Al Gore: Carbon Rationing Defeated—For Now

|

I've always wanted an occasion to post this image

Global warming realist (denier?) Steve Milloy apparently got to listen in (or got notes from someone who did) to a dejected conference call that climate change realist (alarmist?) Al Gore had with some of his supporters (acolytes?). Milloy reports at his Green Hell blog:

Speaking about the likelihood of climate bill being passed by Congress in 2010, Al Gore told a conference call of supporters tonight that, "this battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year." Gore bitterly denounced the Senate and federal government stating several times, "The U.S. Senate has failed us" and "The federal government has failed us." Gore even seemed to blame President Obama by emphasizing that "the government as a whole has failed us… although the House did its job. [emphasis added]"

Gored urged his listeners to take the "realistic view that they had failed badly." Gore said that "Comprehensive legislation is not likely to be debated" and that a "lame duck debate" is a "very slim possibility indeed."

As disheartened as the former vice president is, Obama White House insider Carol Browner did say earlier this week that lame duck carbon rationing could "potentially" pass.

So why the failure to mandate carbon rationing this year? The "right wing media," of course!

Go here for whole Green Hell blogpost.

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Katherine Mangu-Ward on Bloggingheads Talking About Aqua Buddha and Fat Girls

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.

  1. Once again, Al Gore is refused a happy ending.

  2. Ron, “Al Gore, minus CO2 scrubber” would have been better alt-text.

    Still, glad you’ve started.

  3. A price or cap on carbon is inevitable. You morons are on the wrong side of history and will not be remembered kindly.

    1. Chad,

      A price or cap on carbon is inevitable. You morons are on the wrong side of history and will not be remembered kindly.

      That’s what Charles Taze Russell also said . . .

      But history will absolve us, Chad – on that very one, I agree with Castro.

      1. Charles Taze Russell:

        “Climate change. In writings as early as 1883 (and through to the end of his life) Russell repeatedly expressed the view that the world’s climate would gradually but significantly change as a prelude to the re-establishment of Eden-like conditions. These changes, he said, would include the gradual melting of the Greenland ice sheet, the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice caps, and the general warming of the earth.”

        Was he one prophetic fellow – just like you, Chad. Maybe you should publish your own pamphlet to be peddled door to door by your followers . . .

    2. don’t worry. You wont be remembered kindly either when we are in a greek style debt crisis 10 years from now.

      1. If I were in charge, we would have a giant budget surplus that we would only barely be dipping in to during this recession.

        You know, the one that we saved up during the booms of the late 80s and 90s, and mid-aughts.

    3. History doesn’t exist as an entity, and it doesn’t have a will. Morons tend to forget that.

    4. Fascists don’t remember anyone kindly.

    5. And it will be too little, too late, and huge numbers will still have to emigrate to space.

      So, to what end all this hand-wringing? The horse has already left the barn.

      (Fun fact: Spoonman is a PhD student in Earth Science.)

      1. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

      2. In several billion years, the sun will expand and its outer layers will engulfe all of the inner planets, including Earth.

        Then what will we do?

        1. We’ll have already expanded far beyond the solar system, thanks to our being dumb-ass enough to have fucked up the Earth too much for 9 billion people to live on it.

          1. This is a feature not a bug.

          2. Yeah, we’re all dying right now. Where are the space ships??

          3. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

    6. Carbon does have a price. Right now it’s about $60/ton, $80/bbl or $4.45/MMBtu, depending on whether you want it in solid, liquid or vapor stage.

    7. If you’re right, Chad, none of us will be remembered at all because the human race will be dead. Why don’t you get a head start?

      1. You suckers rise to the bait so easily.

  4. “White House insider Carol Browner did say earlier this week that lame duck carbon rationing could “potentially” pass.”

    What does she mean by that? That it could pass in November or December? There have been some speculations that Congress might try to pass cap and trade after the election and before the next Congress with fewer Democrats come in. The battle may not be over yet, unfortunately.

  5. So why the failure to mandate carbon rationing this year? The “right wing media,” of course!

    What passes for logical discourse for the left is grouping together their philosophical opponents into one homogeneous blob called “right wing” anything . . .

    1. Someone please let me know the address of this “right wing media” so I can send them a cake.

    2. What passes for logical discourse for the left partisans and political hacks is grouping together their philosophical opponents into one homogeneous blob

      Common lumping terms like “the left” or “the right” or “statists” or …

      1. Re: Neu Mejican,

        Common lumping terms like “the left” or “the right” or “statists” or…

        … deniers or … yes, go on…

        1. deniers, warmistas/warmers, watermelons…

        2. Yes, deniers is one, warmers/warmistas is another, there’s also watermelons, post-modern progressives, Gaia lovers…

          1. … Oil company sellouts, capitalists, libertarians, Lysenkoists (on both sides)….

