse gas emitting industries (and, yes, consumers of their products) may for the damage they're doing and then we'll have a free market. Until then we're for all intensive porpoises subsidizing the environmental problems rather than solving them.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Until then we're for all intensive porpoises subsidizing the environmental problems rather than solving them.

    I prefer the term "intensive dolphins" myself...

  • Colonel_Angus||

    You can't define "being able to pollute for free", while the definition of subsidy is very specific- a policy by the government of directly transferring money taken from taxpayers to private or government interests.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Gay Communist Gun Club,

    Nonetheless, cap-and-trade, then called "emission trading," was first considered by George H.W. Bush as a way to combat acid rain. It was not officially enacted until 1995, and it subsequently cut the amount of acid rain emissions by half. Then, as now, there were those that argued that it would kill the economy. It didn't.

    It DIDN'T??? Idiot - what do you think happened to the MANUFACTURING BASE of this great country? Why do you think all those cries about "They outsourced our jobs! Sob! Sob! Sob!"?

    Asshole.

  • Gay Communist Gun Club||

    Clueless one, manufacturing jobs began to leave before 1995, and they left because governments in developing countries suppress the wages of their workers to just a fraction of workers in developed countries make.

  • bigT||

    No, jobs left because American unions demanded - and got - benefits far in excess of the value of their contribution to their products. Their value could be obtained elsewhere for less money. Industries slowly strangled from excessive costs.

  • ||

    "Furthermore, small island nations such as the Maldives have already seen atolls permanently submerged underwater. The Samoan islands of Saoluafata have seen there coastline retreat by more than a hundred feet in the last decade."

    Coastline changes all of the time, often quite rapidly under normal weather conditions. Virginia Beach, the city of my youth, spends millions each year keeping their coastline from changing dramatically in a way that would damage the main beachfront. It doesn't take global warming to alter coastlines. Coastlines are in a constant state of flux.

    "4) The California ballot initiative to repeal AB23 is backed primarily by two oil companies from Texas. It is not, as this article might have you believe, a grassroots measure."

    I really couldn't care less who backs a certain piece of legislation. The most common leftist tactic today is to discuss "who's backing legislation" rather than whether or not the legislation is a good idea. The fact of the matter is that people actually have to vote for these initiatives. If the left loses, they will simply argue that the people have been brainwashed by corporation. Sure, lots of corporation will benefit from more freedom, but that doesn't make freedom bad.

    "In addition, California still leads the country in venture capital investments, reaching $4 billion in the second quarter this year."

    Gee, golly! Let's mention the one thing that California has going for it! California has the biggest population in the country, so it is no wonder that they have a large amount of venture capital. I would be more impressed if I could see a per capita comparison. Also, any state to state cost of living adjustment would eradicate any pro California statistics.

    "Needless to say, most venture capitalist in California favor AB23."

    I'm sure that many venture capitalists favor government measures that they might benefit from. What's your point? Didn't you just imply that we shouldn't be in favor of something that is backed by large money interests.

  • ||

    "First, cap-and-trade was originally a Republican idea hated by most environmentalists. Nonetheless, cap-and-trade, then called "emission trading," was first considered by George H.W. Bush as a way to combat acid rain. It was not officially enacted until 1995, and it subsequently cut the amount of acid rain emissions by half. Then, as now, there were those that argued that it would kill the economy. It didn't."

    Yeah, and the people who wanted to use Cap and Trade for acid rain are some of the people who are saying that cap and trad won't work for global warming. Reducing global warming via Cap and Trade is

    A)Fantastically more expensive.

    B)Much more of a LOOOOOOOONG term goal.

    C) Requires INTERNATIONAL cooperation to be at all effective.

    D) Will effect every other industry in a large dramatic way.

    Because of A&B, the opportunities for corruption and graft are enormous.

  • #||

    this is a key point. Because with acid rain, caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide can very easily be removed from emmissions by simply moving to lower sulfur coal and/or adding scrubbers to smokestacks. So it only takes a very small price premium to be placed on the emissions to get large reductions.

    In contrast, there is no easy, low cost way to substantially reduce carbon emessions. So the cost of them would have to be huge. This huge price differential in tunr will just cause the moving of high carbon production activites to just move to another country.

    So even assuming you could create system that "works", it would require international cooperation AND it will have a signifigant effect on real economic output.

  • Chad||

    It doesn't take much of a "price premium" to eliminate coal in favor of a mix of gas, nuclear, and renewables. Indeed, with all the externalities factored in, we will SAVE lots of money by getting rid of coal. The full cost of coal electricity, which typically retails for around $.03/kwh, is actually north of $.10/kwr, making it more expensive than wind, gas, and nukes, and even solar in certain circumstances.

