Climate Change Myths

Just because humans sometimes damage the environment doesn't mean government is competent to fix the problem.

Global average temperature has been flat for a decade. But frightening myths about global warming continue.

We're told there are more hurricanes now. We're told that hurricanes are stronger. But the National Hurricane Center says it isn't so.

Meteorologist Maria Molina told me it's not surprising that climatologists assumed hurricanes would get worse. "Hurricanes need warm ocean waters," but it turns out that "hurricanes are a lot more complicated than just warm ocean waters."

Computer models have long predicted nasty effects from our production of greenhouse gasses. But the nasty effects have not appeared. As far as hurricanes, more hit the United States in the 1880s than recently.

Why do people believe that global warming has already created bigger storms? Because when "experts" repeatedly tell us that global warming will wreck the Earth, we start to fit each bad storm into the disaster narrative that's already in our heads.

Also, attention-seeking media wail about increased property damage from hurricanes. And it's true! Costs have grown! But that's because more people build on coastlines, not because storms are stronger or more frequent.

Also, thanks to modern media and camera phones, we hear more about storms, and see the damage. People think Hurricane Katrina, which killed 1,800 people, was the deadliest storm ever. But the 1900 Galveston hurricane killed 10,000 people. We just didn't have so much media then.

Climatologist Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, says humans don't have as much impact on global temperature as the doomsayers feared.

"Forecasts of global warming -- particularly in the last two years -- have begun to come down," he says. "We're seeing the so-called 'sensitivity' of temperature being reduced by 40 percent in the new climate models. It means we're going to live."

Michaels is tired of dire predictions. "I have lived through nine end-of-the-world environmental apocalypses, beginning with (the 1962 environmental book) 'Silent Spring,' and, you know, we're still here."

As a consumer reporter, I fell for dire predictions about cellphones, Y2K and pesticides.

Maybe the new scare will be killer bees, flesh-eating bacteria or bird flu. The media always hype something.

Since this is hurricane season, let's at least debunk one specific myth about preparing for hurricanes: the idea you should use masking tape to put X's on your windows. Government brochures did recommend that in the 1930s, but now the National Hurricane Center calls it a mistake.

It won't stop glass from shattering, says Molina, but "now you have larger pieces of glass -- potentially deadlier pieces of glass -- flying around. ... What you should be doing during a hurricane is be in a room with no windows and in a lower part of your home."

I'm a global warming skeptic not because I don't believe the world will get warmer. It may. Climate changes. It always has. Man's carbon output might make it worse.

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.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Is it killer bees or is the bee population dying off, triggering mass starvation and food riots. I have a hard time keeping these dire predictions straight.

  • anon||

    D: All of the above.

    Which is really just their way of saying "Guys, we don't know what the fuck is happening really, just believe us so we can get more money to "study" it."

  • Tony||

    Clearly we should only study things we already know everything about.

  • anon||

    Study whatever the fuck you want; just don't use my money to do it, shithead.

  • Tony||

    It's not your money, it's the US Treasury's, or more broadly, the people's.

  • anon||

    Yeah, and I happen to be one of those people, shithead.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, one, and not the dictator.

  • anon||

    That's just retarded, even for you, shithead.

  • Mizchief||

    Your best friend is a shithead and his sister is a slut.

  • Wags||

    It IS my money. The government belongs to the people, not the other way around, progtard.

  • Tony||

    You have an awfully high opinion of yourself.

    Then it's equally my money, and I want as much as feasible going to researching and implementing a solution to the biggest problem in the world right now. You're free to have another opinion.

    What you're not entitled to is believing in bullshit because idiots with FOX News shows feed it to you.

  • anon||

    Then it's equally my money, and I want as much as feasible going to researching and implementing a solution to the biggest problem in the world right now. You're free to have another opinion.

    That's right. Donate as much money as you want to whatever you want; I don't give a shit. Just don't donate my money for me, k thx bye.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Then it's equally my money"

    Nope.

    It's not "equally" your money.

    The only part that belongs to you is the total dollar amount that YOU specifically paid in.

    The same for everyone else.

    Which is why for every federal elecation, federal taxpayers should get one vote for each dollar of federal taxes they paid to the U.S. Treasury (just as shareholders of companies do with number of shares they buy when engaged in proxy votes).

    Non taxpayers would get no say at all.

    Just as it should be.

  • Sevo||

    "Non taxpayers would get no say at all.
    Just as it should be."

    No representation without taxation.
    Agreed.

  • timbo||

    Not bad except the unintended consequences.
    Cronyists would just pay more in taxes to have more control over the pols. Not unlike our current system of bought and sold politicians.
    Corporations have the profit motive advantage working for them so higher shareholders should have more say in how to achieve profits.
    The answer is actually privatizing everything. Then landowners could determine how much they wanted to police pollution. if their pollution tainted others' land, then contract law and property rights litigation would come into play. It's that simple. Then exile all politicians and enviro-freaks to Antarctica if they are so sure of impending warmth.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Actually, the "one-dollar-one-vote" proposal worries me far more than corporate spending in political campaigns. If people can be swayed, by a deep-pockets political campaign, to approve a bad measure or elect a nefarious candidate, that's a problem. But it's not always the case that the bigger spender wins (unless the election is "fixed," of course). If we had the "shareholder voting" rules, on the other hand, the bigger spender(s) would practically always win. I much prefer a situation where another dollar buys you another chance to persuade a voter, rather than buying another vote outright.

  • timbo||

    Tony is a man-bear-pig dumbass.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    You can say that again and again!

  • timbo||

    Tony is a man-bear-pig dumbass.

  • timbo||

    Tony is a man-bear-pig dumbass

  • timbo||

    It's the peoples'. Fall in line goose-stepper.
    What moron does not know what that phrase connotes?
    The peoples' money is yours and mine, not bureaucrats.

  • ||

    "It's not your money, it's the US Treasury's, or more broadly, the people's."

    There is the Tony we all know and love. Money is wealth, and it belongs to the government. You didnt build that.

    God, how despicable.

  • ||

    It's nice to see you finally openly admit that you believe everything belongs to the government and we just get to keep some of it at their leisure.

  • dbobway||

    Who owns the US treasury? Tony, I be thinkin' your smarter than your typin'. If you aren't you really are a shithead!

  • Tony||

    Not you.

  • Render Unto Caesar||

    You just don't care enough to keep it straight and want polar bears to die and such.

    /sarc

  • anon||

    I really like how they quit using polar bears when that study came out that showed an explosion in polar bear birth rates.

  • Render Unto Caesar||

    That's the first I've heard of facts hindering climate change scientists' claims.

  • anon||

    Meh, maybe I just think they quit using it because I haven't watched network television in a loong time, and haven't seen any commercials as a byproduct of that.

  • AlexInCT||

    You must not have been paying close attention then Render, because facts have been playing havoc with this cult's doomsday predictions and collectivist big government expansion political solution since the start. Not that they have been bothered about that. they just labeled anyone disgusted at the way they have debased science and the scientific process as deniers and shills for some money making entity, as if that entire cult wasn't the biggest money making and power grabbing scheme ever.

  • Tristan||

    The fate of the polar bear epitomises the dire consequences of global warming. But perhaps they can adapt to climate change more readily than we suppose

  • anon||

    Go figure: hungry bears find ways to eat.

  • The DerpRider||

    And rhythmic techno music.

  • Mike M.||

    So far this has to be the coolest August the northeast has had in a long time.

  • anon||

    Pretty sure it's a la nina weather cycle, we haven't had such a mild summer on the east coast in at least a decade... which usually coincides with some el nino bullshit.

  • Mike M.||

    Agreed. So far this summer there has only been one week of the typical brutally hot weather; the rest of it has ranged from tolerable to unseasonably cool.

  • Marshall Gill||

    We had the coolest day on record in July here in OK this year, thank fucking Science.

  • Brett L||

    Weather is not climate. Neither is average global temperature.

  • Mike M.||

    Yep. Of course there's no such thing as an "average global temperature". It's an unscientific term with no real meaning whatsoever.

  • The DerpRider||

    Look. When it's hot for a week it's greenhouse gasapalooza and we're wrecking gaia. When it snows in May it has nothing to do with climate.

    I'm in insurance and visit weather underground for Hurricane info, they actually have a climate change tab and are full hog on the earth is going to crack in half because of man bandwagon.

  • Finrod||

    Weather Underground got bought by The Weather Channel which was bought by NBC, so of course they're all on that bandwagon.

  • Gray Ghost||

    O.K., that explains it. I was wondering why Dr. Jeff Masters always had a gigantic bug up his ass about global warming. Too bad, as they're great otherwise for weather news and explanation.

  • Tony||

    It's cool where I live right now, therefore there's no such thing as global warming!

    Of course during a record-breaking heat wave you'll not say a peep.

    This is not exactly the stuff of intellectual rigor.

  • Wags||

    But it's not "global warming" anymore. It's "climate change", progtard.

    When wasn't the climate changing? Quick, get the UN to study that one!

  • Tony||

    You can call it whatever you want, the phenomenon is still real.

    The issue is that climate is changing more rapidly than ever before and it's because of human greenhouse gas emissions and this is not a fact that is dispute in the scientific community.

    You have to deal with that reality. This isn't special ed. Your being stupid doesn't give you a head start.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    "You can call it whatever you want, the phenomenon is still real."

    The issue is that climate is changing more rapidly than ever before and it's because of human greenhouse gas emissions and this is not a fact that is dispute in the scientific community."

    Wow, 4 lies in 2 sentences. Is that a record from this clown?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Hardly. Of course they aren't HIS lies. He isn't smart enough to lie about that; he genuinely believes it.

  • Wags||

    I wasn't aware that all climatologist are interpreting the data in exactly identical ways. That would be a first in science.

    That is the layer of bullshit reality that you want to believe with your own confirmation biases.

    The reality is that you nor anyone in the world (including this thread) has a grasp on what is really happening with the climate, and pretending to have that understanding is scientifically and intellectually dishonest, but I'm sure you already knew that.

    Oh, and fuck you.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Reality is real. Reality as interpreted by government agenda is just another biased interpretation intended to raise alarums and scarums to agitate the populace into thinking the government is and always will be useful.

  • Greg F||

    Tony displays his ignorance once again.

    The issue is that climate is changing more rapidly than ever before...

    Except it isn't.

    It is estimated that during this climate shift average, annual temperatures in Greenland warmed by about 15 degrees in less than a human lifetime, and ocean conditions such as sea ice extent and surface currents, changed even faster.

    There is nothing more pathetic than someone like Tony lecturing about something he clearly knows nothing about.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Oh, he knows LOTS about it, it's just that what he knows isn't true.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    As they say, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

  • Rhino||

    How can you argue that the climate is changing more rapidly than ever before when the 15 year trend has flattened? For the past decade or so, the global average temp has stopped rising.

  • Mike M.||

    There were never heat waves before the Industrial Revolution, just like trillions of dollars of debt is wonderful and there's no inflation even though gas, food, insurance, and practically everything else are through the roof. Derpity-derp-derp.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Have you ever seen the FDR-era propaganda film that tries to convince the people that inflation is their friend? What I find so remarkable about it is that all of the downsides of inflation that we learned to fear in later years, were honestly admitted by the FDR administration, but promoted as FEATURES, not bugs: Very entertaining and educational!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUvm9UgJBtg

  • ||

    Did you even read the article Tony? No? What a shock.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    BUT CONSENSUS!

  • tarran||

    The horrible outcome of the CAGW cult's hijacking of the Academe is that if an ecological catastrophe does pop up where the catastrophe lags the cause of the catastrophe significantly, there's a much increased danger that the scientists raising the alarm won't be believed.

  • anon||

    You could've just said "The little boy that cried wolf."

  • Bobarian||

    ^^This and also - there is nothing we can do to affect a real climate catastrophe, other than move to Gingrich Estates, The Moon.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    There you go again, anon, insisting that we speak Tamarian on an English website.