            There’s a whole plethora of name-calling, Neu, but the tone is not set by a person like me, for instance, even though I do enjoy calling an environmentalist/Marxist a “watermellon”.

            Many self-avowed leftists just fling these terms (e.g. “right wing” anything) to LUMP TOGETHER people they do not agree with, like chimps fling shit.

            1. What passes for logical discourse for the left…

              So, you meant…”many self-avowed leftists” when you said “the left”?

              Everyone does the lumping game to some degree, so no problem, but the molarity matters. “Some on the left/right say/think X” seems like a reasonable lumping, but “the left/the right” signals partisan bickering to my ear.

          2. Re: Neu Mejican

            From a newer post:

            Tony:
            You’re such a fucking hack John. I haven’t done my right-wing hack research yet for this “Journolist” meme but it’s showing up in the mindless rants of Drudgeans everywhere. But you’ve never heard of Sean Hannity.

            See? What did I tell you, Neu? Like a chimp flings shit…

      2. I can see why Neu gets a little upset when people throw out terms like statists.

        1. Who is upset?

  6. Yes, nothing to do with the facts that:

    1) reality keeps diverging from model predictions in the cooler direction,

    2) real scientists are aghast when they see how climate scientists manipulate data, commit terrible statistical errors, interfere with attempts to reproduce results and encourage in ad hominem attacks when real scientists actually use the scientific method to examine their theories/data

    3) the complete loss of credibility caused by Climategate & the whitewashes that followed.

    Nope, it’s all the fault of that evil right wing media and the big oil companies.

    1. 1) reality keeps diverging from model predictions in the cooler direction,

      I can’t speak for the rest of the country, but Seattle’s summer hasn’t even started yet. We just got done with a couple of weeks of mid-50s and 60s, and even had a group of nine “experienced” hikers lost in the mountains because of dense fog and low temperatures.

      But I admit it is Seattle. The local news twinkies created a contest to “Name our heatwave” when we had some temperatures creep into the lower 80s back in July. I wrote in my suggestion as “Summer”. I don’t think they got it.

      1. It is an El Nino year. The West Coast is cool and we are dying in the East. Such are the fortunes of weather.

      2. I can’t speak for the rest of the country

        No shit. I just went out to grab lunch and I think it’s approximatly 914 degree Fahrenheit outside, give or take a few degrees.

        But it’s not that bad, being that it’s only at 99.8% humidity.

        It’s great to come back into your air-conditioned office and have your shirt sticking to your body.

        Blecch. September can’t come soon enough…

        1. Yeah well, I got a sweat as I walked from my parking spot to my office this morning at 8 am.

          Houston.

          1. You need better deodorant then. Plus, up until this week its been a very cool summer for Houston.

    2. Why let facts interfere with a tidy narrative?

      Post-modern progressives like Algore don’t accept the existence of objective reality or facts or the notion of truth, which they consider nothing more social constructs. Rather, they have their anthropogenic GHG narrative and they’re sticking with it.

    3. I heard the “Chief Scientist for the National Wildlife Federation” on the radio this morning, telling us how the weather in Moscow is a result of “climate change” and how this is the type of weather that has been predicted all along by the brave and selfless climate change community.

      What I take away from all the climate debates is:

      1) Weather isn’t climate
      2) Weather IS climate when it’s convenient to advancing The Cause
      3) Weather ISN’T climate when inconvenient to advancing The Cause.
      4) Predict enough things enough times and eventually a couple of them will, or appear to, come true and no one will remember all the other, far more numerous predictions that tanked completely or had the exact opposite come true.

      1. Weather is climate when NPR says it is. That is all.

      2. 4) Predict enough things enough times and eventually a couple of them will, or appear to, come true and no one will remember all the other, far more numerous predictions that tanked completely or had the exact opposite come true.

        Hey, you don’t even have to have any of them come true! Just ignore the track record and keep talking and you’ll be fine. Works for me!

    4. Actually, reality is pretty much in line with projections.
      http://www.realclimate.org/ind…..ojections/

      1. TOV, you make a good effort, but suggestions that there may be a problem the “free market” cannot solve is not well received on this page. Once people believe what they want to believe instead of what is tested in the hellish forge of scientific rigor and survives, they are detached from reality and are at play with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny in Fantasyland. In a way, one might consider them no longer sentient. Remember, these folk think physicists and engineers go into atmospheric science for the fat Soros dollars. The title “Reason” is a bit of black humor.

  7. Boo hoo.

  8. As disheartened as the former vice president is, Obama White House insider Carol Browner did say earlier this week that lame duck carbon rationing could “potentially” pass.