    It is actually rather unfathomable to me why libertarians are rejecting textbook economics. Markets cannot work unless EVERYTHING is factored into the price. Making polluters pay is common sense and good policy.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    How do you know what to include as "everything" when you calculate the cost of coal? You're just pulling shit out of your ass. The cost of coal is what my bill says it is, dipshit.

  • Chad||

    No, the cost of coal includes the $60 billion in health care costs it adds to our medical bills, the costs of damaged environments and ecosystems, and climate change.

    Why is it that libertarians just cannot admit that subsidies can occure via government INACTION? Your pathological anti-government stance has fried your brains.

  • Craig||

    Plenty of libertarians are ok with some kind of pollution tax/credits if done intelligently and on the basis of real pollutants known to cause verifiable damages (i.e. acid-rain, smog, etc). It was Milton Friedman's idea. Actually several key AGW papers have pointed out that doing so for black soot particles and making coal more costly and therefore used less often will remove an important positive forcing. I believe the way Hansen put it was "do the things it makes sense to do anyway"

  • Chad||

    Soot does more damage directly than it prevents via climate change. So yes, we should get rid of it (via taxation), and yes, it will make another problem worse.

    I am still waiting for "plently of libertarians" to start calling for a clean, simple carbon tax based on the best scientific evidence available. That would be around $30/ton_CO2, and rising at inflation plus a few percent.

    Note that such a tax correlates to about $.30/gallon of gasoline, and would raise your electric bill by 10-20%. It's hardly the apocalypse, and in any case, you would get half the money back via savings on your medical bills.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "you would get half the money back via savings on your medical bills"

    I would?

  • ||

    I bet you I wouldn't get any money back on my medical bills, but I might make a lot more money doing consulting/research work for energy trading groups!

    And who cares if poor people are jsut worse off right? we need to eliminate them anyway right?

  • DesigNate||

    teh externalities!

  • bigT||

    MOST importantly, acid rain could be definitively blamed for the demise of numerous lakes in upstate NY and elsewhere - cause and effect are clear. AGW is BS conflated from manipulated and filtered observations distorted for political purposes by totally untestable computer models.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    The very idea of even considering a computer model to be a reliable experiment is retarded. A computer program is written to compute only one possible outcome for the information that is entered by the user, and its creator knows exactly how the program will respond to his inputs. And there is no way the program can replicate what actually happens in nature- which is why they keep adjusting the computer programs when they fail to replicate actual trends.

  • squarooticus||

    If a company can produce green energy more cheaply per unit (BTU, KWH, etc.) than through the use of the fossil fuels, they should go for it: we would all benefit through lower prices and less pollution. But when you say "private businesses" are leading the charge, what you really mean is "private businesses backed up by the full power of the State" are conspiring to raise energy costs for all of us by making cheaper sources of energy illegal.

    I think most of us here are in favor of free markets, not big business. Getting the government's goons to force people to buy your stuff is not what I think of when I hear the term "free market".

  • Chad||

    What if they CAN produce electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels, but the fossil fuel companies recieve

    A: Half a trillion dollars in direct subsidies and tax breaks every year (yes, the "t" is correct).

    B: Free garbage dumping priveledges that are worth even more

  • ||

    A: Half a trillion dollars in direct subsidies and tax breaks every year (yes, the "t" is correct).

    B: Free garbage dumping priveledges that are worth even more


    Citation please. I have found an article from the NYT (not an oil-industry shill) that indicates oil companies have received $4B in US tax breaks per year, on income tax assessments of about $140B per year. That is 1) 2% of the oil companies' tax bill, not very significant, and 2) not a figure for the fossil fuel industry--just oil companies. I'd be interested in seeing which coal/natural gas/whatever companies received an additional $494B per year, and how many of them were coal company beneficiaries of the late Senator Byrd's largesse.

    On your Point B, you need to prove that carbon--plant food--is "garbage" before you can assess fossil fuel companies for free "garbage dumping priveledges (sic)".

    And on that point, before you say "consensus", recall that science doesn't work that way. You need a falsifiable hypothesis that is supported by hard, replicable data. Such a hypothesis and data would constitute scientific proof that carbon dioxide drives climate change. If you don't have these, STFU about science, because that is not what you are dealing in--talk about your feelings instead of science. To date, as far as I am aware, there is no such proof. There is a rebuttable finding that temperatures have increased over the past century, along with a finding that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have also increased. Correlation is not causation.

  • ||

    Third, if you don't believe that global warming is real, you need to pay attention to what is going on at the North Pole, where it has altered the geo-political landscape.

    The issue is not global warming in general, but anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW). Admittedly, many on both sides seem to have trouble with this. Of course global warming (and cooling) is real and has for billions of years.