  • AlmightyJB||

    They don't care about climate change. They care about power and money. Climate change is just the latest chapter in the new new testament.

  • Finrod||

    Exactly.

  • Sevo||

    For a while we had someone posting here who was a (mild) catastrophist and was willing to engage real questions.
    At one point, while explaining why the temps had stabilized over the last (now?) 20 years, he said the presumption was the added energy was being held in the deep water portions of the oceans.
    I asked whether there was any proof of that, and he said not really, just some 'indications'. I now see that cited as 'proven', but certainly haven't read anything that suggests its move from hints to proven.
    Anyhow, I asked him if that stability and the presumption weren't grounds for a bit of humility regarding demands that the entire economy be wrenched out of place, and, to his credit, he did agree.

  • tarran||

    When a millennial cult prophet's prediction of doom fails to arrive on schedule, they usually redo their prophecy to explain the prophecy (eg "we miscounted the years of the existence of the old temple in Jerusalem"). The energy going into the deep oceans is one of the more pathetic examples of this.

    The buoy networks monitoring the deep oceans just started functioning over the last decade, they sample a tiny portion of the sea, and we don't have enough data to do a good baseline.

    According to them the heat somehow bypassed the shallow ocean before settling in the deeper ocean, never mind that hot water tends to well upward, and heating of the atmosphere should be translating into warmer shallow waters that are then transported down into the deep ocean by the various conveyor currents.

    They've bought themselves at most a decade of respite with the latest handwaving. And they are going to look even stupider after the ocean datasets falsify their silliness.

  • Libertarius||

    Not to mention the laws of thermodynamics. Heat energy is not going to somehow settle at the bottom of the ocean like particulate matter.

  • Sevo||

    "Not to mention the laws of thermodynamics. Heat energy is not going to somehow settle at the bottom of the ocean like particulate matter."

    Currents do stratify heat in the oceans. I'm not educated enough to know the dynamics.

  • ||

    Nevermind that there's a fuckton of fissures and volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean constantly releasing heat from earth's core into it.

  • Finrod||

    They'll just move on to the next bullshit explanation so as to keep the government money flowing in. It's What They Do.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Maybe this explains how Megalodon, which, from all available evidence, preferred shallower waters, was able to migrate to and survive in the great depths necessary to evade detection until the recent Discovery channel documentary.

  • db||

    To the point about the lag, it is possible that temperatures are stabilizing because of the enormous energy required to change the state of water from solid to liquid. Hence the real concern (which most people misunderstand) for the reduction of Arctic sea ice. If it were really happening on a grand scale, it would possibly be an indication of net thermal accumulation by the earth. It is also possible that this is a feature, not a bug, representing the earth's ability to return to stable equilibria on geologic time scales when disturbed on anthropic time scales.

  • Sevo||

    "It is also possible that this is a feature, not a bug, representing the earth's ability to return to stable equilibria on geologic time scales when disturbed on anthropic time scales."

    This is the part that the shithead zealots refuse to accept.
    The religion, like all of them, starts with the unexamined premise that there was a golden age when man lived in harmony with nature! Change from that is indication of man's wickedness!
    To anyone with intelligence, change is constant or nearly so; the challenge of mankind is to find ways to make use of those changes. We've done it very well in the past, and we're far better equipped to do it now.

  • Brett L||

    Similarly, hurricanes are an excellent heat engine for driving energy from the first couple hundred feet of ocean into the upper atmosphere. So you might expect increased activity when (a) surface heating is going on or (b) deep ocean currents change in such a way as to dump energy into the upper bathosphere. Thus increased cyclonic activity might actually be a heat dump from the deep ocean heat sinks.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You're correct that phase changes are very good at controlling local temps, but the Earth isn't homogenous so you would still expect to see warming in regions where there is no phase change occurring, i.e. the tropics. Add to that the fact that the Antarctic is running at record extent and global sea ice extent has been flat for the last few years.

    The real fact that the climastrologists don't want to admit is that their models upon which all of ours dooms are written have been falsified by good old fashioned empirical data. And that's even after the gatekeepers have had their hands at adjustments which almost always conveniently adjust recent temps up and historical temps down.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Extreme and unpredictable is the new normal.

    /ClimateChanger

  • The DerpRider||

    I present you with the new scare term "Weather Whiplash". Google it.

  • anon||

    I don't know why I bothered; it sounds retarded, therefore it must exist.

  • DontShootMe||

    The first link goes to MSNBC. That says a lot right there....

  • Tony||

    You are not allowed to just dismiss what the scientific literature says and be considered someone worth listening to on a scientific matter. When global human livelihood is at stake, peddling this lame bullshit amounts to something more than just an intellectual crime.

    Stossel, you're a global warming skeptic because you're an idiot and you don't read things that don't confirm your idiotic beliefs. There is no logical reason in the world to take your word over the scientific literature, and given the obvious, clearly exposed agenda of the denier movement, there's no logical reason to assume you're doing anything other than peddling their tired propaganda.

  • anon||

    When global human livelihood is at stake, peddling this lame bullshit amounts to something more than just an intellectual crime.

    Oh the irony.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 8.7.13 @ 12:22PM |#
    "You are not allowed to just dismiss what the scientific literature says and be considered someone worth listening to on a scientific matter."

    Shithead being the exact opposite of the guy I was posting about.
    Totally sold on his religion; accusing all who disagree of blasphemy. Typical religious zealot, IOWs.
    Go fuck your mud-momma, shithead.

  • Tony||

    Agreeing with scientific facts is the opposite of religion. Believing what's contrary to scientific facts just because it makes you feel good is much closer.

  • Tristan||

    post some facts shithead

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't understand. You see, everything that goes contrary to the consensus was funded by icky corporations that only care about icky profits obtained by icky voluntary transactions. The scientists who are part of the consensus were funded by warm and furry government dollars that were obtained by glorious coercion. The icky corporations care only about their icky profits, so they'll lie and fabricate evidence. The politicians who fund the consensus scientists have absolutely nothing to gain by controlling our access to energy so they would never pressure the consensus scientists into fudging things in order to justify their glorious coercive legislation and regulation. See? Corporations and voluntary transactions are icky. Government coercion is saintly.

  • anon||

    Sometimes you make me sick with how accurate your depictions of the liberal mind are.

  • Tony||

    There is almost nothing that goes contrary to the consensus on the basic facts (that you deny) that has any credibility.

    Your conspiracy theories are much more outlandish than any I might have. And all I have is the claim that for-profit interests with a stake in energy policy just might have funded efforts to sow skepticism that could stall any changes to the energy policy status quo that wouldn't benefit them. Huge leap I know, especially considering it's obviously true.

  • sarcasmic||

    And all I have is the claim that for-profit power interests with a stake in energy policy just might have funded efforts to sow demonize skepticism that could stall any changes to the energy policy status quo that wouldn't benefit them. Huge leap I know, especially considering it's obviously true.

    -ftfy

  • Tony||

    You are doing long-term damage to your political movement by engaging in this childish, boorish anti-intellectual bullshit.

    So by all means, carry on.

  • Wags||

    So basically, the people who don't agree with the bullshit consensus are just beholden to big oil interests? That about right?

  • Tony||

    As a good liberal I might say they are victims of it. It seems they're not just polluting the planet, but gullible people's minds.

    Science has says something to say on this matter, you're just refusing to listen. That's your problem and not science's.

  • Mizchief||

    This is my problem. I see so many talking about "the science" but never both to post one link to a specific definitive study.

    The loudest voices always seem to do this, they never actually look at the facts themselves, just repeat the words of whatever leader they attach themselves too.

  • PH2050||

    LOL I'm more worried about HAARP than "anthropogenic climate change".

  • mgd||

    There is almost nothing that goes contrary to the consensus on the basic facts

    Yes there is. It's called empirical evidence. The models (the "consensus") state that higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will create higher temperatures. Atmospheric CO2 has increased every year; temperatures have stagnated for nearly 15 years now.

    The empirical evidence is that CO2 does not drive climate, at least not in the way the models predict.

  • ||

    Tony could you provide me with a link to this consensus?

  • Tony||

    Facts.

    If you're not willing to read anything but bullshit denier propaganda when we live in the age of Google, then you don't deserve to ever be listened to about anything, and one should probably be skeptical of the level of your potty training.

  • anon||

    Yes, a bunch of "facts" propagated by an agency that has absolutely no interest in securing more funding for it's "Studies" at the expense of the taxpayer, even though EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTION IN HISTORY has been so wrong it's not even close to funny.

    You live in a world of make-believe, shithead.

  • Tony||

    I can post about 100 others. Where are your facts? Care to direct me to your oh-so-credible source? I'm truly eager to see how your version of the scientific literature differs from the real world's version.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 8.7.13 @ 12:46PM |#
    "I can post about 100 others."

    Yeah, shithead, and every one will be as worthless as that.
    No one here bleeves your religion, I don't care how many pieces of wood you find that you claim are from the true cross.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, for pete's sake!
    I encourage everyone to take a look at the zealot's cite. Truly amazing; it shows CO^2 concentrations and then makes unsupported claims.
    Nowhere does it address the failures of the predictions, nowhere does it discuss whether the results are shown to be harmful. What a misleading pile of crap (that'd be you, too, shithead)!
    Akin to 'people are dressing funny (see chart); this must be because they won't come to Jesus!

  • anon||

    Akin to 'people are dressing funny (see chart); this must be because they won't come to Jesus!

    Meh, I liken it more to the "Porn causes rape" argument. Patently false, dismiss all evidence to the contrary, and repeat the same bullshit ad nauseum.

  • Tony||

    So nothing then?

  • anon||

    Didn't realize I could only post two links, I had about 50 here. But just start with this and work your way around with some google, shithead.

    http://multi-science.metapress.....73346317x/

  • Tony||

    Can't read the paper, don't have a login. But I direct you to NASA, and you direct me to some obscure place I've never heard of and that publishes research on golfing, from what I gather? Singer I have heard of--notorious contrarian. Tends to reject peer-reviewed and well established findings on things he cares about politically--such as the dangers of second-hand smoke. Perhaps he is right and everyone else is wrong, but you know what they say about extraordinary claims.

    But the talking point about models misses the boat anyway. Models always have some degree of uncertainty, but climate models have been pretty consistently good in predicting climate behavior. Waiting for absolute certainty is an excuse to do nothing. Nothing in that talking point debunks the basic near-univerally accepted facts of climate change, and Singer certainly hasn't done that yet.

  • Ballz||

  • ||

    "...but climate models have been pretty consistently good in predicting climate behavior. "

    Wow.

    Oh, and I think Sevo addressed your NASA post adequately.

  • Ballz||

  • CampingInYourPark||

    IPCC endeavors to ensure, but cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy, accessibility, integrity and timeliness of the information available on its Website. IPCC may make changes to the content of this Website at any time without notice.

    Science!

  • ||

    Tony:
    If you're not willing to read anything but bullshit denier propaganda when we live in the age of Google, then you don't deserve to ever be listened to about anything,

    This is from a person who just two days ago read an unbelievable story about doubling McDonald's employees wages with a small increase in Big Mac price, and believed every word of it, because it fit his false preconception of reality: work by an undergraduate that didn't pass the slightest fact-checking rigor.

    It's called "projection."

  • Tony||

    Good on you. The difference is I now no longer believe it, and this place is still crawling with people who refuse to change their mind no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

  • #||

    Tony, I was looking for that nice chart that shows how basically every model the UN has used in it's report has over estimated actual observed warming over the past 20 years, but I can't find it yet.

    But you could start with these showing that at the very least the fear mongering is over stated:

    Hurricanes not becoming more powerful:

    http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tro.....ng_ace.jpg

    Neither are tornados:

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/.....F3-EF5.png

  • #||

    And see surface temperatures are leveling off:

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC SST GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    And there have not been increased droughts:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zNVM.....rought.jpg

  • #||

    These are all things that the "consensus" insisted 15 years ago we would be seeing changes in by now. Can't find the chart, but north american snow cover also isn't declining. Remember less than a decade ago being told that snow cover was going to be rare in the US very shortly?