    I like how politicians are adopting that “monologuing” thing that supervillians do:

    “You may have beaten me this time, [insert superhero name here] Man! But I’ll be back! HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”

  9. History doesn’t exist as an entity, and it doesn’t have a will.

    But it’s written by the winners, and Chad has…. somebody important on his side. The Gaia lovers will prevail.
    You just wait, Buster.

  10. Gore bitterly denounced the Senate and federal government stating several times, “The U.S. Senate has failed us” and “The federal government has failed us.” Gore even seemed to blame President Obama by emphasizing that “the government as a whole has failed us?

    Maybe Al is finally realizing the government is not the best source of solutions for all the world’s problems?

    He already started outsourcing tipper’s marital duties to private contractors some time ago.

    Step aside, Rand Paul, a new free market radical libertarian is being born!

    1. —“Maybe Al is finally realizing the government is not the best source of solutions for all the world’s problems?”—

      Hey, that’s enough of that kind of talk.

  11. carbon rationing could “potentially” pass.

    Sheesh, just cut to the chase and try to implement *oxygen* rationing.

    1. Mothraaaa!

  12. Sounds to me like Al Gore had some major investments riding on a big cap and trade bill, and is pissed that he’s taking a beating on them.

    1. You mean like investing in companies that receive millions of dollars in subsidies from the Department of Energy, or investing in companies that will be big players in the carbon trading market?

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..-interests

  13. Gorezilla!

    Nice.

  14. Is that Gore’s “O” face? It looks like someone Took Care of This.

  15. This seems like a good place to post this:

    Evidence that NASA GISS manipulated data to convert cooling trend into warming trend for Nepal weather station.

    1. Yes,

      I read that this morning: quite impressive.

      1 monitoring station for the entire country; at an airport that is getting surrounded by a growing city; gaps in the data spanning years during which the detectors were probably changed/modified; and the actual data showing slight cooling is “improved” so to show some of the highest warming rates on Earth (5 to 9 degrees a century), with no explanation.

      So here’s how climate science is done:
      1) Take raw data of dubious provenance
      2) Improve it by throwing out inconvenient numbers and adjusting it in ways that you think it should be going.
      3) Feed some of this data into computer models that are coded with poor quality control. Forget/hide which subset of the data you decided to feed into the model and which you are going to ignore.

      3 a) Make sure when you are designing the model, use crude averaging techniques to fill in missing data. A thermometer at an airport 2,000 miles away can tell you what’s going on just as well as one in the actual grid location.

      3b) make sure that for physical processes you don’t understand, you perform inappropriate analyses, like using a univariate analysis system to analyze multivariate data. Get pugnacious if challenged on that. People who insist on methodological precision are just assholes who would do the world a favor by setting themselves on fire and going swimming in a vat of ammonia.

      4) As time progresses, never check the current observations against your model’s predictions. That’s for oil industry shills raking in the big-bucks of an engineer’s pension. Altruistic climate scientists funded by tax payer dollars and companies like BP, on the other hand, have integrity because their funding in no way is tied to the moral panic they create.

      5) When someone asks for your data and methods, make the world aware that they are crazy people in the pay of big oil companies such as… such as…

      6) If someone tries to publish a paper showing that you fucked up or that there’s less than a 1% chance of your model being correct based on recent observations, do everything you can to make sure the paper does not see the light of day. Science is not advanced by debate and testing! It is advanced by group-think and punishment of heretics!

      7) If someone does manage to get soemthing published or challenge you in a way that gets noticed, loudly accuse them of being mentally ill and out to get you.

      8) Climate science progresses slowly; you can fill your hours by working on the taxpayer dime to maintain a blog that is funded by a special interest group with a financial stake in the moral panic. You can help them control the debate by deleting inconvenient posts arguing against your position while accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a mental defective.

      1. If you look a little more closely at the data, you’ll see that GISS adjusted the temperatures DOWN. That’s why no one takes Watts seriously.

    2. Almost forgot.

      9) If ever you are accused of scientific misconduct, dinnae fash, once the committee assigned to investigate your work is assigned, just submit to them the evidence you want included in the investigation. The stae will ensure that that is the only evidence examined, that none of the critics are allowed meaningful input, and if you are interviewed, only a few members of the commission will show up to lob a few softballs your way before exonerating you.