  • DesigNate||

    +1

  • Sam Grove||

    Third, if you don't believe that global warming is real,

    You're off message here. climate change is preferred, as no one denies that there has been warming trends (nor cooling trends).

  • ||

    Third, if you don't believe that global warming is real, you need to pay attention to what is going on at the North Pole, where it has altered the geo-political landscape. As the ice there continues to melt, countries are jockeying for position to claim the oil and gas reserves. Russia has already planted its flag at the North Pole. China is currently building the world's larger ice breaker in anticipation of the ice thinning more and more each year.

    It amazes me how AGW jackasses can cite developments such as these and still fail to comprehend that even if the US cut its CO2 emissions to nil, it wouldn't make a bit of difference since other players would step in and increase their fossil fuel burn at a higher rate to take advantage of the market spaces we'd be abandoning.

  • ||

    nobody likes a smartass...just shut up and take your carbon tax like a good slave

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "As the ice there continues to melt, countries are jockeying for position to claim the oil and gas reserves. Russia has already planted its flag at the North Pole. China is currently building the world's larger ice breaker in anticipation of the ice thinning more and more each year."

    Sounds awesome. Warmer temperatures in the north open up all sorts of economic opportunities. I wish I could be in charge of such impressive industrial accomplishments but I will have to settle for investing in them.

  • RichardNous||

    The ice at the South pole is growing -which suggest the warming is not global.

  • ||

    I have a much simpler solution for encouraging the development of renewable energies. We could legislate a 60 billion a year subsidy for renewable energy, which would never expand, so after time passed the actual subsidy would be smaller and smaller. The subsidy would be distributed to the producers of renewable energy on a per megawatt basis, so if too many inefficient producers entered the market, the actual subsidy per megawatt produced would decline, as the total number of megawatts produced increased, thus driving the crappier producers out of business. Basically, the producers of renewable energy would be forced to become ultra efficient or watch their subsidy fall below a level at which profits are possible. We could probably legislate another 20 billion a year for direct R&D spending. All of this could be paid for with a decline in subsidies for fossil fuel energies and maybe an irrelevant 2% tax on carbon. I see this as the best possible green legislation. It doesn't harm the overall economy in any dramatic way, and it puts the onus on the renewable energy producers to become efficient quickly.

    My problem with the current generation of Greenies is that they seem more concerned about "job creation" and punishing evil coal companies than actually making renewable energy viable. Guaranteed feed in rates are hugely expensive and in many ways discourage the producers of renewable energy from becoming more efficient. Sure, they are incentivized to produce more energy, but they aren't incentivized to produce that energy more cheaply. In fact, today's green movement wants subsidies for renewable energy to dramatically increase over time.

  • ||

    Indeed! We can fix the problem as long as we have the right legislation. God forbid the renewable energy companies compete on their merits.
    *NOTE* This should not be construed as an endorsement of current subsidies for legacy energy producers.

  • Chad||

    Considering fossil fuels receive a subidy around an order of magnitude higher, how do you expect anyone to compete with them?

  • Craig||

    The solution is to remove those subsidies which I was against in the first place.

  • ||

    Aye. Drop the $4B the oil companies get per year, and let consumers pay 2% more at the pump, if they choose to do so. Maybe some of them will cut back on usage. Meanwhile, drop the $18.2B in subsidies for "clean energy". Seriously, if it needs a subsidy, it's not yet viable.

  • Paul||

    Future historians will pinpoint Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's energy legislation, released last Tuesday, as the moment that the political movement of global warming entered an irreversible death spiral.

    Didn't they say the same thing when the Senate rejected Kyoto 99-0?

  • ||

    They did. And they were right then to. The world is not and will never limit its carbon output.

  • Paul||

    It's not the reducing, John, it's the trying. And they'll never stop trying.

  • ||

    silly libertarian...we aren't trying to reduce carbon output...we are trying to create legitimate sounding excuses to put in the framework for global governence and worldwide taxes.

  • poopy||

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is a religion, and laws respecting that religion are a direct violation of the First Amendment.

  • DesigNate||

    I like the way you think.

  • ||

    Shikha Dalmia explains why future historians will pinpoint this event as the moment when the anti-global warming movement entered an irreversible death spiral.

    Actually the pinpoint event was the release of the climate gate emails.

  • The Gobbler||

    ^^THIS^^

  • ||

    "And if America—the richest country in the world and the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases—won't act, there is a snowball's chance in Mumbai that India or China will."

    As if China and India would have done anything to throttle their economies after we did ours.

  • ||

    but in these people's minds it always has to be America's fault.

  • Chad||

    China is already AHEAD of us on clean energy legislation and implementation, you fucking moron.

    Why are libertarians so ignorant nowadays?