  • #||

    Oh and this is another big one. Atmopsheric humidity levels. Because the etire theory of AGW is not that CO2 itself causes a lot. It's that it only triggers a larger positive feedback loup with water vapor. So if this mechanism is really chugging along, we should be seeing much higher levels of humidity. Acording to at least this measurment, we arent.

    http://tinyurl.com/n6fgyhq

  • ||

    Tony:
    The difference is I now no longer believe it

    Hey, that's progress! Of course, I doubt you mean it changed your false perception of reality. It just changed the evidence you base that false perception on. Because you engage in policy-based evidence gathering, not evidence-based policy advocacy. Ah, well.

    Anyway, maybe you could change people's minds about climate change. Then again, if there beliefs are somewhat grounded in science, as opposed to the ass-pullings of high school students and college sophomores, they may not come around as fast as you did.

    But, then, of course, there's this:

    Tony:
    then you don't deserve to ever be listened to about anything...

    Uh oh. If they listen to your advice, then they can't listen to you about anything. Too bad. The well is poisoned.

    I guess you'll have to move on.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 8.7.13 @ 12:29PM |#
    ..."Believing what's contrary to scientific facts just because it makes you feel good is much closer."

    Yes, shithead, we're all well familiar with why your an brain-dead religious zealot.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except, none of what you're offering amounts to scientific fact. Restating a claim over and over and over doesn't make it any more "science" or "fact". Science is the application of testable hypotheses to empirical data. When the empirical data contradict your hypothesis, you don't say the hypothesis remains true you just have to look harder. That's similar to the Young Earthers who claim that the world is only six thousand years old, but God just disguised it to make it look older. The fact is that the AGW climate models have been contradicted by empirical data. Many, many times.

  • Wags||

    Bill actually understands the scientific method. That's actually a rare trait, unfortunately.

  • Tony||

    No they haven't.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yes, they have. They really have.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    LOL

    You calling something a "scientific fact" doesn't make it become one.

  • Tony||

    True, but you are welcome to confirm my claim by going to Google and researching the matter. It might take you a good five minutes. Sorry if that's a burden.

  • ||

    And you're welcome to appeal to authority and dismiss any research that doesn't confirm your belief. Oh, look, you did. Good job. FORWARD!

  • T13||

    Zombie science doesn't count.

  • tarran||

    When global human livelihood is at stake, peddling this lame bullshit amounts to something more than just an intellectual crime.

    Exactly Tonykins!

    The models that predict doom have made predictions that are falsified. The feedbacks of increased water vapor and methane that were to drive dangerous warming are not occuring.

    The claim that humans must be causing warming because all other natural processes have been accounted for is unscientific bullshit out of the middle ages ("she must be a witch; all natural causes of drout have been accounted for, so she must have allied with Satan to send the rains away"). The IPCC admits of the 18 systems that drive climate (going off memory here, it might be 12), all but 4 are poorly understood.

    In the meantime, you guys have been killing people in England due to raising energy prices to the point where they couldn't afford to heat their homes and died from cold-related diseases or exposure; you've been decimating the Australian agricultural industry; you guys are causing starvation throughout the world by diverting agriculture into bio-fuel production.

    So go ahead and lecture us about guilt. Your cult has blood on its hands, we don't.

    And, last but not least your cult has zero idea how science actually works, regardless of how much of the scientific establishment you've managed to seize control of. Science is a process, not an organization.

  • Tony||

    The models that predict doom have made predictions that are falsified.

    You do know that I'm aware of the denier talking points du jour, and this bullshit doesn't fly with me, right?

    Science is a process, not an organization.

    Yes, and that process has delivered an overwhelming consensus based on the evidence that virtually no relevant expert denies. You're obfuscating the basic facts with bullshit talking points and appeals to ignorance.

    And I don't know what I did to the English people but I do not it's not environmentalists pushing biofuels but corporate interests.

  • anon||

    CONSENSUS!!!1 BUSHFAG!!!1111one

  • Sevo||

    'You do not know that I'm aware of the blasphemy?
    I will not stand for statements of disbelief!'

    Got it, shithead.

  • Jordan||

    You do know that I'm aware of the denier talking points du jour, and this bullshit doesn't fly with me, right?

    You do know that this doesn't qualify as a substantive response, don't you?

  • Tony||

    Yes. But there's all the substance you need literally one Google search away. That you refuse to proportion your beliefs to evidence makes you poor thinkers, and that's all there really is to say until you grow out of it.

  • ||

    Where are the fucking models that made accurate predictions?

    I won't hold my breath.

  • mgd||

    Shorter Tony: "I will not listen to facts that falsify my cherished beliefs".

  • Tony||

    Why on earth would I cherish a false belief in something so disastrous? I don't cherish the belief true or otherwise. I am extremely sorry I have to believe in these facts. Your inability to understand facts is simply pathetic, much less of a concern.

  • sarcasmic||

    Science is a process, not an organization.

    Nuh uh! These people are really really smart and they have a consensus! The scientific method is quaint and antiquated, like that silly Constitution of ours! I mean, the people who came up with the scientific method probably owned slaves! So it's obviously a bunch of crap! Consensus is where it's at! Besides, they're like really really smart and stuff!

  • tarran||

    Whenever people start screaming urgently that there is a scientific consensus on something, you know you are seeing an theory that's collapsing in the face of reality but provides a meal ticket/prestige to a significant number of academics who are desperately trying to use social pressure to vainly prevent the inevitable.

    Consensus matters for organizations. In science it's irrelevant. At one time, Einstein stood practically alone with his explanation of how gravity worked. General Relativity was even considered falsified by observations of Mercury by a significant portion of physicists. Nonetheless, Einstein had come up with a theory that gave the best (to date) predictions of Mercury's orbit.

    And... if you only polled physicists working in German universities in the 1930's you could get a 97% consensus that Einstein was full of shit.

  • ||

    You make good points, but you talk to the sockpuppet. It makes me doubt your sanity. Talking to the sockpuppet is like talking to the dummy you keep in the corner because it reminds you of your mom and how she used to molest you. Don't do it.

  • tarran||

    Tony provides me with a convenient excuse to say the things I want to say.

    I mean, I could rant about CAGW cultists on a thread about Snowden, but where would that get me? :)

  • ||

    It would get you the honor of ignoring the sockpuppet. You might want to consider that.

  • anon||

    I'm usually so good about ignoring shithead, too. I was weak. Forgive me.

  • ||

    NEVER!

  • sarcasmic||

    Consensus is a tool of politics, not science.

    Politics shuts down debate while science welcomes it.

    AGW is not science. It's politics.

  • Tony||

    But AGW denial is science?

    So where's the evidence? Why is no one directing me to a source that disproves the consensus? Is it because you're too embarrassed to admit that it's a lame, noncredible, obviously political source?

  • sarcasmic||

    You're switching the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on AGW people, not the skeptics. Consensus is not proof. If you get a bunch of scientists in a room and they vote that unicorns are real, does that make unicorns real? I don't think so.

  • Tristan||

    What a unicorn might look like.

  • ||

    Ahhhh...so we really can harness their farts!

  • Tony||

    The burden of proof is on AGW people, not the skeptics.

    Jesus Christ. Seriously, what level of education have you attained? I don't mean to be a prick but this is some seriously stupid sophomoric bullshit. Actually you have the much higher burden of proof because you are making a positive claim that what nearly all the peer-reviewed literature claims is false. There may have been a burden on climate change theorists 100 years ago, but it's settled fact now.

    You are seriously so dumb you think you can just go around tapping claims with a magic wand and declare them positive and negative depending on which is convenient for you.

  • ||

    There may have been a burden on climate change theorists 100 years ago, but it's settled fact now.

    Kinda funny considering that accurate global temperature data is less than 40 years old.

    But shit! It's settled fact! Tony says so! I guess we're cooked. You win this time, Tony...

    Don't you ever just want to stick a gun down your throat and blow your brain off its stem? Or are you honestly so stupid that you don't realize just how ridiculous you are?

  • Jordan||

    Well, there's the fact that every single model incorporated in the IPCC report massively overstated the predicted warming over the last decade.

    And then there's this:

    “The extended calculation using coupled runs confirms the earlier inference from the AMIP runs that underestimating the negative feedback from cloud albedo and overestimating the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical Pacific during ENSO is a prevalent problem of climate models.
  • Gilbert Martin||

    The burden of proof is always on those claiming the affirmative condition.

    No one is required to prove a negative.

    The negative prevails by default unless those claiming the affirmative conditon can prove it be so with unequivocal and absolute definitiveness.

    So get back to me when you can prove the AGW theory to be true with EXACTLY the same level of definitiveness that I can prove that my car has 4 wheels attached to it.

    Otherwise, you've proven absolutely nothing.

  • ||

    So where's the evidence? Why is no one directing me to a source that disproves the consensus? Is it because you're too embarrassed to admit that it's a lame, noncredible, obviously political source?

    (In advance, sorry Epi for engaging the sock puppet) You do realize that every source the many "deniers" here have submitted you cast aside as "talking points du jour" and a source "you've never heard of." You then speak of your sources as beyond approach.

    IPCC? NASA? These are government agencies that many feel have tainted motivations just the same as you feel Dr. Singer is an opportunistic shill.

    Going off the assumption that no one is right (big assumption, I know), our he said/she said back and forth here today of rebuking arguments and sources is much the same. The only difference is you have discarded the scientific process for a political one. Frankly, it's disgusting.

  • ||

    reprouch* not approach (EDIT BUTTON!!)

  • ||

    reproach

    Jesus H Christ, what is wrong with me today?

  • Tony||

    Frankly, you're not making any sense. I didn't ascribe motives to Singer, I just claim, truthfully, that he's a notorious outlier. The overwhelming bulk of the peer-reviewed evidence is on my side, and that's just how it is. That is something you have to deal with long before I have to deal with the likes of Singer.

    Frankly, it's like you stopped reading in middle school.

  • Ballz||

  • ||

  • ||

    Why is no one directing me to a source that disproves the consensus?

    You've been directed to source after source. Whenever you encounter something that doesn't comport with your ideology you perform the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALALALALALALA!!!!!" Your only 2 counters are appeal to authority and ad hominem. Both fallacies. When asked to provide the same level of evidence you demand from everyone else, you come up empty and point to a search engine. It's intolerable in your mind for anyone to seek a more complex understanding of an issue than Googling for blogs that circle jerk your preconceived conclusion. And then you smugly wallow in your ignorance, wearing it as a badge of honor. Typical.

  • Tony||

    I want a reputable peer-reviewed science journal. That's not stacking the deck, that's the level of evidence one requires to make such a claim. Now pony up or admit you're wrong like you a grown up.

  • Tony||

    So kindly direct me to the contrary evidence that disproves the current consensus.

    You don't get to just pretend that it exists because you don't like what the consensus says.

    And newsflash: nobody likes what the consensus says. Some of us are just grownups about it.

  • sarcasmic||

    A few generations ago there was a consensus among some really really smart people that homosexuality was a mental illness and that homosexuals should be imprisoned in mental institutions.

    But a consensus can never be wrong because it's a consensus. Right?

  • Ballz||

  • ||

    Shorter Tony: Find me somebody who agrees with me who disagrees with me? Oh, you can't? That's what I thought, bitch!

    Jesus Christ...

  • Stevecsd||

    How about this one:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja.....us-claims/

    Read the whole article, but this passage is very interesting.

    “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Anthropogenic global climate change turned me into a newt! (I got better...)

  • Anonymous Coward||

    When global human livelihood is at stake, peddling this lame bullshit amounts to something more than just an intellectual thoughtcrime.