      1. That’s fantastic and sounds a lot like stimulus modeling…

  16. I am the god of hell fire, and I bring you–

    Fire, I’ll take you to burn
    Fire, I’ll take you to learn
    I’ll see you burn

    You fought hard and you saved and earned
    But all of it’s going to burn
    And your mind, your tiny mind
    You know you’ve really been so blind
    Now ‘s your time, burn your mind
    You’re falling far too far behind
    Oh no, oh no, oh no, you’re gonna burn

    Fire, to destroy all you’ve done
    Fire, to end all you’ve become
    I’ll feel you burn

    You’ve been living like a little girl
    In the middle of your little world
    And your mind, your tiny mind
    You know you’ve really been so blind
    Now ‘s your time, burn your mind
    You’re falling far too far behind
    OOhhh
    Fire, I’ll take you to burn
    Fire, I’ll take you to learn
    You’re gonna burn, you’re gonna burn
    You’re gonna burn, burn, burn, burn, burn, burn, burn, burn, burn, burn, burn

    Fire, I’ll take you to burn
    Fire, I’ll take you to learn
    Fire, I’ll take you to bed

    1. Understanding that I’m speaking for Mr. Gore, not me. I’m not the god of anything, as far as I know. Certainly not of fire.

    2. They used to play the video back in the early days of MTV. Arthur Brown was a seriously freaky dude.

      1. Very.

  17. I’m not the god of anything,

    Not even Censoriousness?

    1. Oh, well, maybe that. At least the prophet.

  18. “The U.S. Senate has failed us” and “the federal government has failed us” and “the masseuse has failed us.”

  19. Browner was just talking out of her ass. She wouldn’t have said it had Gregory not prompted her. What the Senate does and what the White House wants them to do are two different things entirely.

  20. Yes, nothing to do with the facts that:

    1) reality keeps diverging from model predictions in the cooler direction,

    Where do you get that from? The actual temperature records have stayed at the upper end of the IPCC predictions since about 1995. If anything, the models have been conservative estimates when compared to the measured warming.

    1. Re: New Nejican,

      If anything, the models have been conservative estimates when compared to the measured warming.

      Which models? The “planet burning” hockey stick model, or the “Earth as a cinder” hockey stick model, or the “Hysteria-generating” hockey stick model?

      Pray tell, which models are those you construe as “conservative”, NM???

      1. The answer to your question is contained within my previous post.

        1. With is nothing but unsourced assertions.

        2. Re: Neu,

          The answer to your question is contained within my previous post.

          Your opinion is not an answer, Neu. You opine that the “models” are conservative – I find that so extremely UNLIKELY (even when I do sincerely consider you a believable character) that I have to question your sources. Very much.

          “Conservative” estimates do not sell policies, Neu – that’s why I am very skeptical of your reasoning.

        3. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs…..f_etal.pdf

          The global mean surface temperature increase (land and ocean combined) in both the NASA GISS data set and the Hadley Centre/ Climatic Research Unit data set is 0.33?C for the 16 years since 1990, which is in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC.

          1. That link doesn’t work.

          2. And see the link provided by DG at 12:30 above. That link works. And it makes a compelling case that the GISS data has been compromised to show more warming than actually occurred.

          3. Hmmm…link didn’t work.

            Reference:Recent Climate Observations
            Compared to Projections (2007) Rahmstorf et al. SCIENCE VOL 316 4 MAY 2007

            http:// pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

            1. Interesting. But I would point out that that article is from 2007. Before the warming trend stopped and before the e-mail bemoaning the poor predictions of the models I link to below was written.

              1. The trend stopped?
                What is your evidence of that?
                It’s only been three years since that article was published.

                1. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

                  1. How is this evidence?

                    1. If the warming hadn’t stopped, why were the people at East Anglia so worried about their models not accounting for it. You are saying the temperatures all are at the high end of the models. I have e-mails from the major center for climate research in the world showing the actual scientists lamenting how the recent temperatures are much cooler than the models predict and how they can’t account for why.

                      That is direct evidence in refutation of your point.

                    2. I don’t think you are interpreting that email correctly. It certainly is not about the trend “stopping.” 3 years of additional data are noise in the trend. You’ll need a longer term change to establish that the trend reversed.

                    3. That is not how the writer of the e-mail looked at it. If it were just noise it wouldn’t have been a “travesty” that the models couldn’t account for it. Regardless you claim that “The actual temperature records have stayed at the upper end of the IPCC predictions since about 1995” is simply not true. You have only produced evidence that it did through 2006. In 2007 it stopped doing that. And stopped doing it in such a way that the climate scientists were very concerned about their models.

                    4. John stop pretending you know what you’re talking about.

                      You might if you spent as much time on the actual science as you did on right-wing hack web sites discussing it.

                    5. Tony. Either say something besides invective or faith based or let the adults talk.

                    6. Re: John,

                      And stopped doing it in such a way that the climate scientists were very concerned about their models.

                      But, don’t you see John, that FIVE (count them, 5) different investigative panels found out that the scientists were concerned only because they did not take their Thorazine, so they did not know what they were talking about, and thus the Great Effort was spared further humiliation!