  • RichardNous||

    China also tops the US in GHG emissions unless you go by per capita stats. China is just playing the West with the green tech BS because China knows those solar panels will be made cheaply by Chinese manufacturing powered by coal. Oh the irony!

  • Marcello||

    1) Climate change ain't happening.

    2) People who say climate change is happening ain't happening.

    That's two strikes, Shikla. You might want to call in a pinch-hitter for your next article.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Marcello,

    1) Climate change ain't happening.

    Who said it ain't happening? That's nowhere in the article.

    Dumbass.

  • marlok||

    Also, it takes 3 strikes before you're out.

  • ||

    I´m not that optimistic, there are way too many believers. It´s just that due to the current economic troubles people have real problems in their minds so it has slipped under the radar. Still, every extra year of data will make their apocalyptical scenarios less believable.

    We are still likely to see lots of subsidies and regulation to support "green" industries, from the well-intentioned to the corrupt, but I can live with that.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "This doesn't mean that there aren't a few more whimpers left in the global warming movement before it finally passes"

    I once passed a green movement. I think it had something to do with too much blue sprots drink.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    You should see what Crunchberries do to me.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Was it a breast cancer awareness movement?

    Code Pink?

  • ||

    We are still likely to see lots of subsidies and regulation to support "green" industries, from the well-intentioned to the corrupt, but I can live with that.

    Well, I doubt it will kill me to have more of my substance consumed by government, and more rents extracted by the useless but well-connected.

    But that doesn't mean I won't fight it every inch of the way.

  • ||

    Fight it! every inch, every mm.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    I'm glad to agree with Shikha on this one. If only we could get rid of all the lame "green" subsidies that still exist, starting with ethanol and definitely including the Chevy Volt.

  • Tony||

    If there weren't so many SCIENCE DENYING industry puppets among US Senate Republicans, and if the GOP had a sliver of decency and concern for the wellbeing of the people on this planet instead of a nihilistic sociopathic concern only for their own power, we would have the political will to address climate change--which is the only thing that is lacking. If our government can't properly address a problem of this magnitude then it is by definition corrupt, and the corruption is coming from industry. I love the two predominant libertarian solutions: 1) loosen regulations, because the market will address climate change somehow with the help of fairy dust or 2) deny the problem exists at all, like a stupid creationist, just so you don't have to address the issue.

  • Ron L||

    Tony|8.2.10 @ 3:34PM|#
    "If there weren't so many SCIENCE DENYING industry puppets among US Senate Republicans....[and further BS]"

    Poor tony; they aren't giving him his unicorns this year.
    Poor, poor, tony.

  • Contrarian P||

    Okay, Tony. I assume since this is your viewpoint that you never eat anything unhealthy, exercise every single day, go to your doctor like clockwork every year, never have run a balance on your credit cards, etc. All of those things are much, much more supported by "science" than is the climate change formerly known as global warming and I doubt you do all of them, you science denier you.

    Why don't you just wake up, smell the coffee, and realize that there are many intelligent people who are able to think for themselves that have every reason to believe that the "science" you are clinging to is replete with assumption, shoddy practices, greed, and graft, drawing any information that it produces into serious question. Just because you wholeheartedly believe something, Tony, doesn't mean it's right, nor do you have the right to tell the rest of us that we have to believe it. I'm sure you would have been lecturing Columbus all the way up the ramp of the Santa Maria how everyone knows that he'll be sailing off the edge of the world any day now. After all, you heard (not that you did any of the research yourself) that it was from very respected sources! Hell, you'd probably even have a hockey-stick graph.

    Oh, and before I go...

    "If our government can't properly address a problem of this magnitude then it is by definition corrupt, and the corruption is coming from industry."

    Or how about it's not the government's job to address it? How about the government is inherently not good at this sort of thing, despite the mystical powers you ascribe to it, which is why it was limited by the framers in the first place?

    "deny the problem exists at all, like a stupid creationist, just so you don't have to address the issue."

    Sorry Tony. I could have sworn that your AGW religion maintained that Al Gore created the world as he did the internet. Seriously, did a religious person kick you in the groin sometime in your life? Why all the overt hostility?

  • Tony||

    I don't believe in global warming out of faith, I simply trust the overwhelming consensus of relevant experts--you know, what you're rejecting whole-hog for no good reason except possibly that it presents a problem your precious free market can't solve by itself. Yes I am overtly hostile to anti-intellectual pigs who deny scientific reality in favor of talking points supplied by entities with a strong interest in keeping people ignorant.

    I do my best in my personal habits but I know that no amount of effort on my part is enough to solve a global problem. Governments exist to solve big problems that individuals and their random interactions cannot. Who gives a crap about what you think the framers would have tolerated in this matter--there was no global climate crisis at the time of the framing.