    Tony, I can no longer parody your views. You truly are the king.

  • Tony||

    The only people putting freedom of speech in jeopardy are those who would use propaganda and ignorance as weapons.

  • anon||

    Thank you for finally admitting that progtards are the problem.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 8.7.13 @ 12:44PM |#
    "The only people putting freedom of speech in jeopardy are those who would use propaganda and ignorance as weapons."

    Pretty sure you spent many hours here opposing Cit-Un, am I correct?
    Well, you have my permission to pull that foot out of your mouth, hypocrite.

  • Libertarius||

    That's you and your amorphous leftoid collectivist ilk, fuckhead.

  • Tony||

    Nothing you believe is true.

    One day you'll figure this out. Or not, and you'll die stupid. I don't give a fuck.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The only people putting freedom of speech in jeopardy are those who would use propaganda and ignorance as weapons.

    When Cass Robert Sunstein wants to use propaganda an ignorance, he's using them as a motivational tool to "nudge" you towards utopia.

    Like I said, you are the king, Tony. All of the idiots in the progressive kingdom supplicate themselves before you.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    So Tony, do you support nuclear power as the only realistic large scale power source that doesn't emit CO2? Or do you also live in the fantasy that wind and solar will ever provide any meaningful amount of electricity to the grid?

  • Tony||

    You people are so fucking dumb it's painful.

    Yes I support nuclear as a much better alternative to oil and coal. As a libertarian, however, you have no business supporting nuclear, as it couldn't possibly exist without massive government subsidy.

    You're a fucking moron corporate whore and what's sad is you don't even know it. They don't even have to pay you. Jesus Christ this place is depressing.

  • anon||

    As a libertarian, however, you have no business supporting nuclear, as it couldn't possibly exist without massive government subsidy.

    Wrong.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    How could nuclear not exist without the government. Tell me please.

  • anon||

    Well, no NUKULAR TITTIES for one.

  • sarcasmic||

    The byproducts of nuclear power can be used to make nuclear weapons. Because government will not let anyone but themselves have access to bomb fuel, they must control all nuclear power. That's why no nuclear can exist without government.

  • Tony||

    Government invented it, and nobody would ever invest in building a plant without government guarantees of limited liability, because it would be practically uninsurable. This is known because the industry demanded such limited liability guarantees.

    But you're also wrong about it being the only viable alternative (direct evidence of your corporate whoring--outright lying, forget about your completely abandoning all your principles to shill for nuclear). A study has shown that if this indirect subsidy were instead spent on deploying solar power, it would result in actually more energy production by midcentury than if we stuck to nuclear.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Government invented it

    Government saw all that He had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Government invented fission? Or did scientists not working for mother government *discover* fission, which was quickly hijacked by the government?

    I look at the real world study of Germany. With the amount they are going to spend on wind and solar to replace part of their grid with it (some of the time, a lot of the time the output is zero from wind and solar) they could replace the entire electricity infrastructure with nuclear power with a lot of reserve capacity.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Continued:

    Using a far over-budget and behind schedule nuclear plant cost to be conservative:

    Given these parameters, let’s see what a nuclear Energiewende could accomplish by 2030, with a total budget of €367 billion (€20.4 a year for eighteen years). At €8.5 billion a pop, Germany could buy forty-three EPRs, each with a nameplate capacity of 1.65 GW. Add the 20.3 GW Germany had in 2010 and that’s 91 GW of low-carbon nuclear power. Let’s assume a nuclear capacity factor of 75 percent. (Why so low? Because they will “load-follow”—raise and lower their output to follow electricity demand—instead of running at maximum power 24/7 in “baseload” as they do now.) That’s an average capacity of 68 GW, exactly equal to Germany’s average power consumption in 2012 (based on total consumption of 594 TWh), and a peak capacity of 91 GW, a comfortable margin over the peak electricity demand of 82 GW...

    ... A nuclear build-out could completely decarbonize the German grid by 2030 at less than one-third the cost of a renewables Energiewende that would still produce massive greenhouse emissions.

    Link

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 8.7.13 @ 1:03PM |#
    "Government invented it,"

    Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard, among others, would call you a liar. I'd certainly agree.
    What the government did is make bombs with it and then forbid its use otherwise, shithead.

  • ||

    Tony seems to be unaware of how the solar power industry in Spain, heavily subsidized, is turning out.

    Fucking. Disaster.

    I know I know, we will get it right this time. We have the right Top. Men.

  • ||

    I have a question. If wicked oil corporations are greedily hoarding bazillions of dollars, and there is lots of profit to be made in solar energy, why would those companies forego an excellent investment opportunity and miss out on all that profit?

    They are energy companies, and their goal is to make money supplying energy. Ultimately they dont give a flying shit if it is from oil or solar panels.

    I am confused.

  • Tony||

    Because they can maintain monopolistic environment when it comes to a fuel you have to drill out of the earth. The sun's energy is free, and anyone can install solar panels on his roof.

  • ||

    But not anybody can make those panels you abject retard.

  • Tony||

    Many more can make them than can seriously compete in the oil market.

    Monopolies like to maintain themselves, and they have absolutely no incentive to care about the long-term well-being of human beings. At least they have never demonstrated such, and St. Ayn certainly never sanctioned it.

  • ||

    indirect subsidy

    If it's indirect, it isn't a subsidy. This is always a fun game to play with authoritarian retards, who ironically are the ones who actually support real subsidies - albeit only for the industries or individual companies they like. The prime example is the oft-cited "subsidy" for the oil companies that non-retards properly and accurately would call "accelerated depreciation". GAAP r teh subsideeez! HURRRR DURRRRRRRRRR

  • OneOut||

    "Government invented it,"

    Nuh uh. Manbearpig did it.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    You mean the same government that took the discovery of fission in 1939, made it top secret and illegal outside of the government, used that discovery to make a nuclear bomb and proceed to drop it on two cities? Than continued the nuclear industry in a shroud of secrecy coupled with the development of the most destructive and politically motivated regulatory body in the world (The Nuclear Regulatory Committee) which has made nuclear now so expensive and wrapped in red tape that a reactor costs an incredible amount to build, with no tangible benefits? The government that is strangling the nuclear industry here so as every other nuclear interested country is now making the United States the joke of the nuclear world?

    The nuclear industry could never survive without the government!!! Not this nuclear industry. We would have a far safer and economical nuclear industry if it wasn't for massive government meddling in the fission of metal.

  • John Galt||

    Tony, you're absolutely derpalicious!

    Herp-derpy!

  • Finrod||

    If he wasn't bound and determined to spread ignorance and stupidity, he'd be hilarious.

  • OneOut||

    "Jesus Christ this place is depressing."

    Then leave. problem solved.

    Do we have a consensus ?

  • Jimbo BTR||

    We have a consensus that Tony is a mendacious idiot so, it must be true!

  • ||

    It's true because of all the evidence that he has provided.

  • Overt||

    "When global human livelihood is at stake..."

    Oh no, you don't get to claim the moral superiority on this, Tony.

    Warmists like you are behind the creation of ethanol mandates, green energy subsidies and all sorts of economic disfunction. While wringing your hands about POSSIBLE impact in 50 years, you are causing REAL damage to the world today.

    YOU are responsible for food prices going through the roof in the developing world. That is starving people. People TODAY. Not fucking numbers in a bullshit computer model.

    YOU are responsible for Spain's energy economy becoming a sclerotic cluster fuck. You and your ilk advocated and placed incentive for an entire god damn country raising the price of its energy production such that they have the choice of eternal taxation or crashing their entire production infrastructure.

    YOU are responsible for every kleptocratic government that chooses to avoid improving its third world status by investing in industry and instead pocketing massive "Carbon Credit" handouts and leaving its people in squalor.

    You are right- "When global human livelihood" is at stake, you and your like have a lot to answer for.

  • Tony||

    No we're not. Capitalism is responsible for ethanol subsidies. I don't know if environmentalists were ever on board with that, and they certainly aren't now. Environmentalist tend to want to stop burning things to make power.

    The cost of energy is already very, very high everywhere on the planet. We're not just paying that cost yet, but we will, one way or the other.

  • ||

    Capitalism is responsible for ethanol subsidies.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

  • ||

    Bear in mind that Tony's conception of capitalism is Italian fascism. The modern American system is laissez faire anarcho-capitalism. Trotskyism is right wing state-capitalism. And pure philosophical Marxism is the perfect compromise.

  • PapayaSF||

    Ethanol subsidies began with a subsidy of 40 cents per gallon in the Energy Policy Act of 1978. So, Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress. Do you really think environmentalists opposed it?

  • Overt||

    "The cost of energy is already very, very high everywhere."

    YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE.

    Do you ever stop a minute to think about that? You are increasing the price of energy. Every push towards Solar/Wind/Unicorn Farts is a push towards a less efficient energy source that costs MORE to produce. Not more in "externalities" or in "warming induced coastal protection". A person must spend more money to use it.

    And every time you increase the cost of energy, you fuck with the people on this site, but most importantly, you kill people in the developing world. You kill them by making the basic shit they need to survive- food, healthcare, sanitation, refrigeration- more expensive.

    For a person in the 3rd world it is life or death. We might be "Investing in the future", but it is keeping food off their tables NOW.

    And you and your ilk made this even worse with your Kyoto-style carbon markets that encourage despots to AVOID investing in infrastructure, and instead take cash payments for their swiss bank accounts.

    So fuck off with your crocodile tears about those potential humans in your computer models. They have the moral weight of a NAND gate. Real people are dying right now because of policies YOU promote, but you will never pause a second to think about it and admit it, will you?

  • OneOut||

    The President in chief told the third worlders they couldn't have cars and air conditioning nor running water and those luxuries because we already have them and if they got them too that would be too much for gaia to handle.

    So Fuck You Third Worlders.

    Na Na Nu Na Na !

  • Tony||

    Conservative morons always say the sky is falling every time anyone proposes inching in the direction of progress.

    Now that the sky really is falling, you're so fucking stuck on fear and maintenance of the status quo that you misdirect your titty baby fear toward the political and economic change instead of the real fucking gigantic problem.

    In short, you're useless and should go away before you kill us all. Read a book. Find one that explains how it's laughably stupid to call people paying attention to reality alarmists while setting your hair on fire over any and all attempts to address that reality.

  • Rhino||

    Except that environmentalists were once for hydro fracking because they preferred the use of natural gas to coal or oil. Also, mixes of gasoline, to include amounts of ethanol, are mandated by governments. One of the reason gas is so expensive is that each state mandates gasoline compositions which artificially reduces supply. Other reasons energy prices are so high are oil speculation fueled by quantitative easing and increased demand from growing economies like China and India. The high prices aren't all govt's fault, but much of it is.

  • Greg F||

    You are not allowed to just dismiss what the scientific literature says and be considered someone worth listening to on a scientific matter.

    See my post at 8.7.13 @ 3:24PM. By your own words you are not worth listening to.

  • db||

    Tens and hundreds of millions of years ago, the biomass of the Earth was significantly greater than it is now. If you accept the prevailing theories on the origin of fossil fuels, that biomass was subsumed by the earth and chemically processed at great temperature and pressure into the coal, petroleum and natural gas we burn today, releasing it back into the biosphere. Every ounce of carbon that is contained in fossil fuels was once present in the biosphere. An important question is: Was it ever all there at the same time? Likely, given our present knowledge of the earth's history, the answer is yes. If so, then it may be likely that the earth has undergone several cycles of carbon release/geological recapture.

  • db||

    To imagine that humanity's contribution to this cycle is significant and unprecedented in effect is probably unrealistic.

  • Tristan||

    You need to put that in 140 characters or less for anyone to understand what you are saying!

  • Brett L||

    Stop othering them with all these chemistry facts!

  • sarcasmic||

    Is this starved polar bear which died as ‘skin and bones’ the 'categorical proof' that climate change is wiping out the species?

    Experts found the carcass of a polar bear in Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean
    Lack of sea ice and seals forced the bear to search further afield for food
    Scientists claim climate change has reduced sea ice to record lows and is to blame for the death of this animal
    But some experts add that commercial trade in Canada is also to blame for falling polar bear numbers


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci.....perts.html
    No polar bear ever starved to death ever in the entire world before humans started burning fossil fuels. Ever.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I am compelled AGAIN to state that Y2K was a legitimate concern that, if not aggressively tackled, would have resulted in a significant (read Large) disruption to banking, communications, and security. The decade of effort and focus from the private sector succeeded in mitigating almost all of the problem, HOWEVER on 1/1/2000 there WERE several small problems, which were of the type predicted, but since they were isolated (essentially oversights) they had little to no impact.

    FUCK I hate repeating that.

  • The DerpRider||

    I remember no planes crashing.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    ok...good, cause I don't either. Now that we are on the same page, what is your point?

  • The DerpRider||

    That they did a good job?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    While the banking and comm industries were truly in peril circa 1995, I never bought the Planes out of the Sky thing. Planes fly due to Bernoulli/angle of attack (now THERE is a great argument to have) and they come with humans who typically don't cease to function as a result of date changes.

  • anon||

    they come with humans who typically don't cease to function as a result of date changes.

    They don't come with politicians?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Not typically in the pilot's seat.

  • anon||

    I remember playing Counterstrike.

  • The DerpRider||

    I opened a can of beer just after midnight during the party and all who attended agree it was the most perfect sounding can pop in the history of man. I also recall Michigan beating Alabama at some point during a bowl game that night.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    now THAT is a tragedy.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I was at work, on the 56 Hour Response team. We had cots and buffet food. It sucked.

  • db||

    IOW, climate engineering could help.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Unlike CAGW, there was a large and unimpeachable data set indicating the potential of Y2k. Tests and experiments were run numerous times. Predictions of the results were validated. You know, real science. CAGW has a long way to go before it reaches the level of credibility that 1990 Y2K predictions did. Also, we had total control over the devices we created. Last I checked we have zero control over the climate.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    (DARPA, HAARP and Lizard people not withstanding)

  • triclops||

    So you are saying it was a localized concern, not worthy of the of the generalized panic. I don't think anyone here disagrees with you.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    It is the lumping in with other doomsday fantasies that gets my goat. Y2k had an actual potential for disaster on a near global scale. It was identified and mitigated by millions of hours of work by a lot of people. It should not be treated as a false prophecy because the efforts to stop it were successful. That is all I am saying. The damn history books will teach that Y2K as not real from the beginning and that isn't true in the slightest.

  • db||

    You're very right about this. I worked in a university IT department at the time--I was one of the grunts who inventoried all the software the department's members had on their computers, checked its Y2k suitability, and performed upgrades and removals. There were many thousands of manhours expended just in our little department making sure that no non-Y2k-compliant software was lurking. People who dismiss it as a joke are very wrong.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't remember much. I was drunk in Vegas on Fremont Street hoping the world would end. It didn't.

  • anon||

    Did you at least get a hooker when the world didn't end?

  • sarcasmic||

    Nope. I was staying with a friend's family, not in a hotel. So no hookers or strippers.

    =-(

  • db||

    You need to befriend more hookers and strippers.

  • ||

    Well said CB - I too get tired of repeating that. See this:
    http://fm2x.com/The_Century_Da.....roblem.pdf

  • Eric Bana||

    "If we let it do that, government will do to the economy what it did to Giggles."

    Very macabre, Stossel.

  • SugarFree||

    [checks thread, slowly backs out and closes tab]

  • ||

    You mean idiots engaging with a moronic, incredibly obvious sockpuppet isn't for you? When did you acquire taste?

  • tarran||

    He left; why are you arguing with him?

  • ||

    I'm arguing with him? News flash, tarran, NutraSweet is a real person. I can actually confirm this. So are you, and I can confirm that as well. So the two people I've responded to on this thread are real. The sockpuppet, though created by a real person, is not a real person, and you might want to consider that before responding to it.

  • Tristan||

    You confirm nothing.

  • tarran||

    But he left... If he's being honest, he will never see your missive.

    I'm starting to doubt *your* sanity Episiarch. ;)

  • anon||

    I DENY THE CONSENSUS THAT IT'S A SOCKPUPPET!

  • SugarFree||

    NutraSweet is a real person

    I feel less real all the time.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Stop reading Sartre and Decarte at the same time.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You are not allowed to just dismiss what the scientific literature says


    Wow. A "Scientific Literature" literalist. I was hoping to meet one, finally.

    When global human livelihood is at stake, peddling this lame bullshit amounts to something more than just an intellectual crime.


    The Volcano God is angry, you unbelieving fools! See the volcano? See it? It's angry!

    Stossel, you're a global warming skeptic because you're an idiot


    Gee, nice non sequitur there, Tony dear.

    There is no logical reason in the world to take your word over the scientific literature,


    He's not arguing for volcano gods, SOME in the scientific community (and most of the time, NOT them but hysterical milenarists in the mass media) are. He's not the one arguing milenarists disasters. There IS a logical reason to take the skeptical side, precisely because the dire scenarios have not come to pass, just like pyramid readings proved to be bullshit.

    and given the obvious, clearly exposed agenda of the denier movement,


    Question-begging alert! Question-begging alert!

    there's no logical reason to assume you're doing anything other than peddling their tired propaganda.


    Aww, how quaint. Attacking his motives instead of his arguments.

  • Tony||

    You are not taking the measured, logical position by being Pollyanish about the consequences. And you don't even accept the basic facts. You're not worth talking to. You should go back to chawing or whatever it is you do.

    The level of arrogance one must have to hold this position is mind-blowing.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    & the level of arrogance it takes to know what the entire world should and should not do?

  • Tony||

    I have never claimed that. Only that we should try to do something and we should probably listen to people who know what they're talking about in lieu of political ideologues who only care about smaller government and nothing else.

  • ||

    I have never claimed that.

    But we should still try to do something and force the whole world to go along.

  • Tony||

    Doing nothing is a choice. A very bad one. You don't get to exempt yourself from culpability because your choice is laziness and stupidity.

  • Logical 1||

    The govt already dabbles in climate control with cloud seeding. I shudder to think about the boneheads trying to control with weather.
    It's only a matter of time (or maybe it's already happening) before the govt starts using the HAARP machine to control weather.

    Poor Giggles :(
    Not to mention the 3,000+ barred owls the govt is going to kill to save the spotted owl in the pacific northwest. (google it, you'll see all the articles) Stop trying to control nature! Species have been evolving and going extinct for millennia. What makes the govt retards think they know better?

  • dorkbutt||

    The reason global warming increases hurricane damage is not due to the strength or number of the storms, it's mostly because storm surge levels will rise with the sea level as polar ice melts, allowing the storm surge to move further inland and encompass larger areas.

    The top 10 warmest global average yearly temperatures are all since 1998. The last time the global average yearly temperature was 'below average' was 1976. The last time we had a global average monthly temperature below average was June 1985. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13#gtemp

    Global warming is happening. The question is what to do about it. Rain patterns will shift and cause changes significant to agriculture and human settlements. Theses changes may contribute to social unrest in affected countries as their food supply or potable water supply changes.

  • Tristan||

    silence sockpuppet!

  • sarcasmic||

    Theses changes may contribute to social unrest in affected countries as their food supply or potable water supply changes.

    That's nothing that a little free trade can't fix.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: dorkbutt,

    The reason global warming increases hurricane damage is not due to the strength or number of the storms, it's mostly because storm surge levels will rise with the sea level as polar ice melts[...]


    Sure. All previous hurricanes were so mild that no treasure fleets were ever, EVER sunk.

    The reason why hurricanes are becoming more destructive is because we're placing more SHIT on the coast as people become more prosperous and numerous. There's nothing else particular about these hurricanes compared to all previous hurricanes.

  • Brandybuck||

    The question is NOT what to do about it, the question is what the actual effects will be. We won't know what to do until we know what will happen. Will the antarctic ice cap actually melt? There is no consensus on this. There is no consensus on ANY of the effects.

    The ONLY consensus we have is that the average global temperature is rising and that human beings are causing a significant portion of it.

  • Logical 1||

    "The top 10 warmest global average yearly temperatures are all since 1998. "
    This fact is not an indication of future trends, only a small snapshot of time. Records have been kept for only the last 133 years - a teeny, tiny fraction of time if you ascribe to the common belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Plus, how accurate are the past records considering the antiquated measuring devices used 100 years ago?

  • some guy||

    Plus, how accurate are the past records considering the antiquated measuring devices used 100 years ago?

    That goes for temperature measurements and hurricane counting. Before we started flying into every tropical depression every 6-12 hours there's no way we could tell whether some storms ever crossed the magical 39/74 mph marks.

  • Zeb||

    People will adapt to the changes, just like they always have. We are the species that, even though we evolved on the plains of Africa in a tropical or sub-tropical climate, have managed to live everywhere on the planet that it is even remotely possible to live. A slight sea level rise and a touch of bad weather is not going to bring an end to all of that.
    Any attempt to stop any actual climate change will be futile and do far more harm than good. Even if the US and Europe and some other rich places cut CO2 emissions to 0, the rest of the world is still going to use all of the fossil fuels they can get their hands on.
    If we are going to do anything to mitigate effects of changing climate, it will need to be in adapting to the change, not in stopping it.
    Even if I am generous and grant that the AGW alarmists are not cynically using it to expand control over people, they are still people who see controlling people as the solution to all problems. And that rarely, if ever, works out well.

  • Hyperion||

    I missed this thread, so just reviewed.

    Let me see if I got it right.

    Troll shows up and says that your money belongs to him as much as it does you because sitting in mommies basement all day and not contributing any money to the cache, somehow entitles troll to equal share.

    People engage troll with logic, troll cuts and runs, as usual.

    A bizarre conversation then follows about engaging missing troll.

    Did I miss anything?

  • Tristan||

    also everyone's a sockpuppet

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    And I'm a whore for the nuclear industry because, well just because.

  • some guy||

    Fission is in your name. You must be either a 1950's super hero or a nuclear industry whore.

  • ||

    You must be either a 1950's super hero or a nuclear industry whore.

    And just why can't I be both?

  • Brandybuck||

    The problem is the disconnect between the science and the science reporting. Yes there is a scientific consensus on climate change, which is why I tend to believe it. But there is NO consensus that the sea levels will rise eighteen feet, or that we're all going to live in a desert, or that it will lead to mass extinctions, or that it will result in a plague of hurricanes and tornadoes, or even that it will result in an economic catastrophe. All that stuff is from the reporting, not the science.

    Reporters are all trained to see the worst in every situation, because catastrophe sells newspapers. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means that the media is blowing it out of proportion.

  • sarcasmic||

    A century ago there was a scientific consensus that a person's intelligence and personality can be determined by measuring the size and shape of their skull.

    There was also a scientific consensus, and this one was quite popular, that certain undesirables should be removed from the gene pool. This particular consensus motivated some German dude, I forget his name, to do some terrible thing. I believe it started with the letter 'H' but again I'm not sure, but a lot of people deny that it ever happened.

    All "scientific consensus" means is that some really smart people in white coats share a hunch that they cannot prove. What is that worth in regards to actual science? Nada.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    All "scientific consensus" means is that some really smart people in white coats share a hunch that they cannot prove. What is that worth in regards to actual science? Nada.


    You heretic! You unbeliever! Haven't you read what Tony said? You are NOT ALLOWED to question a single word, period or comma of the "Scientific Literature"! The Word shall not be questioned! Ever!

  • Hyperion||

    It's infidels now. They had to up the rhetoric from deniers to keep the witch hunt going.