                      Tony told me so…

                    7. You are making assumptions about the writer’s meaning that don’t seem warranted. And even if you are not…that’s from 2008 (an additional 2 years of data). If he really meant what you claim he meant, it would just mean that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

                      As for
                      You have only produced evidence that it did through 2006. In 2007 it stopped doing that. And stopped doing it in such a way that the climate scientists were very concerned about their models.

                      Climate trends develop over decade long time scales (most experts seem to prefer 30 year averages). The author of the study I cite highlights the fact that 16 years is too short a time period to put much certainty in the trend, but with that caveat notes that the measured temperatures are staying in the upper end of the predicted range from the IPCC models. Yet, somehow, 3 additional years of data mean something important regarding that trend?

                      Like I said, I would be interested in seeing evidence of the trend stopping. I am willing to wait.

                    8. For John:

                      The context for that email:
                      http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Tr…..final2.pdf

                      A discussion if you don’t want to read the actual paper.
                      http://www.skepticalscience.co…..arming.htm

                    9. And the writer’s clarification of his intended meaning.

                      http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_14167354

                    10. A more detailed clarification
                      http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Tr…..ement.html

                    11. After the fact ass covering doesn’t count. And further, on the one hand you claim that a few years don’t matter. But then on the other hand you claim that “Climate trends develop over decade long time scales (most experts seem to prefer 30 year averages).” By your own admission your claim that the temperatures are near the top range since 1995 is irrelevant.

                      I also point you to Paul’s link below showing how badly the models have predicted actual temperatures. The models have never done anything beyond telling people like you what they want to hear.

                    12. We can only really track the performance since the predictions were made. 1990 or so. If the discussion is about how well the models have performed since predictions were made, we’ll have to wait some years for a solid assessment of their performance. But to say, as was stated above, that they model predictions are over-estimating actual warming is inaccurate. So far the estimates seem to be conservative. Whether that ends up being the case over the long term is to be determined.

                      Re: Paul’s link – can you be more specific…which link (of the two) and what evidence do you see that supports your contention?

                    13. After the fact ass covering doesn’t count.

                      I will take the author’s interpretation of what he meant by “travesty” over yours, sorry. Partially because it fits more closely with what my initial interpretation of the quote was, and partially because, well, he’s the one who wrote it.

                    14. It is a “travesty”, John, because it is easy for dishonest morons like yourself to deliberately misinterpret.

                      Thanks for making my point in advance.

    2. You want to give a link for that? I would like to see a chart that shows what the IPCC was saying in 1995 what the temperature would be in 2008 or 2010. I have yet to find such a thing. Every year we get new dire predictions about the future. And every year we don’t get dire temperatures. At some point the future has to arrive.

      1. Here is an aggregate of studies which show varying degrees of divergence from IPCC projections.

        Here is a pretty well written article showing divergence from IPCC models and actual observations.

        Read with care. Consider the sources.

        1. Thanks. They seem to say the opposite of Neu Mexican’s assertion. Somehow I am not surprised.

        2. The variance is because the old GISS model used at the time of Hansen’s presentation showed too much climate sensitivity (about 4.2C). The revised model currently in use estimates sensitivity at 3.0C. That’s why Hansen’s projections look high.

          When the more recent sensitivity model is applied to Hansen’s projections, they are right in line with scenario B.

        3. Also, neither of the links you provide cast additional doubt on the value of IPCC climate projections.

          I’d really like to know what you’re seeing when you read those graphs. Please elaborate.

    3. And the East Anglia folks were none too happy about the fact that the the temperature was not in line with the models much less on the high end.

      From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

      The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

      http://www.examiner.com/x-2506…..and-emails

  21. Even when I can enterain the idea that maybe we are all DOOMED if we don’t limit/reduce atmospheric C02, there are fundamental problems with how they want to approach the problem. Assume a straightforward technological solution that just removes CO2 from the atmoshpere isn’t possible … I still have a right to breathe. I’m allowed to have a BBQ in the back yard every now and the. So I’ve got a ceratin amount of CO2 that I’m allowed to put into the atmosphere every year. Step one is figure out what that number is. Step two is that if I don’t use that, I get to sell my natural C02 rights to a guy with a monocle and a smoke stack. Except for a little bit of seinorage/transaction fee, I should get the money, not the government. And if I happen to work for the guy with the monocle and the smoke stack, he probably wants some of my C02 rights at a discount, and I’m OK with that, since he is providing me with a job. All the solutoins that get proposed start out with the government owning all the artifically created ration-property-rights, which does nothing but reinforce my notion that it really isn’t about the environment at all.