  • HM||

    Trusting the "overwhelming consensus of relevant experts" is faith. It's also completely arbitrary since in order to see that kind of consensus you have to exclude many "relevant experts".

  • Chad||

    No, it is not faith in the least. It really is that simple.

    The scientific process is the absolute gold-standard for truth seeking, and you can't ask for anything more. To deny it in favor of partisan talking points implies that you have no concern for the truth whatsoever, and your opinion should be considered worthless and duly ignored.

  • ||

    The scientific process is indeed the absolute gold-standard for truth-seeking. Which is why it's so disheartening for real scientists like myself to watch you and other "BUT THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED" dickwads subvert the scientific process -- you know, skepticism, objectivity, inquiry, repeatable experimentation, observation, rigorous peer review, and open concession of known unknowns -- to further your Malthusian scaremongering in support of your anti-human ideology.

  • Chad||

    Real skeptics are infinitely more skeptical of crap spewed by Rush Limbaugh than they are of, say, a publication in Nature or Science (or, indeed, a few hundred of them). That is why you are not a skeptic, but a denier.

    The fact that you seem to think that science being "settled" is a binary concept makes me wonder what kind of "scientist" you really are. It is all a matter of degree. There is practically no serious debate among climate scientists that the earth's average temperature will increase by about 3C for a doubling of CO2, with a probabilitity distribution that has a big fat tail skewing to higher temperatures, but almost no chance of anything below 2C. We are on pace to at least triple CO2 levels, making 4-5C highly likely, and placing catastrophic changes like 8-10C well within the bounds of plausibility. 10C would literally make half of the land on earth uninhabitable by humans, as outdoor temperatures would regularly rise to >120F and kill people.

    Exactly what price do you put on a 5% chance that you turn half of our land into sun-blasted wastes?

  • ||

    Again, all these predictions are based on computer models, with built-in assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong, the models aren't worth shit. If you want to claim science is on your side, you need to prove that these models have accurately predicted anything. To date, they haven't. And again, it doesn't matter how many "scientists" you can get to claim to back the models. Science doesn't work by consensus.

    Get some falsifiable hypotheses and replicable data, and then get back to us.

  • Chad||

    All predictions made by anyone anywhere are based on models.

    Get back to me when this sinks into your pretty little head.

  • ||

    A rather clumsy attempt at side-stepping the point. Read, or re-read, my post. Still waiting.

  • DesigNate||

    Are you seriously arguing based on a 5% chance? That means there is a 95% chance you are bald ass wrong. You make me laugh Chad.

  • DesigNate||

    Instead of asking the government to tax me more, why don't we take away the subsidy money for all industries and use it plant trees (you know, those things that produce oxygen and use CO2).

  • DesigNate||

    Screw the "free market" Tony. I don't think the market will solve everything, but that doesn't mean it's the government's right or job to do so.

    There are actual scientists that disagree with the findings by AGW proponents. I'm a Catholic and I believe in evolution. Science can do a lot of things and has helped us to better understand the world but that doesn't mean they are infallible.

  • Chad||

    Yes, and those "actual scientists" are

    A: an ultra-minority (around 3%)

    B: virtually without exception ultra-conservative

    Regardless of the political issue, there is always a wingnut minority whose mind cannot be swayed by facts. The three percent you worship is precisely these people.

  • ||

    Tony is right, the government has failed, we must end this government. Start over from scratch.

  • redefiler||

    Gabe: you're right, but we don't need to start from scratch. I found this piece of paper written by this guy named Madison, if you ignore all the crap some idiot has tried to write all over the top of it, it's actually a pretty damn good government blueprint. Kinda like my wireless router, don't throw it away when it fails, just needs a reset.

  • Contrarian P||

    Where did you source this statistic? Is there some global survey of scientists or a registry where they list their political persuasions?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    The consensus does not go far beyond the hypothesis that some amount of atmospheric gasses can have some effect on earth's climate.

  • RichardNous||

    I think the AGW alarmist suffer from a Christ-complex, these fools actually believe they're going to save the world.

  • Atilla||

    Global warming is happening. It is the end od an ice age.

    Some analyses indicate that the rate of warming might be faster than it was in the past.

    Co2 has a minor impact on warming of maybe a few tenths of a degree per century.

    High co2 may be acidifying the oceans.

    We have more than 6 billion people on earth and maybe 2 billion are unemployed. Most of them are young and have no hope of much of a future.

    Oil and natural gas and coal and uranium235 are all depleting resources, dirty, old technology, and have to be replaced for future energy, fertilizer, and chemical feedstocks.

    Having balanced debates with real data, open markets, sensible planning and policy with real data sure would be nice.

    Instead we get idiots like al gore and prince Charles blathering about nonsense or dopes like glen beck and Sarah palin chanting ignorance on the other side.