  • ||

    Isn't it ironic that they co-opted Holocaust denial when the political factions most supportive of AGW Malthusian crisis scenarios also warmly embrace the community, particularly the academics, who actually, you know, deny the Holocaust?

  • Brandybuck||

    A century ago there was a scientific consensus that a person's intelligence and personality can be determined by measuring the size and shape of their skull.


    Actually there wasn't consensus on that. There is a difference between the popularity of a belief and consensus on the belief.

    Consensus DOES matter. When over 95% of scientists agree on something, and I am not a scientist able to evaluate the raw data for myself, I have to tend to agree with the scientists. Not the reporters, mind you, and not with any silly political report signed by a few scientists, with the science itself.

    Question: Why do we libertarian as a group reject climate change, yet we don't reject evolution? We have no problem accepting the consensus on evolution. Why? The answer is simple, the politics. Accepting evolution doesn't mean you have to abandon any of your libertarian ideals. But according to the bullshit science reporting, climate change is happening because of capitalism, and so we reject the science.

  • sarcasmic||

    But according to the bullshit science reporting, climate change is happening because of capitalism, and so we reject the science.

    What science is there to reject? Computer models that fail? Predictions that fail? Data that's been admittedly cherry picked and fudged? Wild doomsday scenarios that play out like science fiction?

    Anyone with a functional bullshit detector can smell this one from a mile away. It just plain stinks.

  • Tony||

    What level of schooling have you attained?

  • ||

    Tony's Master's in Womyn's Studies better qualifies him to evaluate climate science than the typical middle school student, you understand.

  • Tony||

    Remembering my middle school days, I have no cause to berate sarcasmic if indeed that's the level of education he has attained.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Brandybuck,

    But according to the bullshit science reporting, climate change is happening because of capitalism, and so we reject the science.


    I don't reject the science for that reason, albeit I do reject the prevailing hypothesis precisely because it is derived from a complete misunderstanding of economics. I reject the science because it is based on a false premise: That the current Global Warming cannot be (read: CANNOT BE, we are assured) a natural phenomenon. When talking about a massive system with many different and equally massive influences (not least of all, the fucking SUN itself), that conclusion reeks of politics and not science. And precisely because of the very shoddy reporting done by the (supposedly) unbiased organizations like the IPCC and the clear way these tried to shoehorn effects that did not exist and "papers" that were not scientific at all, then one should not be blamed for concluding that the premise behind the science is NOT scientific at all.

  • sarcasmic||

    I reject the science because it is based on a false premise: That the current Global Warming cannot be (read: CANNOT BE, we are assured) a natural phenomenon.

    Yep. It's based upon circular logic, question begging, and switching the burden of proof.

    Human activity must be having an effect on the climate because it must. I mean, how could it not? We're pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere, and it must be changing things. How could it not? Therefore any changes in the climate must be caused by human activity. How could it not?

    Fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy.

  • Zeb||

    We're pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere, and it must be changing things.

    Well, that part is true, at least. If you do anything it changes things. The question is how much and in what ways.

  • sarcasmic||

    I find it difficult to believe that raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere from 0.00038% to 0.0004% is going to result in the end of the world, but that's just me.

  • Zeb||

    I also think that that is the answer to the relevant question.

    But what you or I find hard to believe is really not any more relevant to what the facts are than people who find it hard to believe that we are not headed for catastrophe.

  • Tony||

    They've ruled every other possible cause out. This is not complicated science, you're just either too dumb or too dogmatic to bother to read anything about it. That humans are the cause is settled science. That you aren't aware of that is nobody's fault but yours.

  • Zeb||

    This is incredibly fucking complicated science. It is a huge, chaotic dynamic system that we are just beginning to understand.

  • Tony||

    You're right about the overall picture, but not the stuff we figured out decades ago that are the things being disputed.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    lol @ they ruled out every other possible cause - that's incredibly funny

    & talk about arrogance. To even believe it would be possible to rule out every other possible cause, especially considering how little time we've been studying the climate is beyond arrogance - it's religious.

    Don't believe me - ask a fundamentalist - they'll tell you they've ruled out all other possibilities for why man is here.

    lol

  • Tony||

    Fine, humans are by far the most likely cause. Happy? That's what the current science says. Advocating doing nothing is certainly not a response to that level of certainty, and it's certainly not a response to even less certainty--knowing the culprit is only good for punishing the crime. The priority is fixing the problem.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, No, No. This is why we reject it. Consensus doesn't matter in the least. CAGW has made predictions. Sorta. That is good. That is part of the scientific method. Those predictions have failed, i.e. have been falsified. In a proper scientific frame that means that the hypothesis has been falsified and needs to be re-worked.

    Now that doesn't mean that all aspects of the hypothesis are wrong. It is true that CO2 will absorb and re-emit longwave radiation. You can measure and test this directly. But CAGW makes the oversimplification that CO2 is the driving factor in climate and presumes all sorts of positive feedbacks to get its warming. The facts that Tony is so willfully ignorant of are that CO2 alone can only give you a 1-2C temperature rise per DOUBLING of concentration. That would mean we would see a 1-2C rise in in the steady state at ~560ppm. But due to the silly amplification needed to make the models semi-properly hindcast global temps, the models need the sensitivity to be more like 4C/doubling which gives you all of the Mayan prophecies out there.

    So to sum up the models vs. observations:

    That's great in practice but it'll never work in theory!

  • Tony||

    Consensus does matter in an important way. It's a simple data point. The question is "How many experts agree about a claim?" The answer is "pretty much all of them."

    So what do you believe? The opposite of the claim? Why?

    Any rational person can assume you're on the Pollyanish, pro-oil side of any spectrum of opinion that exists on the consequences. Fine. Still, there's no rational case to be made that burning more oil is the preferred reaction. We all should be on board for trying our very hardest to make energy production clean and, at this point, doing what we can to clean up the mess we've already made. Any other opinion is simply poorly informed. The policy is easier than the science, actually.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    There's currently a scientific consensus that dietary fat in the form of saturated fat causes elevated levels of cholesterol which cause blocked arteries and heart failure. This consensus is wrong.

  • ||

    A century ago there was a scientific consensus that a person's intelligence and personality can be determined by measuring the size and shape of their skull.

    Yeah, but we're all like really smart now and NOTHING that today's scientists think will ever be reversed, appended, or disproved.

    - Derpy

    The hubris of the environmental progressive movement is truly stunning.

  • Tony||

    So reverse it and win a Nobel Prize. That scientists have been wrong in the past is not evidence that they're wrong on this specific issue now. It's not evidence of anything. You're being dumb.

  • ||

    Plant a fucking tree then Tony. You know, those green things that grow up and thrive off of CO2?

  • Tony||

    I weep for the tax money I've spent paying for your special education. CO2 = brawndo the thirst mutilator!

  • ||

    http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/47481.html

    Fuck you, you inbred piece of shit.

  • ||

    That scientists have been wrong in the past is not evidence that they're wrong on this specific issue now.

    Indeed it is no evidence of that; it only raises the probability. And high enough probability counsels prudence regarding acceptance of scientists' claims.

    It's not evidence of anything.

    Sure it is: evidence that scientists aren't infallible, even when they're "in consensus".

  • Tony||

    it only raises the probability.

    No it doesn't. It is utterly irrelevant.

    evidence that scientists aren't infallible

    That is an inherent assumption of science, not something it still needs to prove. This assumption is what makes science by definition the most rigorous method of acquiring facts. (That means you should trust it over rightwing blogs.)

  • ||

    That is an inherent assumption of science

    Puzzling then why the entirely of your argumentation in support of catastrophic AGW consist of an appeal to authority/consensus.

  • Tony||

    That's because none of you are smart enough to understand the research. Those of us who aren't experts about a subject tend to defer to those who are if we are interested in understanding it. You are not that smart, and you are not that special, and I dearly hope I didn't blow your little Randian ego there.

  • Zeb||

    There really wasn't all that much scientific consensus about phrenology. And what the policy should be about eugenics is not a scientific question at all (just like what the policy should be regarding global warming). I wish people were better at separating those questions. The science may well say that there is human caused climate change going on. I don't think that the case is as strong as many make it out to be, but it is certainly plausible and I don't know enough about the science behind it to really make a good judgement on the subject. But what if anything should be done about it is a completely different kind of question that has nothing to do with science. This whole debate would be a lot less stupid if we didn't have loads of people believing that the science tells us that we must build windmills and drive electric cars. Science describes the world, it doesn't tell us what to do about it.

  • Tony||

    Being willing to admit your ignorance is a huge leap from the usual attitude, which is that people simply ignore reality and believe what they want, even if it means positing an absurd global conspiracy.

    Yes we should be focusing on the policy response. That's all we should be talking about. Clearly any real policy response will be reducing the use of fossil fuel energy. If I can get a single libertarian to admit that that would be a good thing, I'd eat my shoe. But you're all toadies of the industry. All of you, whether you know it or not. Every single doubt, every single Intelligent Design-esque splinter of fake skepticism, every single talking point was bought and paid for by them, and this website, the organization that runs it, the entire libertarian pseudo-philosophy exists to further the interests of mostly oil companies.

    People should stop inventing conspiracies about professional scientists and start following the money that leads up to the bullshit beliefs they've so willingly swallowed.

    How people can believe in so much bullshit and get through the day is the curiosity that keeps bringing me back here.

  • Zeb||

    A conspiracy is not necessary here. Just confirmation bias and the politicization of science.

    Read my other long comment on this thread if you want to know what I think about climate related policy. Simply stated, I think that even if it were desirable to eliminate fossil fuel use, it's just not going to happen. India and China will happily buy up all of the oil that the US and Europe decide not to use.

  • Tony||

    Someone has to convincingly demonstrate that the science has been politicized in favor of alarmism. It's not an assumption you can make. The level of skepticism presented on this issue necessarily implicates every field of science, almost all of which you guys accept readily with the appropriate and rational level of skepticism. It's you who have politicized this science. It's the directly interested major global industries that have politicized it. There is not the appropriate level of public concern for this issue, and the results of that could and probably will be totally disastrous.

    India and China are a cynical excuse based on lies. China being a command economy is capable of being at least rational enough to start investing in clean energy much faster than we have. Nonetheless think about the argument yo're making:

    Industrialized countries are harming the environment. Because China and India are going to harm the environment even more than we already have, we should continue harming the environment.

    Buck up libertarian innovator extraordinaire. This is going to be the most difficult things human beings have ever accomplished. The pessimism doesn't help anything.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Yes we should be focusing on the policy response. That's all we should be talking about.

    Yep - just ignore the fact that this will harm countless millions, ignore the fact there isn't consensus on how bad the future problem may be, ignore the fact we have consensus that we do not know that any mitigation efforts on our part would be useful, just ignore, ignore, ignore.

    No reason to talk about why new laws are needed - we just need to talk about how the new laws should exist.

    Telling everyone else how to live thru force of government - how non-arrogant of you.

  • Tony||

    Those aren't facts. They are stupid hysterical lies. The biggest irony in this debate (a debate that does not exist in the scientific community) is that you guys are calling others "alarmist."

  • ||

    Every single doubt, every single Intelligent Design-esque splinter of fake skepticism, every single talking point was bought and paid for by them, and this website, the organization that runs it, the entire libertarian pseudo-philosophy exists to further the interests of mostly oil companies.

    ...

    People should stop inventing conspiracies

    Yeah, Tony. That would be crazy. Next thing you know these paranoid kooks will be ascribing anything that fails to comport with their ideology to a vast, shadowy conspiracy to plant false consciousness.

    Goddamn. You truly are beyond parody. Poe's law is like a "Speed Limit 55" sign that you passed on a Soyuz leaving the stratosphere.

  • Tony||

    Sometimes there really is a conspiracy, and it usually has a Koch implicated in it.

  • Hyperion||

    Oh noes, the climate is going to change and kill us all, unless we agree to give the government all of our earnings so that they can save us.

    The warming scam is over, cultists, get over it and find a new religion. You lost the debate.