  22. I guess now Al Gore has been cleared of the sex pest allegations he will be emerging again to scare the children about rising sea levels and carbon footprints. Strange that he has bought yet another energy-guzzling mansion, this one on the ocean-front and travels around the world by private jet though. I like this graph “Everything That’s Wrong with Al Gore in a Single Graph” – http://www.climatejournal.org/climatenews00176.htm

    1. Whoa!

  23. Why do libertarians hate the idea of making people pay for crap they dump on other people’s lawns, but are practically begging to be ruled by fiat from the boardroom of ExxonMobil?

    The only thing standing in the way of legislation to address climate change is political will, and political will is informed by constituent concerns. And the people have been fed lie after lie in order to discredit this field of science, all at the behest of entities whose profits are at stake.

    Or it could be a vast worldwide conspiracy of science bodies and governments to pad Al Gore’s wallet.

    You people are dumb. Thanks for not being a part of the solution, libertarians.

    1. Re: Tony,

      Why do libertarians hate the idea of making people pay for crap they dump on other people’s lawns, but are practically begging to be ruled by fiat from the boardroom of ExxonMobil?

      You should know better than to ask loaded questions.

      Or it could be a vast worldwide conspiracy of science bodies and governments to pad Al Gore’s wallet.

      Not worldwide – just a few assholes AND Al Gore.

      1. OM do you think you are smarter and better informed than the worldwide scientific community?

        Answer that single question so we can all point at you and laugh at you for your hubris and move on with our lives.

        1. Re: Tony,

          OM do you think you are smarter and better informed than the worldwide scientific community?

          As informed as I need to be to not believe in God, even though there MUST be a whole worldwide community of priests out there who are pretty savvy.

          1. Because priests rely on the same rigorous methods that scientists do.

            Oh wait, they rely on exactly the opposite method: believing in things despite evidence. That makes them kind of like you, atheist or not.

            1. Re: Tony,

              Because priests rely on the same rigorous methods that scientists do.

              I no longer believe that, Tony, not since the unveilment of Cold Fusion… and this.

              1. No you selectively disbelieve in scientific facts that might make you question your political/economic dogma. That makes you no better than a creationist or a truther or a birther for that matter. If your beliefs require you to reject scientific fact in order for them to be maintained then the problem is not with the facts but with your beliefs. It’s pathetic and aggravating beyond belief.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  No you selectively disbelieve in scientific facts that might make you question your political/economic dogma.

                  So the idea that man controls the climate, that’s a scientific fact, for you. Who’s being dogmatic?

            2. the same rigorous methods that scientists do.

              But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, AGW “scientists” are not rigorous at all. Quite the contrary. Which is the issue.

              I know, I know. You favor anything that increase government power over the individual and don’t care if this is bunk science or not.

              1. Marshall get with the times. The East Anglia “controversy” has been proven to be nothing but a sham, its participants vindicated by 5 separate investigations. There is no credible evidence that climate science is any more prone to being non-rigorous than any other field.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  The East Anglia “controversy” has been proven to be nothing but a sham, its participants vindicated by 5 separate investigations.

                  Yes, a governmental panel composed of government people found out that the government-backed East Anglia’s government-funded workers did not indulge in wrong doing, thus absolving the government-backed organization.

                  See how easy that was? And according to you, it was done five times!

                  1. OM you are doing a major disservice to the libertarian movement by being an anti-science ideologue. I realize there is no free market solution to climate change. Deal with it.

                    1. Because nothing says science more than “a guy in a lab coats says its true so it must be”. Science is not religion and scientists are not shaman above reproach. So, stop treating it like it is.

                    2. John, I’m not. But I have no more reason to reject the findings of climate scientists than I do the findings of evolutionary biologists. Neither do you, except for ideological reasons.

                    3. Re: Tony,

                      OM you are doing a major disservice to the libertarian movement by being an anti-science ideologue.

                      Well, at least you tried to do a proper Ad Hominem, but I have seen better.

                      Just because I am skeptical of a certain theory that relies too much on made-up data does not make me “anti-science.”

                      I realize there is no free market solution to climate change.

                      And there’s nothing dogmatic about that! Nothing at all!

        2. To disagree with somebody doesn’t mean that you are (or think you are) smarter. Reasonably intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions.

          As far as the science, it seems it isn’t “settled”. Too many scientists in the climate community disagree with the global warming scenarios as presented by alarmists. Rather that sitting down and discussing the differences of opinion, the alarmists insist that anybody who disagrees with them are schills or idiots.

          There are qualified, intelligent people on both sides of the argument, rather like most arguments.

          Instead of trying to bully the scientists that disagree, just show them how your climate models are very accurate, including the standard test for models that includes going back to past known data (say, the 1940’s), plugging it into the model and showing how the model accurately forecast the known results that were recorded after the data set timeframe (say, the 1960’s).

          Oh wait, that doesn’t work for the models in use now. Sorry I brought it up.

          1. There isn’t any scientific controversy on the basic facts of this debate which most people here reject whole-hog, so it’s a little hard to take seriously the Intelligent Design movement tactic of “let’s just think about the controversy a little while longer.”

            1. Re: Tony,

              There isn’t any scientific controversy on the basic facts of this debate[…]

              “My prefered scientists are better than the skeptical scientists!”

              For you, it’s a contest. Long live science!

            2. —“There isn’t any scientific controversy on the basic facts of this debate”—

              Not so. Look at the scientific community. When there is “no controversy” over the facts, then the particular theory is generally accepted and the discussion is over minor details. When there is “controversy” over the facts, there is usually a knock-down drag-out competition between the sides to prove their view is correct. The competition may not always be public (string theory in physics, for example), but is goes on.

              When it was proposed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than vice-versa, there was a huge scientific debate over many years. That science is “settled”, so now no controversy. By no stretch of the imagination (alright, use your imagination) is the science settled regarding global warming. For every expert you can quote that claims we are headed for big trouble, I can point to one that says we are not.

              It isn’t a matter of “thinking about the controversy for a little while longer”. It is a matter of if we are going to do something, we need to be sure we are doing the RIGHT thing. As we have seen many times in the past, doing something just to say we have done something usually doesn’t help and often makes things worse.

              In this case we are being asked to pay massive amounts in taxes and subsidies, both domestically and to Third World countries, when we have no real idea if it will help. We are being asked to give up some freedoms (yes, limiting our valid choices is limiting our freedom) and put more power and money into the hands of the Government, when they have shown time and again that they will abuse them both.

              So, when there is an actual SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, and the hold-outs are mainly fringe types, come back and see me and tell me what you think neeeds to be done.

  24. Why are naysayers and deniers so devoid of personal responsibility and making people who crap on this planet responsible for their actions? I not only blame Congress , I BLAME ALL OF YOU. Your hatefilled, ignorant political partisan ranting has done absolutely nothing in changing the reality of what the world is now experiencing. And of course in true form you stalk Al Gore and use him as your scapegoat to validate your own laziness, ignorance, selfishness, greed, and hate. Oh look mom, I can photo shop a picture of Al Gore with fire coming out of his mouth. MORONS. My grandchildren WILL expect answers about why we allowed your kind of DANGEROUS ignorance ruin their ability to live on this planet sustainably. You will regret your actions in years to come. Count on it.

    1. Jan,

      Please stop crapping on this planet and stop breathing – that is, if you’re really being sincere.

      You will regret your actions in years to come. Count on it.

      Don’t count on it.

      1. But he used ALL-CAPS, OM. That means he must be correct.

        1. “I BLAME ALL OF YOU MORONS WILL DANGEROUS.”

          That’s what I read in Jan’s message.

      2. The responses aren’t surprising. Morons one and all.

          1. —“Morons one and all.”—

            I’m am not a moron, but I still need evidence that is scientifically supported. I will repeat my request from upthread (and one I’ve made in various discussions, etc).

            Show me the Computer Climate Model that using known data sets as input, matches known results reflected in real world data.

            —“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”— See what they did there? The Model is right, the data and observations are wrong?

            If this Model exists, there should be a link available to show it. At this time, the alarmists have refused to provide this data.

            So, unless all of you alarmists are prepared to back up your worry with data that can be looked at and analyzed instead of hyperventilating about my energy consumption habits destroying the planet because a lot of scientists with vested interest in the outcome say so, shut the fuck up already.

    2. You’re grandchildren are going to be too goddamned broke to worry about what the temperature is.

      1. But if they are broke, they will be producing less CO2.

        1. Better yet, maybe they won’t even be born!

    3. I blame everyone else, whaaaaa!

      Have you, yourself, given up driving and other uses of fossil fuels, such as using electricity? Have you gone completely off the grid and use only ‘renewable’ energy? Do you give a portion of your income to organisations that are fighting for your version of what should be done?

      Basically, if you haven’t moved out of the city and started living somewhere with a windmill and a garden, you can also blame yourself. Not that it would be sustainable for the world population to subject themselves to such poverty, but then a bunch of people could starve and die – wouldn’t that ‘save’ the planet?

      1. Sure we can blame consumers for their role. And consumers can shoulder some of the cost for fixing the problem. (Heaven forbid!)

        But individual action is not going to be enough to solve a global climate crisis. It’s why we have governments.

        1. And governments are somehow omniscient? Please. Look at the fudged warming numbers from Nepal linked to above. Those are supposedly scientists doing the fudging. You think politicians are going to be more honest than that? And who picks the winners and losers?

          Look, if you can actually show me that externalities are not being paid for that do more harm than the harm done by addressing those externalities, we can talk. Until then, it’s all posturing, and I take the optimistic viewpoint that by increasing the living standards of the world through technology, we can become better stewards of our surroundings. Decreasing living standards on the basis of shaky science is the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

  25. Why do libertarians hate the idea of making people pay for crap they dump on other people’s lawns,

    Libertarians love the idea of restitution for harm caused by trespass/nuisance, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

    but are practically begging to be ruled by fiat from the boardroom of ExxonMobil?

    Exxon/Mobil can’t “rule” anyone, although I freely admit they can probably afford to buy a few of the Enlightened Masters that you want ruling everyone.

  26. “Libertarians love the idea of restitution for harm caused by trespass/nuisance”

    After the tort laws have been gutted by “tort reform” of course!

    1. Because there’s nothing wrong at all about the tort system. It’s perfect.

      1. Not quite impenetrable enough for people with grievances against powerful interests?

        1. Do you check under the bed for CORPORASHUNS! before you turn out the light, Tony? You never know where they might lurk!

          Idiot.

    2. ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. That dog ran right off the page.

  27. Re: Tony,

    OM you are doing a major disservice to the libertarian movement by being an anti-science ideologue.

    Well, at least you tried to do a proper Ad Hominem, but I have seen better.

    Just because I am skeptical of a certain theory that relies too much on made-up data does not make me “anti-science.”

    I realize there is no free market solution to climate change.

    And there’s nothing dogmatic about that! Nothing at all!

    1. You are not being skeptical, you are being a denier. There is plenty of genuine evidence for the phenomenon you’re rejecting entirely, you just refuse to go learn about it.

      If there were a free market solution to climate change then it would have long since found it and implemented it. The problem with the free market is that it doesn’t deal with the long-term. Rational market actors thinking about climate change would have started solving the problem when it could have been done cheaply, rather than kicking the can as far down the road as possible in order to maintain the status quo, thus making the solution all the more expensive in the future.

      1. Lessee, the free market has 30-year mortgages and 99-year leases. The political market has 1 to 6-year election cycles. Which one doesn’t think long-term, again?

        1. You still haven’t addressed his point.

          1. What? When he said, “If there were a free market solution to climate change then it would have long since found it and implemented it.”

            Don’t agree with his assertion. He’s placing an arbitrary time limit on how long we have to voluntarily work out good solutions without central planning.

            It’s going to take time, for example, for the best alternate energy solutions to shake out. And some won’t be economically feasible until oil becomes a little more scarce and higher in price.

            That’s if the solutions are allowed to shake out naturally.

      2. That’s a little harsh on the free market, given that the political world hasn’t implemented a solution either, nor have we implemented any technology to solve the problem. If “hasn’t done it yet” translates to “cannot do it”, then clearly markets, government, and technology are all worthless. Oh well, I guess we’re fucked. I used up all my wishes on killing elderly politicians.

        Oh, and the free market does look into the long-term. Your ilk calls it “speculating”, and consider it a bad thing.

        1. OK, I appoint you my spokesman, because you said everything I was trying to say better than I did.

      3. Climatologists have proved nothing. Let me say it again and use some caps:
        Climatologists have PROVED nothing.

        They have shown some correlation that in the long term may be shown to nothing more than statistical noise or may show that burning CO2 increases the warmth of the global (of course, then I would ask; so what… every species on earth affects it’s environment why should humans be any different).

        Climatologists have proved nothing.

        If you were speaking from a rational scientific mind then you know it is imperative to be skeptical until theories are proved. Instead you take correlation and unvetted modeling and scream “the science is settled”
        The science is far from settled, yet you expect the skeptics to agree to a wholesale redesign of our entire civilizations? Are you out of your fucking mind?!!?!

    2. Old Mexican,

      I’d like you to examine this and explain why you think it is wrong.

      Without invective, please.

      http://www.jamespowell.org/Chart/chart.html

      1. Re: Trueofvoice,

        As soon as the link works…

        1. Use control-c to cut and paste it into the url box. For some reason I can’t post it as a hyperlink.

  28. I don’t know why you all keep feeding Tony.

    It is blatently obvious that he is an abject failure at attempting to impersonate a sentient being.

    1. You don’t like his position, so you hurl insults?

      1. Yes. Did you figure that one out all by yourself, or did your mommy sit down with you to help you work it out?

        1. Wow, I’ve never had the meaning of the term “glibertarian” so well demonstrated to me.

      2. I can only speak for myself, but I don’t appreciate how he keeps throwing out the Big Lie that the science is “settled” and anyone who disagrees is an anti-science ignoramus.

        Fact is, most of the posters here aren’t scientists, and neither is Tony. And the “evidence” he talks about genuinely fails to convince many people because it ISN’T THAT CONVINCING

        1. What, specifically, would it take to convince you that anthropogenic global warming is real?

  29. enen,you can find whatever watch you want on my name

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.