    Fortunately the laws of nature can continue with or without human approval or understanding.

  • ||

    the world has a 33% unemployment rate?

  • RichardNous||

    No but the U.S. will if CnT is passed.

  • trueofvoice||

    How about presenting one freaking citation to back anything you've said up?

  • bigT||

    CO2 is not acidifying the oceans in any meaningful or measurable way. The oceans are a very very strongly buffered solution. It would take CO2 emission rates much, much higher than current rates to make a significant difference.

  • redefiler||

    I admit Chemistry was never my strong suit, maybe someone can help explain the formula of H2O + CO2 = Acid Ocean.

    However can solve this might be able to help me with my Pb = Au equation too?

  • redefiler||

    *whoever

  • Atilla||

    Thank you.

    I was wrong - 200 million unemployed.

    My point. use real numbers and update mistakes.

  • Chad||

    So, we just experienced the hottest week, the hottest month, the hottest year, and the hottest decade on record.

    What, precisely, does it take to convince a denier that they are, indeed, a denier?

  • ||

    Even if it is 100 degrees in Boston everyday until December, it won't make me believe that higher taxes and more revenue towards the US government or the UN is going to make the world better. Science does not prove that more revenue for the government improves the lot of humanity....empirical evidence shows me the opposite.

    I think the world would get even worse with more taxes.

  • Chad||

    Since you have conceded that there are no facts that can persuade you, why should I waste any time discussing matters with achildish, close-minded moron?

  • Ernie the Bear||


    Chad|8.2.10 @ 7:16PM|#

    Since you have conceded that there are no facts that can persuade you, why should I waste any time discussing matters with achildish, close-minded moron?
    reply to this


    Because, Tony, you are an evil, elitist, collectivist bag of clotted douche, you think it's OK to impose your will and your beliefs on every human on earth, at gunpoint if necessary, and no amount of individual human misery and death is "too much", as long as it serves the "greater good" of you getting whatever you want. Thanks for asking, and fuck you. Fuck you and the donkey you rode in on, and everyone who looks like you, and everyone you know, and the parents who spawned you. Burn in Hell, Tony.

    P.S. - If you were really as smart as you claim to be, you would have already known this.
    P.P.S.- In case I wasn't perfectly clear, fuck you.

  • RichardNous||

    Tony wants to save the world and rides a donkey to the promised land.

    Christ-complex?

  • ||

    you shouldn't waste your time trying to convince me Chad. However, you should understand that even if the "science is 100% right"....we still don't believe that the tax schemes being pushed will be a step in the right direction for improving life on this planet!

    When the governments get bigger and increase their revenues it INCREASES tyranny and that is worse for the human condition than warming of even 30 degrees. Humanity experiences a decrease in resilience to the rigors of our universe whenever, individual freedom is degraded for the benefit of monopolies of violence.

  • ||

    I also think the planet would be nicer with milder poles.

  • Jones||

    One might ask you the same question.

  • ||

    I thought we couldn't claim weather to prove or disprove climate claims. Because the last week, year, and decade where I am have been decidedly cooler than expected--although not the month as a whole.

    The decade in particular has not exhibited warming--a point salient in the ClimateGate materials, I believe, and the reason to change the war cry from "global warming" to "climate change".

    To answer your question, though, if previous posts haven't: It takes precisely scientific evidence to prove that carbon-driven anthropogenic global warming is a scientific fact. (Err, sorry, anthropogenic climate change--we have have to use "climate change", because one facet of global warming is that it causes cooling. See "falsifiable" in above posts.) Before I agree to wreck the world's economy and doom millions or billions to an energy-starved catastrophe, you need to do the following:

    1. Obtain a data set that has not been tampered with and is not subject to non-climate affects (UHI, irregular normalization of the data set).

    2. Demonstrate that the above data set shows a statistically significant increase in global temperatures. It is no mean feat even to establish a "global temperature".

    3. Provide hard, replicable data that carbon dioxide levels drive climate change. There's the "greenhouse effect" bit to which everyone agrees, but that is not the same as CO2 being a climate driver. Feedback effects, logarithmic effect of additional CO2 vis-a-vis water vapor, albedo, etc., etc.

    The above would establish that there is, in fact, global warming underway, and that it is driven by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Real science would have started with that; that it instead started with claims of a consensus ought to make any of the non-faith-based AGW adherents think again.

    If the above are ever established, then the dire predictions derived from the computer models need to be validated. They need to demonstrate that they have valid predictive abilities. To my knowledge, they have failed at this--c.f. change of terms from "global warming" to "climate change".

    Do all that, Chad, and this "denier" will stop being a denier. That none of this has been done a quarter century or so into the debate gives me scant reason to believe that will be forthcoming in the next decade or so.