  • Tristan||

    also don't forget to give up your car and take the bus. or better yet give up the bus and take a bike.

  • Tristan||

    also you have to not live in your mcmansion, but a room above your place of work and right next to your farmer's market.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Luddites won't be happy until everyone lives on communal farms. There's a term for that: poverty.

  • Hyperion||

    Also the proggie luddites plans can never work anyway. The bureaucrats that they worship will regulate their plans into oblivion.

    Hey, is that a garden you got yourself over there? Did you pay your annual $40,000 in licensing fees and are you compliant with the 2000 pages of regulations on urban gardening? That garden gate is not handicap accessible! Come with me citizen, we have a special new home for you where you won't be such a menace to society. All your vegetables is belong to us!

  • sarcasmic||

    Freedom means asking permission and taking orders.

  • Zeb||

    This is what happens when you imagine that everyone who disagrees with you on a particular issue is of one mind abut everything else as well.

  • ||

    When they tell you so, it's best to take them at their word.

  • Hyperion||

    I wouldn't mind riding a bike to work, at all, if it were possible. It's not. Some of us have to live in the real world and work for a living. Unlike Tony, who lives in his mommies basement. But in a gated community, he won't let us forget that.

  • Tristan||

    Then car share, citizen!

  • ||

    You don't have to even give it to them, seeing as how it all belongs to them anyways.

    Tony told me so.

  • John Galt||

    Local temperatures in parts of the northern USA have been far lower than usual. The freezes haven't ended until well into June and returned last year in the first week of September. This year, the last 3 days of July, and first 2 of August I even started mornings fires to take the chill off. It even dusted snow on the surrounding peaks during one of those nights.

    "Global average temperature has been flat for a decade."

    Perhaps, so. And perhaps parts of the world have been unusually cold, something that never makes the "news."

  • Hyperion||

    Spring was extra cool and late this year in Balmer. Also, it has been cooler than usual most of the summer. Partly due to the fact that it rains every day. I sense a cooling trend. I'll have to nudge this here data a little to hide the decline...

  • John Galt||

    Gee, you'd think it'd be nice and balmy in Balmer.

  • Hyperion||

    It used to be, before man made global cooling started up.

  • sarcasmic||

    And perhaps parts of the world have been unusually cold, something that never makes the "news."

    Well, duh. When it's warm or there's a storm, that's climate. When it's colder than average, that's just weather. See?

  • John Galt||

    It's unfortunate that much of what passes as science these days has so much in common with what passes as news.

    Seems both are more often than not used merely to manipulate the gullible masses to achieve unpopular political goals in somewhat democratic societies.

  • Hyperion||

    Try working in a research environment and become a fly on the wall. Listen very closely to what you hear. You will constantly hear phrases like 'Well, the results that [insert name of funding donor] wants to see, is...'

    To me, that's a little suspect, maybe I'm just paranoid.

  • John Galt||

    It's not paranoid to see the truth.

  • Tony||

    Nobody ever said climate change meant it would always be warmer than average everywhere.

    You people are stunningly ignorant on this issue, yet insist on vomiting opinions about it.

  • ||

    All bow to Tony and his superior intellect! Truly we are not worthy to be in his presence.

  • Tony||

    I know little more than you do about climate dynamics. That's why I defer to the experts who by definition are the ones who know best what they're talking about. Explain what your excuse is for ignoring them and preferring the prevailing opinion of only people on and who listen to talk radio.

  • Steve G||

    Just watched this, not the first time I'd seen something on the whole 'livestock as solution not the problem' fronts, but this is a very convincing case.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/allan.....hange.html

  • Hyperion||

    Hi, I was interested in knowing how this project is going and if this is supported by any government in the world

    If it's not supported by some government, then it's obviously bullshit. Probably driven by big oil and the Kochtopus. Only big government has real workable ideas and solutions. You didn't build that cow!

  • OldMexican||

    "Then it's equally my money" - Tony


    And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why progressives are so ready to subscribe to the so-called "Climate Change" B.S. - because they're envious mediocrities incapable of producing anything close to tradeable goods. Climate Change becomes just one more in a long list of justifications for plunder.

  • sarcasmic||

    Climate Change becomes just one more in a long list of justifications for plunder.

    Yup.

  • John Galt||

    And the hoax of AGW, become Climate Change, came dangerously close to becoming the by far greatest loot and plunder operation in the history of the world.

    It's not surprising twits like Tony who had so much, at least emotionally, invested into the scheme are in denial concerning it's failure.

  • Tony||

    We may be envious and we may be mediocre, but at least we believe in science. What does that make you except a creationist equivalent nonintellect?

  • DenverJay||

    Most of the arguments I see about global warming ignore a point that seems rather important to me: why is it bad? Because all the liberals live on the coasts? When sea levels raise, smart people tend to move. Smart, rich people who have built an expensive infrastructure on the coast build dykes.
    What about agriculture? Sure, parts of the world that are productive farm land now MAY become less productive in the future, but think about the huge increase of usable farm land if Siberia were a few degrees warmer. Not to mention that the theory claims the warming is caused by carbon dioxide, which is good for plants and increases crop yields.
    Seems to me that it is just the idea of change that scares some folks, the same people who insist on using the precautionary principle to keep scientific innovations from helping the mass of humankind. That, and as mentioned earlier, all the ocean front property that is owned by Socialists.

  • timbo||

    Well said.

  • John Galt||

    The world's been warmer and people, plants and animals thrived when it was.

    It stands to reason that wise societies would concentrate on prosperity so as to retain the ability to best cope with change. Change is the only constant.

  • Tony||

    And you are entitled to impose those changes on other people against their will without paying a dime? Fucking thieving mooch.

  • ||

    JG is talking about adapting and becoming more prosperous as a result, as we have historically always done.

    You're talking about stagnating the world economy just so you don't have to adapt to a change that may never happen.

  • Tony||

    Adapting? You are advocating stagnation! What the fuck are you talking about? Adapting means changing the way we produce energy. Right? Wouldn't that be like step number 1 in an adaptation plan?

    Everything you argue for is explicitly the maintenance of the status quo, and you talk about adaptation?

    Both claims here are false. Sitting around and waiting for nature to take its course (which is what you apparently mean by adaptation) is not historically a way humans have become more prosperous. Or any species. The adaptation you're referring to is the Darwinian sort--which is only adaptation over many generations at the cost of almost, but not quite, everyone. If we can't do better than that then we should never have left the trees.

    And what evidence is there that ending reliance on a limited resource that's destroying the environment and shifting the economy to a massive-scale effort with an extremely important purpose will stall the economy? Sounds like the best stimulus plan imaginable.

    These are lies and they are excuses.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    not wanting to force people to pay lots more for energy products != advocating for the status quo

    But you knew that, right?

    lol - you're on a roll

  • Tony||

    So you're a thieving moocher and proud of it? It would be nice if we could have cheap energy without destroying the environment. But that requires massive deployment of clean energy, not what we're doing now. You don't want to pay for the damage you're causing, every bit a subsidy by government, or what you're calling the vaunted status quo cheap energy. What happened to the nonagression principle? Are you so ridiculously simple-minded that you think this can only take the form of committing hand-to-hand combat? Why isn't polluting other people's environment force that you should have to account for?

  • ||

    Why isn't polluting other people's environment force that you should have to account for?

    Since you have incontrovertible proof that carbon dioxide materially harms other people, go to court and sue for it. As long as you can show specific damages you're golden. Shouldn't be a problem since the science is certain, settled, and has been for 100 years, right?

  • Tony||

    If the natural world were divided along the artificial lines of property we've drawn, that would be fantastic. But nobody has claims on a portion of the global climate. It's a social thing. There are social things. Sorry, but it's not like anyone's forcing you to be an idiot.

  • ||

    CO2 is pollution now? Holy Shit!

    Maybe you should do everyone a favor and stop breathing then.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No, you are the one advocating for stasis which is just another word for stagnation. What an absurdly delusional world view you have to assume that the Earth's climate of what, 1953?, is the perfect Earth for humans. You want evidence that your "clean" or even better "renewable" energy (to anyone who understands entropy that latter adjective is just ludicrous) damages economies?

    OK, here and here.

    Not to mention the benefits of increased CO2 fertilization on plant biomass which has already been documented

    Now go hug your Krugman plushie and genuflect in front of St. Hansen and Bishop Mann as you deny real facts. Again.

  • ||

    Wouldn't that be like step number 1 in an adaptation plan?

    Step 1 would be to stop thinking in terms of a collective "adaptation plan", you mindless, authority worshiping statist cuntsack.

    When current energy sources start to get more scarce they will start to get more expensive, and capital will shift to alternatives that are cost competitive. With no guns pointed at people's heads necessary. Take your 5 Year Climate Plans and shove them firmly and rigorously up your ass, followed promptly with as much broken glass as is readily available.

  • Tony||

    Wait wait wait. Let's pretend that there is enough oil and coal to last 1,000 years maintaining and improving standards of living. But science says continuing to burn oil and coal unchecked will make the planet uninhabitable by human beings, among others, in a matter of decades. What the flying fuck good are market incentives in that scenario? The occurrence of peak oil has absolutely no causal relationship with the occurrence of catastrophic environmental harm emissions are causing. The world would have been better off if peak oil were 40 years ago, perhaps. The market is not a fucking god you silly strange little person.

  • ZR||

    In a matter of decades the earth is going to be unihabiatable? I was checking your NASA source for that and was unable to find any conclusive evidence for that whoppper.

  • timbo||

    MAN-BEAR-PIG!!!

    The answer is actually privatizing everything. Then landowners could determine how much they wanted to police pollution. if their pollution tainted others' land, then contract law and property rights litigation would come into play. It's that simple. Then exile all politicians and enviro-freaks to Antarctica if they are so sure of impending warmth.

  • timbo||

    MAN-BEAR-PIG!!!

    The answer is actually privatizing everything. Then landowners could determine how much they wanted to police pollution. if their pollution tainted others' land, then contract law and property rights litigation would come into play. It's that simple. Then exile all politicians and enviro-freaks to Antarctica if they are so sure of impending warmth.

  • Tony||

    The answer is actually privatizing everything.

    You don't say!

  • timbo||

    Tony and Palin's Butt-Plug sit around their apartment in sweatpants eating large bowls of fruit loops complaining about their mediocrity.
    True sheep.

  • Steve G||

    No mention of the acidification of the oceans? Strange to me that the only real threat of rising CO2 is always overshadowed by the temperature debate. Seems to me--from my layman viewpoint--the only real unsustainable trend is the ph of the oceans and it's impact on plankton, reefs, bottom of the food chain, etc.

  • timbo||

    Water shortages are probably a larger problem. Innovation can fix that through desalinization technology though.
    There again, if water authorities were not government operated, then perhaps the costs per unit of water would be where they need to be since municipalities offer water at very cheap prices as a service and are allowed to access that water with less restrictions than privatized water companies. If this were the case, then scarcity would paly into the mix and consumers would feel the pinch a little more and thus conserve better. Here again, if water services were operated by private companies, then competition and the profit motive would bring the best product at the proper price that the price signals of the market would indicate. Yet another example of how privatization of everything would be better for the enviro-freaks.

  • timbo||

    Water shortages are probably a larger problem. Innovation can fix that through desalinization technology though.
    There again, if water authorities were not government operated, then perhaps the costs per unit of water would be where they need to be since municipalities offer water at very cheap prices as a service and are allowed to access that water with less restrictions than privatized water companies. If this were the case, then scarcity would paly into the mix and consumers would feel the pinch a little more and thus conserve better. Here again, if water services were operated by private companies, then competition and the profit motive would bring the best product at the proper price that the price signals of the market would indicate. Yet another example of how privatization of everything would be better for the enviro-freaks.

  • timbo||

    Water shortages are probably a larger problem. Innovation can fix that through desalinization technology though.
    There again, if water authorities were not government operated, then perhaps the costs per unit of water would be where they need to be since municipalities offer water at very cheap prices as a service and are allowed to access that water with less restrictions than privatized water companies. If this were the case, then scarcity would paly into the mix and consumers would feel the pinch a little more and thus conserve better. Here again, if water services were operated by private companies, then competition and the profit motive would bring the best product at the proper price that the price signals of the market would indicate. Yet another example of how privatization of everything would be better for the enviro-freaks.

  • PapayaSF||

    My take: Human activity is probably warming the Earth a bit. However, all the doomsday predictions are based on questionable models with scores or hundreds of variables, and a slight change in one variable can totally change the results. AFAIK, not one of those models can take (say) 1900-1950 temperatures and predict 1950-2000 temperatures, or 1950-2000 temperatures and predict 2000-2012 temperatures, or anything like that. Until the models work on the past, it's silly to take them as gospel about the future.

    The other problem is the cost of any "fix." Even if the US stopped emitting all CO2 tomorrow and for the rest of the century, how much lower would the "average global temperature be in 2100? Some fraction of a degree, a rounding error. So the leap from "we are warming the Earth" to "we must ride bicycles and ban paper bags" is basically irrational.

  • Tony||

    But here's what you're claiming: the pessimistic predictions of climate science are probably best ignored, because you say so. On the other hand, the pessimistic predictions about the effects of a policy response are likely to come about. Again, because you say so. But any rational comparison of the risks absolutely not suggest proportioning the priorities that way. The negative outcomes of climate change are very much worse than any economic result of imprudently messing around in the market. The latter can be fixed by more policy in a short time; the former is with us for centuries. Even if there weren't easily understandable appropriate policy responses (reduce emissions), the problem is so big that we have to try.

    So the leap from "we are warming the Earth" to "we must ride bicycles and ban paper bags" is basically irrational.

    Which is a ludicrous straw man. The whole point of paying attention to radical climate change is to retain what we can of a modern standard of living. That you don't want to make a single solitary sacrifice--not a cent in gas prices let alone riding a bike--to help solve a problem you contribute to, doesn't speak well for your respect for fair play in the marketplace.

  • PapayaSF||

    You are missing the point. Even if we take the models of the alarmists for granted, assume various courses of action recommended by the alarmists (e.g. the Kyoto Accords), and plug the numbers into their own models, the results don't work. Either we spend billions and trillions to lower future temperatures by fractions of a degree, or we spend umpteen trillions and lower future temperatures by a bit more, supposedly avoiding catastrophic climate outcomes, but at an immense cost. Given present technology, neither course makes much sense. It would make more sense to focus on the large-payoff changes (e.g. switching from coal to fracked gas, reducing methane emissions) and have a healthy economy that can research new technologies for mitigating future climate problems, instead of impoverishing ourselves now for little payoff.

  • Tony||

    impoverishing ourselves now

    A stupid hyperbole with no support in any analysis. This is a politically motivated assumption with exactly zero evidence in its favor. Unlike the vast data you think you are entitled to reject, because, uh, who can say? You have absolutely no cause to call anyone else an alarmist.

    Mitigation has to start at some point. The private-sector energy production status quo, if it had an incentive to engage in mitigation, would have done so by now at a much larger scale. But markets can be irrational. Get it through your thick skull. Profit motive is not the only possible or best motivator of important progress. It can even be regressive and destructive. You believe in the tooth fairy.

  • ||

    The latter can be fixed by more policy in a short time

    Amazing. Is there nothing a bit more policy can't fix?

    ...because you say so.

    Again, because you say so

    But any rational comparison of the risks absolutely not suggest proportioning the priorities that way.

    Because you say so?

  • Tony||

    Not because I say so but because the body of evidence suggests it.

  • ZR||

    A distorted market, especially an energy market could cause ripple effects throughout an economy and there is no body of evidence that a government would admit fault and change its course. Also the body of evidence is for the cause and effect of AGW not how policy would be implemented, whether or not it would even be effective.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    The negative outcomes of climate change are very much worse than any economic result of imprudently messing around in the market.

    citation needed

    The latter can be fixed by more policy in a short time; the former is with us for centuries.

    You might want to ask Obama and his supporters about that - they've passed all sorts of policies to fix all sorts of things - yet staggeringly it's still all Booooooosh's fault.

  • Tony||

    I'll cite something when you make a point.

  • ||

    I'm sure he's already heard of the rigorous scientific bedrock that supports all of your conclusions. Google.com is a pretty popular website.

  • Tejicano||

    As long as the Climate Change freaks continue to spout the BS about sea levels rising I know they are pushing a religion, not science.

    The data they have been publishing shows some change in tempuratures in the northern hemisphere but no change in tempuratures in antarctica. If fact, the average tempurature in antarctica is so faw below freezing that there is no way to expect it will melt due to Climate Change.

    Sooo... the arctic is a large mass of ice entirely floating on the arctic ocean. Did anybody do that 5th grade science experiment where you float a big chunk of ice in a tub of water to see how the water level changes when the ice melts? No change. Floating ice displaces exactly the same volume of water that it becomes when it melts. That is simple, basic science.

    Greenland and Iceland are not big enough to support glaciers big enough to significantly change the level of the entire world's oceans. That is also very basic science.

    So when I hear the Cimate Change freaks still pushing this "sea levels rising" line I know they are either not scientists or not serious about their science.

    When I am faced with some shipdit spouting this "concern for the polar bear" story I like to go along with it and then ask them if they have heard how the movement of polar bears has impacted penguin populations. Funny to see how few don't even know that polar bears and penguins live at opposite ends of the freaking planet.

  • PapayaSF||

    To be fair, sea levels can and do rise with increased temperature, due to melting of glaciers, thermal expansion, and other factors. However, like many if not most things that alarmists are alarmed about, there is plenty of exaggeration and misinformation.

  • Tyler Durden||

    Actually John, having lived in a Cyclone zone, the best advice is to open your windows. Most glass breakage is caused by the pressure differential between a sealed-up house and the outside, and the windows blow out, not in. Louvered windows are the ideal in this situation.

  • ThisAintHell||

    It's sharks with fricken "lasers" attached to their heads..

  • Bush League||

    This is the one topic in which I really disagree with libertarians. I think outright denial of AGW is irresponsible and will have negative consequences down the road. With younger generations tending toward socially liberal policies, the libertarian party may eventually replace the republican party, with major debates being over economic issues. Being labeled as "anti-science" isn't exactly something any libertarian should want, especially when it is such a fringe party already.

    The libertarian stance on this issue shouldn't be skepticism of science, it should be skepticism of central planning. We should move towards renewable energy in our personal lives and encourage those around us to do the same, which is perfectly in line with the NAP. Denial is not the route to go.

  • PapayaSF||

    Skepticism of central planning and cost-benefit analysis. Too many of the alarmist solutions are of the "We must do something, ANYTHING!" variety.

  • ||

    Except most people don't deny that the earth is warming, just that man is having a measurable effect on that. And there is fuckall science to prove that we are.

  • Russell||

    I was wrong to ignore John Stossel as a semi -skilled propagandist prone to getting his science wrong.

    He has grown into a more accomplished practitioner of deception than the accomplices he quotes.

  • ||

    Dude probably doesn't even publish in those prestigious blogspot journals...

  • Russell||

    The point is that unlike some authors of prestigeous blogspot journals Stossell doesn't publish in Nature, Eos, of Climatic Change either.

    Do you, dude?

  • XM||

    Which is why Stossel quoted climate scientists and experts.

    What, you can't report on healthcare if you were never published in JAMA?

  • OneOut||

    Hey Tony. Did you know ?

    The Ross Ice Shelf was discovered in a sailboat with zero carbon emissions (except for a cooking fire) in 1850 and a marine survey was preformed at that time. A second marine survey was done in 1912 by another guy in a sailboat (with a small steam engine for maneuverability in the ice)and it was noticed that the ice shelf had shrunk by 50 miles in those 62 years.

    ergo: sailboats cause global warming

    Note: This historical event took place long after the consensus among
    scientists that the earth was flat was proven wrong

  • Jimbo BTR||

    Wow. Tony the shithead has outdone himself today. He has proven that he is a lying, hypocritical sack of shit beyond a doubt. Three things he'll need to absorb if he ever has any hope of changing are:

    Correlation is NOT causation.

    Consensus is NOT the same as scientifically proven fact.

    and,

    You can't change the world, you can only change your own behaviour.

    AGW is a religion specifically because it denies these three things.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Damn, those fucking wind-farms are the ugliest, over-priced, under-producing, wild-life killing, property-value destroying, unsightly nuisances I've ever seen.

    NIMBY. Put it where the undesirables live. Fuck up their lives. How about a big farm in the middle of San Francisco Bay or Martha's Vineyard (yeah, I know....). That's the ticket!

  • dbobway||

    Global warming is Bullshit!

    Weather however, is somewhat predictable. I have lived on the Carolina coastline for 20 years. We've had 12 hurricanes in that time. Hurricane Floyd ,which by the way flooded a much larger area than New Orleans did for Katrina( We have no Super Dome). That year was cool with record rain. Low pressure hoovered around the coast all summer. This year is much the same. If North Africa fires up in September, Watch Out!

    But it's North Carolina. Oh Yea, we have a republican govt' here now. It will be their fault. Outside of that the media won't give a shit.

  • ZR||

    This, please this. I don't want to be around when/if disaster does begin to occur and the massive power that will then be granted to the government in response to a scared public. APS has a program to buy power from Solar dirrectly without installing solar panels, letting the more well off contribute without hurting the poor in the process which is what would happen in a forced green federal policy. This is by far not a complete solution but if the market for products like this becomes great enough real solutions will prop up without massive 'your money is our money' investments.

  • ZR||

    Well this was suppose to be a response to Bush League.

  • mtrueman||

    If government is not the institution that will address these issues, then what is? There's no answer I see. Usually libertarians are eager to celebrate human ingenuity in solving the problems we face. Has this issue so stymied libertarians that the only position they can take is to deny the problem?

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Solving problems through human ingenuity requires first, recognizing the problem; second, discovering and testing the parameters of the problem; third, accurately modeling and understanding the problem; fourth, formulating and testing effective approaches to the problem; and fifth, reducing costs and increasing the availability of solution options based on the previous steps. As I see it, we are currently in the early stages of steps 2 and 3. We are still discovering parameters that we didn't know existed before, much less how to assess their contribution to the overall climate situation. Our models so far, which have not accounted for some of the more recently discovered parameters, and have often been founded upon insufficient or wrong assumptions, are not proving to be very accurate. In other words, the jury is still out about the nature of the phenomenon and the human contribution to it. Even if we had settled science for all of that, we may not be able to succeed in Step 4.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    (continuing)

    But just because human ingenuity may be taking its due time to address the issue effectively, doesn't mean we should twist people's arms to participate in approaches that owe more to politics or fad and fashion, than to responsible science. What appears from the outside as "not doing anything" may, indeed, be a far more responsible approach than proceeding on the basis of incomplete or quack science. While we wait for the process of ingenuity to do its work, I would leave it to each individual to become informed on the issue and act as he or she individually thinks best. Some people will make no changes in their lives. Others will change in accordance with faulty reasoning, superstition, or ignorance. Others will change on the basis of sound reasoning and the best facts at hand -- and still be wrong. Still others may fill in the gaps shrewdly, or guess correctly, and end up doing whatever posterity will decide "the right thing" needed to be. I'm OK with that. For my part, I am recycling and conserving energy as much as I can in all my electronics, heating, and lighting. But I don't think our level of knowledge warrants an extraordinary sacrifice yet, much less government control of energy or carbon emissions.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Go ahead and play the Bambi card, Stossel. We all know the government deserves that and much worse for all the transgressions we know about, not to mention many more they are keeping secret (until the next Daniel Ellsberg, Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden comes along).

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