  • RichN||

    Silly tike don't you understand global warming is causing global cooling except when its causing the warming -see climate change.

    /sarcasm

  • Soonerliberty||

    Europe is having one of the coldest summers. So what? In Germany it is cold as hell in August. Any more anecdotes?

  • redefiler||

    Hottest ever? Been to the West Coast this year? Might want to check those numbers, because they are about to torpedo your whole hypothesis. You're experiencing a 'heat wave' douche bag. Instead of hyperventilating in a plastic bubble, go buy a T-shirt and go do something outside. You're obvious sweating profusely from all the frothing around and ranting. Remember to try and stay hydrated, heat can cause increased confusion and irrationality.

  • Jones||

    The planet is 4.5 billion years old. It has variously been unbearably hot, dangerously cold, bombarded with cosmic rays and meteor strikes, and populated by scary dinosaurs. I think we have it pretty good right now. Quit whining.

  • DesigNate||

    I love how every 5-10 years the climate people have to jump up and down and scream about the end of the world. Then when nothing happens they push their estimate back.

    Here's an idea hippies...Don't eat veggies and trees since those things naturally grab CO2 out of the air and turn it into oxygen (you know that thing we need to breathe).

  • Some Guy||

    It was always near-certain that nothing would be done because this is a massive tragedy of the commons.

    So either the Earth will heat up and cause problems or it won't, but short of finding some miracle source of energy (or simply running out of fossil fuels) nothing will change.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It was always near-certain that nothing would be done because this is a massive tragedy of the commons.


    What is this tragedy of the commons?

  • Some Guy||

    Are you saying you don't understand the term, or are you saying you don't understand why I used it?

  • Chad||

    It doesn't matter, Some Guy. Conservatives, when presented with a prisoners' dilemma of any sort, focus their efforts on "How can I rat out the other guy before he rats me out", rather than focusing on how to find a way to cooperate in the short term, and eliminate the dilemma in the long run.

    That is why they shouldn't be in charge of as much as a dog pound, let alone real government.

  • ||

    Wow, skipping from science to game theory in the same thread. Chad is bringing teh awesome!!11!

    Please elucidate on how AGW is a prisoners' dilemma scenario.

    /me gets popcorn

  • Tony||

    He's saying he doesn't believe in it because it doesn't involve a solution his dogma can tolerate.

  • RichardNous||

    OR mankind will evolve and adapt as always.

    Kind of funny how the 'science' know it alls like Tony and Chad ignore evolution in their AGW hysteria.

  • cikoo||

    for you to make professional choices phone spare parts .good quality mobile phone accessories to bring good business opportunities
    I insist that you need to sell products, do the best service, price transparency. Opportunities on your mouse click on and you can know more about phone.

  • ||

    Goddamn it, Chony. "Externality" is not a magic word. Externality can define a number of things. Applying an objective cost to an externality (or anything) for that matter is impossible. The idea that government could or should be the externality police is illogical. We can argue that coal increases medical costs, but it is almost entirely impossible to directly attribute large numbers of cases of cancer, or example, to the production of coal. Sure, we can pull aggregate numbers out of the ether, but it is too indirect to apply an objective value to something. All values are subjective anyway, that is why externalities are supposed to be dealt with through the courts so that affected 3rd parties can apply their own subjective value to damages and an authority can mediate between the parties. Having a top down authority backed my military and police power wave a magic wand and call for punishment and damages is not rule of law, but rule of authority. Even if the authority supposedly bases the damages on the word of "experts."

    The fact of the matter is that people like Chony can't seem to convince their fellow man to see things their way, so they'd rather use force.

  • RichardNous||

    Nah, Chony has an acute case of Christ-complex. He rides a donkey to the promised land to save the world. Think about it.

  • Fire Chad||

    Let's reduce government spending by finding and eliminating Chad's grant money.

    We'll see what he does then!

  • ||

    This morning NPR was talking about the record high temperatures this last month in North Carolina, but they also pointed out that we had record low temperatures in February. You know they're losing momentum when they've had to switch their story from "global warming" to "climate change". They're now claiming that it's not necessarily getting hotter - just fluctuating to greater extremes.

  • ||

    "We need to fight climate change with higher taxes."

    Science cannot prove that.

    Just as science can prove that a diamond and platinum bridge with certain specs will be very strong...but it cannot prove where a bridge should be built and what materials and design to use...because science doesn't deal with issues like prices, scarcity, political risks, etc.

    Economics, public policy schools and the "social sciences" attempt to deal with some of these issues, but as we all know there is still a lot of disagreement on some basics there.

    The attempt to paint this debate as being "all about the science" is BS. Can you read and think at the same time CHONY?

  • Tony||

    When a majority of you guys actually believe in the science then we can start talking about policy.

  • Contrarian P||

    I believe in science while being very aware of its limitations and how much conclusions can be skewed by all sorts of factors. I do not believe that "climatology" is a hard science, because it does not dependably generate predictions that are verified by observation. We've repeatedly heard, for years and years, how if we don't (insert action here) by (next year), there will be cataclysmic (insert horrible catastrophe here) by (soon to arrive year). After a while as those predictions are repeatedly untrue, I tend to develop a healthy dose of skepticism when someone comes around with another one. They start sounding like those guys who have deciphered the bible code and want to tell me exactly when the rapture is coming.

  • ||

    "after a while as those predictions are repeatedly untrue, I tend to develop a healthy dose of skepticism when someone comes around with another one."

    Contrarian P, you are committing the crime of unthink...you are not permitted to make judgements about things which you have not been permitted to consider. We need to use the precaution principle here...if there is a possibility that you may be using logic incorrectly and it could possibly cause harm, then you must submit to the official dogma that has been officially licensed as correct.

  • ||

    no we are allowed to talk about policy at any time...you are just scared to because it makes your "science" argument irrelevant.

    Your only hopes for getting the precious CO2 tax passed is to just ram it through against the will of the people(like the bankster bailout was)....or continue try to get more control of the education system so you can dumb the public down more...you could also put dummy juice in the water supply. I think the concentration camps did some of that, perhaps you can learn from them about how best to gain complete control of those you declare to be inferior humans.

  • ||

    I bet the vast majority here agree that if the chemical composition of our atmosphere adjusts signficantly, that temperatures on this planet could be altered.

    That is all the science says.

    The degree, time lag and type of causality between CO2 and temperatures; debatable

    The magnitudes of differences that human CO2 production is causing now in the CO2 atmosphere compositions; debatable. (yes we now the ppm of CO is increasing...there is uncertainty around how much is due to humans and there is huge uncertainty around how much the various CO2 tax schemes would alter this...with many many people on all sides agreeing that ALL the major CO2 tax schemes that have made it to the House or Senate will have close to zero change on worldwide CO2 production...due to the economics of competing economies with different CO2 schemes and enforcements.

  • ||

    Thanks to all the rationalists who fought this battle of logic and science against the dogmatic mystics who tried to cripple modern industry with their apocalyptic howling.

    Keep your powder dry, however, the mystics are still scheming to pervert and corrupt science to nationalize all health care and food and drug industries using the same scare tactics.

    There is no rest for the men and women of reason.

  • ||

    I was a libertarian for 8 years, got my Bachelor's in Economics, spent too many years in Grad school. I lost my faith in libertarian ideology in Grad school... I learned a bit too much about Economics. I have dropped in every 5 years or so since then, to see how the libertarian movement is doing. Reading these comments, I have to say, really makes me sad. I understand that your ideology is what gives meaning to your lives, so you are reluctant to give it up even in the face of overwhelming evidence, but gee whiz, guys, there are other ideologies, worldviews, causes, life-goals you could adopt. I know losing your faith feels like losing a leg, but time and perspective heals. Seeking to make the world a better place works to give life meaning, even after you change your understanding of what "better" would consist of. I'm familiar with the beauty of laissez-faire economic theory, but it ain't real, never was and never will be. Learn about biology and ecology, and consider the challenge of making our civilization sustainable for the long term.

  • ||

    Does biology tell you that the government is good at using tax increases to control the climate?

    please share

  • Viper||

    Fuck Global Warming and all another religions

  • Jones||

    Slowly we are making progress. Recent court decisions have defeated the gun control movement. Now global warmism is in decline.

    Now if we could just convince a majority of Americans that starving the US Govt to death is a good idea...

    "Government IS the problem." -Ronald Reagan

  • Sam||

    Don't worry about the death of cap and trade. Obama and his appointed clowns in the EPA and other federal agencies will still find other ways to screw the American people. They will use the regulatory process to inflict as much or more damage to the US economy as Cap and Trade would have done and there is nothing Congress can do about it.

  • RIchardNous||

    Not true Sam, for example: congress can defund the EPA and unless the courts are ready to declare the Constitution unConstituional there is nothing the President can do about it.

  • William Tucker||

    Bid adios to the anti-global warming MOVEMENT, but say hello to Russia suffering the worst heatwave in history, another big chunk falling off the Greenland Ice Cap and other obvious evidence that something unusual is happening. If only we could make these things disappear through politics!

  • ||

    Respectfully, I do not agree with this article. This movement is not dead.

    They will regulate and subsidize through the EPA and the Green movement one way or the other, and they will use sustainability as the new religion.

    Big business will help them, led the way by the ever faithful GE. Now there's a company that knows how to get its bread buttered; tops the subsidy train every year. I wonder how their competitors deal with that.

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    THANK U

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement