Environmentalism

Earth Daze: Overcoming Environmental Hysteria

Environmentalism is now more religion than science.

|

USPS/Wikimedia

"The heavens reek, the waters below are foul … we are in a crisis of survival." That's how Walter Cronkite and CBS hyped the first Earth Day, back in 1970. Somehow we've survived since then, and most of life got better, although I never hear that from the worrywarts. 

Of course, some things got better because of government: We passed environmental rules that got most of the filth out of the air and sewage out of lakes and rivers. Great—but now we're told that we're in big trouble because greenhouse gases cause global warming. I mean, climate change. 

"Crop yields are down, deaths from heat are up," says the Los Angeles Times. The "Worst Is Yet to Come," warns The New York Times. This hype is not new. Alarmists always fool the gullible media. They once fooled me.

A few years back, we were going to be killed by global cooling, overpopulation, pesticide residues, West Nile virus, bird flu, Y2K, cellphone radiation, mad cow disease, etc. Now it's global warming.

Reporters don't make these scares up. The recent hype about global warming comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Most of its members are serious scientists. But reporters don't realize that those scientists, like bird flu specialists, have every incentive to hype the risk. If their computer models (which so far have been wrong) predict disaster, they get attention and money. If they say, "I'm not sure," they get nothing.

Also, the IPCC is not just a panel of scientists. It's an intergovernmental panel. It's a bureaucracy controlled by the sort of people who once ran for student council and are "exhilarated by the prospect of putting the thumb of the federal government on the scale." 

Actually, that wasn't a quote from a global warming alarmist. It's from anti-marijuana alarmist and former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Joe Califano. But it's the same crisis mindset. Scientists who disagree, who are reluctant to put their thumbs on the government scale, don't feel welcome in the IPCC.

It's possible climate change may become a problem. But even if industrialization brings warming, we've got more important problems. On my TV show this week, statistician Bjorn Lomborg points out that "air pollution kills 4.3 million people each year … We need to get a sense of priority." That deadly air pollution happens because, to keep warm, poor people burn dung in their huts.

Yet, time and again, environmentalists oppose the energy production most likely to make the world cleaner and safer. Instead, they persuade politicians to spend billions of your dollars on symbolism like "renewable" energy.

"The amazing number that most people haven't heard is, if you take all the solar panels and all the wind turbines in the world," says Lomborg, "they have (eliminated) less CO2 than what U.S. fracking (cracking rocks below ground to extract oil and natural gas) managed to do." 

That progress occurred despite opposition from environmentalists—and even bans in places like my stupid state, New York, where activists worry fracking will cause earthquakes or poison the water.

Do environmentalists even care about measuring costs instead of just assuming benefits? We spend $7 billion to subsidize electric cars. Even if America reached the president's absurd 2015 goal of "a million electric cars on the road" (we won't get close), how much would it delay warming of the Earth?

"One hour," says Lomborg. "This is a symbolic act." 

Symbolic. Environmentalism is now more religion than science. It even comes with built-in doomsday stories to warn people about what will happen if they disobey—a bit like the movie "Noah" that's in theaters now. 

While environmentalists lament that our time is running out, environmental indicators get better, technological improvements reduce carbon dioxide, water gets cleaner for millions, and human life expectancy goes up. 

This Earth Day, instead of attacking those who sell fossil fuels, I will applaud them for overcoming constant environmental hysteria—while providing affordable energy that will allow us to fight poverty, which is the real threat to the people of the world. 

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.

376 responses to “Earth Daze: Overcoming Environmental Hysteria

  1. That deadly air pollution happens because, to keep warm, poor people burn dung in their huts.

    Aside from the fact that enviros by and large hate humans, they’d spin that as a waste of organic fertilizer.

    1. Dude whats your problem, everyone knows carrying capacity is a thing you should just accept it and line up against this wall over here.

    2. Aside from the fact that enviros by and large hate humans

      I’m not entirely sure that they hate humans as much as they’re just detached from reality with a pessimistic bent.

      The notion that population control and carrying capacity can only be addressed by killing people is just as absurdly incalculable and unrealistic as the idea that sea level rise, famine, and heat waves will wipe out some significant portion of humanity.

      You project populations under given scenarios and then subtract back to some sort of reality and consider the loss of projecticons as an atrocity!

      Population control without death is easy; just find an (or many) activity easier, more fun, and more rewarding than sex. Western capitalism does this every day as a direct result of it’s Puritan roots.

  2. OT:

    Reach deal on screwing up the economy and free stuff, or I’ll do it.

    Mayor to wage panel: Reach a deal on $15 plan or I’ll do it

    If his Income Inequality Advisory Committee can’t break its current impasse, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said he will announce his own proposal for a $15 minimum wage on April 24.

    Enjoy your only term, sir.

    1. We can only hope, and the same for every mayor going forward.

      1. and you get to be on the ground floor of this journey to insanity. How, uh, exciting?

    2. In an “unrealated” story, Starbucks, along with multiple fast food restaurants, announced the planned closure of every single Seattle location. /sarc

      1. I bet Holder would use the commerce clause to sue them if they did that.

    3. Especially considering it will really hit coffee shops and everyone knows coffee is Seattle’s third major industry.

      If they do it, it will be cheaper to buy a push button espresso machine. They make super good espresso and one person can make about 4 coffees at a time. You could eliminate half your barristas with push button machines. And, if you can, you will.

  3. People have always loved doomsday cults. Even Christianity can come off as such, with the Rapture and Antichrist always near.

    1. Christianity pretty much started out as a doomsday cult, I think. But as the years passed and the world failed to end they had to shift the emphasis a bit.

  4. My mom went to the first Earth Day. She said that after it broke up, the area where the attendees had been was absolutely littered with garbage, to the point that it was absurd. It made her think.

    1. I went to Lemonwheel (Phish show at the Air Force base in Limestone, ME), and I think I may have been the only person who cleaned up after myself. Our campsite was an odd patch of green in a sea of trash. I was appalled. Dirty disgusting hippies are disgusting.

    2. HAving spent five years in an office overlooking “protest park” (the area by the capital where protestors wave their signs for the cameras and chant slogans that the legislators ignore) there was a definate pattern in the amount of litter based on the issue being protested.

      Environmental groups (mostly anti-frackers) were by far the worst. The pre-gun groups tended to be the cleanest. Though the “free marijuana prisoners” people who come back most often are fairly tidy too.

      1. *pro-gun, not pre-gun

      2. Compare the Tea Party demonstrations to the Occupy demonstrations. You get a pretty good estimation of the caliber of people by how much shit they throw in the streets.

    3. It’s ironic, isn’t it? Kind of like how when I worked at a go-kart track in high school the best riders were, without fail, the Hell’s Angels when they came to town. The worst? The kids from the local Christian summer camp.

  5. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. It’s the “‘stache” isn’t it?

      1. He just wants a mustache ride.

    2. Sigh… me too.

      He proves that there is at least one sane person in the world. I need that. I need it bad.

    3. Only once today.

  6. Lomborg is not a climate scientist. His conclusions are faulty, resting on a false dichotomy that completely eats itself (climate change will only exacerbate all the problems he thinks we should tackle instead). If you’re dismissing the global scientific community and favoring the “look at me! look at me!” bullshit of a non-scientist outlier, then you are not approaching the subject with intellectual integrity.

    Libertarians should save everyone time and just say what they really mean: oil company profits ?ber Alles!

    1. If you’re dismissing the global scientific community and favoring the “look at me! look at me!” bullshit of a non-scientist outlier, then you are not approaching the subject with intellectual integrity.

      your irony called. Seems you misplaced it.

      1. All I’m saying is proportion what you claim to know to the evidence. That’s all. Nothing else. But you have to actually acknowledge the evidence.

        1. and what evidence is that? The nearly two decades of temp flat-lining? The expedition that got stuck in the Antarctic? The total absence of causation between humans and change/warming?

          The “community” is not interested in debate; it actively seeks to shut down heretics and apostates. It refuses to consider that the research may not support its hypothesis.

          1. See, you’re just repeating bullshit you read on some lame rightwing bullshit website. You have no idea what you’re talking about. There has been no warming pause. An expedition got stuck, therefore all of climate science is wrong? What? And that humans are the primary cause of warming is, actually, concrete scientific fact. You would know these things if you cared about reality. Instead you care about fitting in to your fucked up little tribe of idiots. Why can’t you people just read about the fucking science? Why do you insist on not doing so?

            1. Instead you care about fitting in to your fucked up little tribe of idiots

              I lol’d.

              At you.

              1. Not to worry, the PDCO (El Nino) should be at its strongest positive effect on US temperatures since 1998. They’ll probably get some highs this summer.

                1. “Yo soy El Nino! All other tropical storms must bow before El Nino!”

              2. There has been no warming pause.

                Tony is a liar. He is also an idiot. The hypothesis was that human activity was creating increases in CO2 which was in turn causing global warming, and that as CO2 continued to rise so would the global temperature, as predicted by the models based upon this hypothesis. The models failed since there has been no warming in at least 17 years, therefore, the hypothesis has been falsified. That is how science actually works.

                1. The models failed since there has been no warming in at least 17 years, therefore, the hypothesis has been falsified. That is how science actually works.

                  The scientific method is so quaint! We’ve got consensus now!

                2. WTF…calling Tony ‘an idiot’ is rude. Tony isn’t an idiot…he is special.

              3. Look at this article I found by doing a single Google search.

                1. From the article:

                  It’s true that Willis and nearly every other climate scientist dismiss the idea that global warming has paused. Yet the fact remains that average surface temperatures worldwide have not increased since around the turn of the century. (emphasis added for Tony)

                  So the article actually confirms what you are trying to deny. Idiot.

                  1. As scientists like Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth’s surface anyway.

                    Do you understand that your little bullshit talking point is meant to obscure the fact that much of the warming is going into the ocean?

                    You guys have the real challenge. You can’t just throw shit. You have to explain why the greenhouse effect isn’t real or whatever extraordinary claim you’re making about basic thermodynamics.

                    1. Do you understand that your little bullshit talking point is meant to obscure the fact that much of the warming is going into the ocean?

                      That is the latest hypothesis cooked up by the AGW crowd in a panic to explain away the pause that every single one of their models failed to predict. But there is as yet almost no evidence to support it.

                    2. LMAO so predictable. When called on his lie about warming not pausing, I knew he’d come back with the “heat is all trapped in the ocean” BS.
                      I still say he has to be a parody.

                    3. He isn’t clever enough to be a parody.

                    4. There is zero evidence to support that the “warming” is somehow all going into the ocean (even though it hadn’t before) and is also somehow getting into the ocean without warming the atmosphere and surface on its way. If its really the case, they should be able to prove it rather than just making bullshit claims to try to rescue a political agenda.

                    5. In the oceans? Really?

                      Well:

                      a. That disproves the original hypothesis, that increases in CO2 levels will increase atmospheric temperatures.
                      b. How, exactly do you increase the temperature of the ocean, by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, WITHOUT increasing the temperature of the atmosphere? Thermodynamics/Heat and Mass Transfer, how does it work?
                      c. So increased CO2 levels were warming the atmosphere prior to 1997, but stopped in 1997 and now all the heat goes into the oceans instead?
                      d. Winds are putting the heat into the oceans? But not heating the surface of the oceans…only levels below 2300 feet? I guess this energy was teleported, by the wind, through the atmosphere and through the first 2300 feet of ocean water. Yes?

                      Tony, you are so fucking scientifically ignorant you don’t even know what questions to ask. Not that you question at all.

                    6. Why is the heat, in Tony’s world, going down (to 2300′)? I thought heat rises?

                    7. So the AGW “scientist” have said for the last 30 years that increased CO2 would lead to increased atmospheric temperatures. When this is shown to not be occuring, it’s suddenly being trapped in the ocean?

                      Holy shit you are stupid. Seriously, open up a fucking physics text book and read about thermodynamics you illiterate retard.

                    8. //Do you understand that your little bullshit talking point is meant to obscure the fact that much of the warming is going into the ocean?

                      So in other words, the planet is built in with a negative-feedback system, as would be expected anything that’s as long-term stable as the earth, despite all its energy-input and chaotic influences? Sorta like we been saying for years?

                      Tony, we’re not denying that there’s evidence, but the fact of the matter is it’s FAR FAR from “settled” in the scientific sense of the word.

                2. Did you even read that article?

                3. The article to which you refer us fails to explain why surface temperatures (which rose during the 80s and 90s) have failed to rise for the past seventeen years. And the article fails to reconcile the increase in ice in Antarctica with the rise in sea level. Somebody’s not telling the whole story.

                4. Welcome back, Tony… Nice article in SciAmer. I ended my subscription to SA after a few decades when they went all “Popular” to ‘appeal to the masses’ and the science quality of so much of their content went to hell. And that was somewhere back in the 1980s or so.

                  If you think there’s agreement and consensus with the positions quoted in the article, don’t read any of the comments from readers. Some of them disagree with the MMGW premise, models and data.

                  To look at the graph and deny there’s a “pause in warming” is somewhere between hypocritical and flat-out stupid. Period.

                  And nobody can point to a ‘climate model’ running on any computer that hasn’t been tweaked innumerable times in the past decades and STILL can’t accurately model observed variations in anything.

                  I’ve seen estimates of ‘1 foot per century’ for ocean rise, yet people blithely bandy about graphs and cartoon videos claiming 3 METRES per century.

                  Ya think that might reflect some lousy modeling? Nah… Carry on. Film at 11.

              4. Silly FdA, that’s obviously a graph created by some right wing hacktivist. If it wasn’t it would back up Tony’s retard hypothesis.

            2. And that humans are the primary cause of warming is, actually, concrete scientific fact.

              No, Tony, it is not fact. What it is is pure dogma, a religious-like orthodoxy that you accept without question. It’s what leads you to instantly insult anyone who disagrees.

              See, honest scientific inquiry allows for disagreement, for debate, for continued testing of variables and the hypothesis itself, and for new discovery. Zealotry is blind faith, period.

              1. And real scientists have been doing real research for decades. John Stossel, Bjorn Lomborg, and you have been doing something else.

                1. Please refer to the scientific method and falsifiable hypotheses, moron. The man made CO2-driven hypothesis has been falsified.

                2. Tony, real scientists, who had decades if not centuries of experience, considered the tectonic plate theory to be laughable. That general consensus didn’t make them right.

                  In general, I have found it a useful rule of thumb to assume that, until demonstrated otherwise, the side of any political, scientific, or social debate that is calling for censorship or santions against disagreement is full of shit.

                3. It’s fucking hilarious that someone could use the phrase “scientific fact” and claim to understand science at the same time.

            3. “There has been no warming pause.”

              Uh….yeah….we are nearly 20 years into a cooling trend. So yeah, there is.

            4. See, you’re just repeating bullshit you read on some lame leftwing bullshit website.

              1. The above was in response to the idiot troll. Fucking comment threading.

            5. Tony

              “And that humans are the primary cause of warming is, actually, concrete scientific fact. ”

              No Tony it’s not. Here is some true scientific fact.

              In 1840 the explorer James Ross was the first person to do a marine survey of what was later named for him, The Ross Ice Shelf. In 1912, Robert Falcon Scott, the second man to lead an expedition to the geographic south pole, also surveyed The Ross Ice Shelf. Both men were chosen to lead their expeditions because of their navigation and marine survey skills. Falcons entire party perished after reaching the pole ( He refused to use dogs and proved that men couldn’t drag enough food for such a long journey and back ).

              1. A later expedition brought back his logs and journals to England. A noted naturalist of the age was quoted as ” lamenting that the Great Ross Ice Shelf has retreated by over 50 miles between surveys 62 years apart. He wished he had seen it it all it’s glory. Ross discovered the ice shelf in a sailboat without a steam engine. Scott’s ship was more technologically advanced, it had auxiliary steam power. Sail was used for distance and coal powered steam for power and maneuverability in the ice. So the largest Antarctic ice shelf was already receding 1 mile a year when first discovered during the Age Of Sail. I don’t pretend to know what was causing this melting of the ice shelf. Unfortunately, man made global warmist claim to know. They blame it on something that did not exist when it was first noted that the ice shelf was retreating.

                OneOut from his personal reading.

                Tony
                Why do you insist on not accepting history that sheds light on the politics ruling the “science” ?

                It is you that has no idea what you are talking about.

          2. I have two friends who are big wheels in the international climate movement, books written, hang out with David Suzuki, etc. I have two waterfront lots for sale, they were considering buying them. There are strict tree by-laws for what tree you can take down, and which one you can’t. These two enviro guys spent twenty minutes on the property figuring out how they can cut the trees down and circumvent the by-law. It bugged me.

        2. What evidence? You mean the evidence where the average global temperature hasn’t (statistically significantly) increased in 17 years? That evidence? The evidence where the observed data doesn’t match, or even come close to, the predicted data? That evidence.

          You are a fucking moron. You wouldn’t know science if someone stuck it up your ass.

          1. I am aware of the bullshit discredited talking points you’re vomiting at me. The question is why do you accept bullshit but reject science? Are you that invested in oil company profits? Or in an ideology of government? Do you think that highly of yourself that you think you are entitled to ignore reality in order to maintain your worldview?

            What sad sacks of shit you all are.

            1. The question is why do you accept bullshit but reject science?

              The moron says as he completely rejects the scientific method in order to promote his politically-driven agenda.

              1. The moron says as he completely rejects the scientific method in order to promote his politically-driven agenda.

                The scientists are really smart! And they voted! You’re not really smart! You weren’t invited to vote! So you’re wrong!

                /Tony derp

            2. Reject science?

              I am looking at the science. The raw data. Do you see all those pretty colored sources in the lower right hand corner?

              UAH MSY- That’s the UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama

              NCDC- National Climatic Data Center

              HADCRUT4- Climatic Research Unit (University of East Anglia) in conjunction with the Hadley Centre (at the UK Met Office), apart from the two SST datasets which were developed solely by the Hadley Centre.

              These are your own fucking sources.

              1. These are your own fucking sources.

                Obviously they’ve been infiltrated by EVUL right wingers on the payrolls of BIG OIL. /Derpity-Derpty-Derp-Dumb!

              2. Another link.

                You’re going to have to find some more bullshit to gobble up without question.

                1. All that article does is basically claim that there are too many factors to know what’s going on, and repeat the unsupported assertion that the warming must be somehow going into the ocean, without any evidence or proof. The AGW CO2 hypothesis has still been falsified. This after-the-fact attempt to try to save it without any evidence that the oceans have suddenly counteracted the warming (even though they hadn’t previously) just reeks of pathetic desperation.

                  1. The oceans counteracted the warming? What? It’s saying the oceans are absorbing it. The resulting increased acidification has been measured.

                    Just tell me what you want out of this. Why do you want to deny what is actually fairly simple physics? I’m curious beyond words.

                    1. The resulting increased acidification has been measured.

                      Now THIS is pure bullshit. The pH of the ocean varies by location and time of day. You’d have to have pH meters all over the planet, like the thermometer grid, and then do statistics to figure out if there’s a trend. Calculating what the pH change of water should be with an increase in CO2 in the air above it is simple and straightforward. If you use it on the increased level of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere you get a pH decrease of about 0.1. Local pH varies by much more than than. Even if you did have this pH meter grid and they were way more accurate than any other pH meter on the planet, it would still be extremely difficult to detect the total pH decrease of the entire ocean.

                    2. Why do you want to deny what is actually fairly simple physics?

                      Fairly simple physics…..so says the English teacher.

                    3. But he’s a LAW STUDENT !

                      You just don’t get it.

                    4. You shouldn’t talk about physics, as you are clearly ignorant in that area as well. See Francisco d’Anconia|4.16.14 @ 1:51PM|# for a little enlightenment. As he notes, there is zero evidence that the warming has suddenly somehow started going into the deep oceans. It is bullshit without evidence, or even a scientifically valid mechanism, that is being thrown out to try to save the political agenda.

                      God, you really are a stupid shit.

                    5. But there is evidence that the greenhouse effect stopped being real?

                    6. If you’re own posted articles are stating that there are too many factors involved to be very accurate, you should probably sit down and shut the fuck up.

                    7. yeah, if the oceans absorb the heat, that prevents the atmosphere from getting too warm. It’s called a heat sink, it’s used in engineering all the time.

                      It’s YOU who apparently doesn’t understand physics

                    8. Stupid threading, who was that in response to?

                2. You’re going to have to find some more bullshit to gobble up without question.

                  Are you really that lacking in self-awareness? Holy shit.

                  1. Tony- why are you so quick to be suspect of our motives (oil company profits, blah blah blah) yet not skeptical at all of government-funded scientists and activists, who have a direct financial stake in playing up the global warming problem? After all, the federal government isn’t going to give anyone any money for saying “the earth isn’t warming. Give me $$ to prove it.”

                    1. Because the idea of a conspiracy of all the world’s scientists is an absurdity, while a conspiracy of oil and coal companies to “teach the controversy” or whatever the fuck is very plausible, because we saw exactly the same thing happen with tobacco.

                    2. Your consensus brush is far too large. You’re acting like every scientist sucks at science badly enough to jump on the Settled Science bandwagon.

                      Besides, it’s not like the Goracle could possibly profit from his dire predictions. Likely, he is the only one involved in this horrible effrontery to science that would benefit, right?

                      Clearly you don’t understand the connection between grants and scientist’s paychecks. They like getting paid, just like us. They have to study things that will get them paid. You and your sorry proggie brothers have waved your arms and run around in circles long enough that there is good money in researching AGW.

                      If the innumerate left decided that the Earth was cooling (hmmm… almost like I remember something about that), eeeeevil Team Red disagreed and there was grant lucre to be had do you honestly doubt that the “scientists” wouldn’t be on that like bums on a ham sandwich?

                    3. //Because the idea of a conspiracy of all the world’s scientists is an absurdity, while a conspiracy of oil and coal companies to “teach the controversy” or whatever the fuck is very plausible,

                      See? This shows how leftism is driven largely by paranoia/ opression psychosis . It’s all those rich cronies who are out to get you, and you’re just trying to tell the truth.

                      A “conspiracy” of scientists is just as plausible, if not more so. Oil companies for the most part spend their time extracting and transporting oil. They’re too busy to fuck with other shit.
                      But scientists rrule in academia, where they suckle at the government teat, and it’s in their interest to try to get more government grants. You don’t get a government grant if nothing’s going wrong. Just because there’s no active, across-the-board collusion, doesn’t mean they’re effectively acting as a cartel/ acting in congress.
                      The situation with the lawyers nowadays works the same day. Judges can still be lawyers after their judge job, and they all by default see judicial “solutions” that lead to more commissions as a “good thing”. They don’t need to ACTIIVELY be in cahoots, though every time they investigate these big medicine or personal injury lawyers it usually turns out they are, which isn’t surprising and also helps them do their cartel thing.

                    4. Do you people live in caves? No wonder you believe in bullshit across the board. You apparently never read anything but self-confirming bullshit.

                    5. Not sure if being ironic or stupid.

        3. Tony|4.16.14 @ 12:20PM|#
          “argle bargle.”

          Tony, you’re a lying piece of shit. Nothing you say is worth reading. Fuck off.

        4. All I’m saying is proportion what you claim to know to the evidence computer models of a highly complex system with multiple variables and unkowns. That’s all. Nothing else. But you have to actually acknowledge the evidence computer models of a highly complex system with multiple variables and unkowns.

          FTFY. I know, doesn’t have the same ring to it, but at least it’s a more honest description.

          Of course, the truth can’t be used to agitate for economically crippling policies or for massive redistribution of wealth on a global scale, so you’ll stick to your lies and exagerations no matter what anyone else says.

          1. I think the eco-socialists have jumped the shark.

            The general public is caring less and less about this and the true believers are ratcheting up scare to try turn the tide.

            I saw a promo for some scare show that HBO is doing with Harrison Ford and some other celebrities that is an attempt to do just that.

            1. Tony doesn’t understand the “follow the money” effects on the data he believes in, while at the same time blaming Big Oil and everyone else for buying anti-MMGW articles, papers and research.

              How na?ve!

          2. “…the truth can’t be used to agitate for economically crippling policies or for massive redistribution of wealth on a global scale, so you’ll stick to your lies and exagerations no matter what anyone else says.”

            This. Always keep in mind that people like Tiny don’t believe any of the shit they say. This isn’t about climate to them, it is about politics. They would not know science if it bit them on the ass, and they don’t care. For them, the ‘ends justify the means’ crowd, any lie is justified if it furthers their agenda. They would gladly corrupt the entire scientific apparatus and cast us into another dark age if it would get them what they want.

            Evil pieces of shit.

        5. But you have to actually acknowledge the evidence.

          Why? You don’t.

    2. You chiding people about intellectual integrity?

      Haaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      That’s funny!

      Whew!

      Haaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      I’m out of breath!

      That’s good!

      Got any more?

      Oh man!

      1. Yes? I get to do that, because you morons have decided you’re entitled to ignore scientific facts you don’t like. It doesn’t get more intellectually faulty than that.

        1. I’ve said this a thousand times, and I’ll say it again. Consensus is not science. Consensus is politics.

          Science involves changing your hypothesis when the results of the test don’t match your prediction.

          Climate “science” is simply a bunch of people dependent upon government grants taking a vote.

          Not that a distinction-challenged moron like yourself could comprehend the difference.

          1. Nobody said consensus. GW is a scientific fact, as much as anything else you accept readily. You don’t accept that because YOU have bought into the politicization of the issue. That’s all.

            Given the amount of evidence and summaries of evidence that are available, on Google search away, it can only be the case that you don’t give a flying fuck what the science says, you’re never going to change your mind. Now who is approaching the issue in a religious way?

            1. Nobody said consensus.

              I’m sorry, but when you start off your comment with a blatant lie, I don’t bother to read the rest.

            2. GW is a scientific fact

              that warming has periodically happened IS a fact. So is the cooling that periodically happens. What is NOT a fact is man as the causal factor. And you accuse others of buying into politicization.

              Your sense of irony called again. It’s sitting next to your self-awareness, both of which you lost some time ago.

              1. You’re just wrong. Read something.

                1. Tony, just because people call something science doesn’t make it science.

                  Science is a process. You come up with a hypotheses, you make a prediction, you test that prediction, then analyze the results.

                  The global warming predictions have failed.

                  But instead of revising the hypothesis, they’re doubling down and declaring everything to be settled.

                  That’s not science, Tony. That’s politics.

                  1. What predictions have failed? Are you claiming that there is no warming. That there is warming but some unknown force is causing it? What are you trying to say?

                    Because it seems like you’re just spewing the rudiments of bullshit rightwing talking points designed to make people stupid.

                    1. For twenty years they’ve been predicting huge jumps in temperature that haven’t happened. Yes there has been some warming. We’re coming out of an ice age for fuck’s sake! But these predictions of accelerated warming have not materialized. Just because every single media story related to the outdoors mentions climate change doesn’t make it true. It just makes it effective propaganda. Propaganda, like consensus, is also a tool of politics, not science.

                    2. Secondly, the entire argument is a logical fallacy. It’s a textbook example of begging the question, also known as circular reasoning. It’s when you use your conclusion as your premise.

                      Human activity is causing climate change, therefore human activity is causing climate change.

                      It ain’t logical and it ain’t scientific, but is sure is political.

                    3. There has been observed warming and all causes other than human emissions have been ruled out. The project has been to explain the warming. It’s been explained. You are just too stupid or too propagandized to accept it.

                    4. Can they explain what caused previous ice ages and other changes in the climate? No? Then how are they able to rule out everything but human activity as the cause of current climate change? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

                    5. Yes they can. What would convince you of what climate scientists already think? Name it.

                    6. You know, Tony, repeating lies doesn’t make them any truer. Although I guess you adhere to the “Big Lie” theory that if you repeat it often enough people will come to believe it.

                    7. You know, Tony, repeating lies doesn’t make them any truer.

                      Did you see that up above when he said no one claimed there was a consensus?

                      He doesn’t even pretend to be honest anymore.

                    8. I said no one said the word consensus until you. But there is a consensus. And despite your infantile grasp of how these things work, an overwhelming consensus of science actually does mean something. It means you have to disprove them or shut the fuck up. You don’t win automatically.

                    9. Tony…how are you going to feel in five or six years? Because by then everyone in the world will be on to the next big scare. I’m 63. I’ve seen one after the other ever since I was an 8 year old. You’re investing a lot in this drivel.

                    10. How have all other causes been ruled out if not one of the models can account for the current 17 year pause in warming?

                    11. What predictions have failed?

                      The predictions of the AGW CO2-based models which failed to account for the lack of warming over the past 17 years.
                      Can you really be that stupid?

                2. I wonder what Mother Jones or the Utne Reader has to say about the matter.

                  God you’re a transparent putz.

                  Thank you for just being you!

                3. So, Tony… oh, shit, I’ve asked you this in the past and you’ve never answered, but WTF, anyway….

                  Tony, what do you infer (look it up) from the graphs from the Vostok Ice cores?

                  Me? I instantly concluded that the earth is closing in on its next Big Ice Age. You think us Earth-vermin (humans) are going to reverse THAT quite regular cycle?

                  That’s science…

            3. GW is a scientific fact, as much as anything else you accept readily.

              You really do not know how science works.

              1. You really do not know how science works.

                You take some really smart people in white coats, give them a bunch of taxpayer dollars, and then have them take a vote!

                Science!

                1. Let’s not forget to have some of those smart folks in lab coats agitate for the jailing, or murder (wish I was making that up), for the heretics and non-believers.

        2. The track record on ignoring facts shows the climate “scientists” disregarding data because it disagrees with pre-determined policy goals and instead focusing on the flawed models which support the policy. When they stop trying to silence ‘heretics’ and address the fact that the real world has diverged from their model, their conclusions might be worth taking into consiteration again.

          1. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

            1. And you know even less judging from the shit you’re spewing.

              Thank you for playing, the consolation prize is derisive laughter.

            2. And you’re a doodie head.

              Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you sound? You don’t present any evidence of your own; you just make childish jokes. You sound like a slightly less manly Rachel Maddow.

    3. “If you’re dismissing the global scientific community (of course, undefined…)and favoring the “look at me! look at me!” bullshit of a non-scientist outlier,(Al Gore) then you are not approaching the subject with intellectual integrity.”
      There Tony. Since you seem to know what libertarians “really mean”, I guess it’s reasonable to point out what YOU “really mean”.

      1. I really mean you’re a bunch of fucking morons who are doing free propaganda for oil companies, whose heads are so far up your own asses that you can’t even bother to do a Google search on what the evidence says, or ascertain just how absurdly huge the conspiracy has to be in order for your denier claims to have merit (Wikipedia is in on it! All the world’s scientists and governments are in on it! Exxon is in on it!!!!)

        There is no excuse for this level of ignorance. It is breathtaking.

        1. You saying something doesn’t change the data.

          How many years must we go without warming before you recant?

          1. How many years must we go without warming before you recant?

            An Ice age could come and he’d never recant.

            1. I actually saw something on Discovery about how global warming could cause an ice age. They’ve got all the bases covered.

              1. And that’s partly how you can tell that AGW is not science, because anything that is not falsifiable is not scientific.

                1. How is it not falsifiable? Demonstrate that the observed warming is not happening, or that it’s not being caused by increased greenhouse gases, or whatever the fuck.

                  The only problem here is your ignorance.

                  1. How is it not falsifiable?

                    Refer back to previously explained scientific method on testing of hypotheses and falsifiability. It’s obvious you don’t really understand the concept. Do some research before you embarrass yourself further with your ignorance and stupidity.

                    Demonstrate that the observed warming is not happening, or that it’s not being caused by increased greenhouse gases, or whatever the fuck.

                    It is incumbent upon those making the assertion of a phenomena to provide proof, it is not up to others to prove the negative. If you assert that climate change is being caused by millions of invisible flying dragons, you must prove it is so; I do not have to prove it is not. The AGW crowd has failed to prove their assertion, as their failed models have falsified their hypothesis, yet they still cling to their assertion (non-falsifiable).

                    The only problem here is your ignorance.

                    Oh, yeah, my ignorance, that’s the problem all right.

                    1. The greenhouse effect has been understood for more than a century. Warming has been observed. No natural phenomena explain it, but the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, which one would predict would lead to warming, does explain it. Why do you refuse to accept this as even a possibility? Could it be because you care more about your dogmatic horseshit than truth?

                    2. Seriously?

                      The sun, clouds, and water vapor are all natural phenomenon that could explain any increases in surface temperature.

                      Oh wait, your own links have said that there hasn’t been an increase in surface temperature because all of the heat is being trapped in the deep ocean.

                    3. “Do some research before you embarrass yourself further with your ignorance and stupidity.”

                      HaHaHaHaHa

                      You can’t embarrass this fuck.

                      He just likes to argue. he has posted such here on reason.
                      I think he is just practicing to be a lawyer.

            2. Ice Age is caused by Global Warming. It’s the EVIL Capitalist that caused the Global Warming that caused the 2000 meter glacier over Chicago.

          2. There have been no years without warming. You’re regurgitating bullshit you heard from some fat man or something. There’s been a slowdown in the rate of warming over a period too short to make any meaningful claims about (roughly 30 years is the minimum timescale). Your timescale is so specific, in fact, because it is meant to be a cherry pick. Just do some reading from some reliable sources. Please. Just try.

            1. The models failed, therefore the AGW hypothesis they were based on has been falsified. That is very basic science, you fucking retard.

              1. The models failed, therefore the AGW hypothesis they were based on has been falsified. That is very basic science, you fucking retard.

                But government scientists voted! There’s a consensus! Consensus!

            2. Yeah, the last 17 years is cherry pick. They didn’t even have climate models until the early-mid 90s. So essentially they built their models to fit the previous 50 year trend, and they immediately failed to predict future data. That’s some science.

              Take your bullshit liberal arts degree and shove it up your ignorant ass. Must suck to go through life needing politicians to do your thinking for you.

              1. Oh, no… They didn’t do that at all. They built their models to match a *20* year trend, not 50. 1940-1970 was a period of COOLING. Their models don’t cover that.

            3. If there’s no statistically significant warming for 30 years, will you admit that the AGW warming theories and graphs are, at least, incomplete?

              Can you explain why the graphs showing no significant warming for 17+ years are wrong?

              1. There has been warming. What FA is talking about are surface temps. It’s a giant zombie lie meant to make people stupid. People who claim to be so finely tuned to propaganda should look in the fucking mirror and see a victim.

                1. There has been warming.

                  [Citation needed]

                  1. [Citation needed]

                    I believe what he means is that when it’s warm outside it’s a climate event, but when we have a record cold winter it’s just weather.

                    1. A record cold winter where you live. Record droughts elsewhere. Record ice-melt at the poles. Records breaking everywhere. Nothing to see here!

                    2. A record cold winter where you live. Record droughts elsewhere. Record ice-melt at the poles. Records breaking everywhere.

                      Like I said in my original comment on this, people have always loved doomsday cults because there are always signs that the end is nigh.

                    3. Argument by assertion. Nothing to see here indeed.

                  2. Jordan|4.16.14 @ 1:38PM|#

                    There has been warming.

                    [Citation needed]

                    They claim it’s suddenly started hiding in the oceans, although they have no proof and it hadn’t been hiding there previously.

                    1. They claim it’s suddenly started hiding in the oceans, although they have no proof and it hadn’t been hiding there previously.

                      Another one I heard was that the last twenty years without warming can be explained by solar activity, and when solar activity gets back to normal (whatever normal is) then twenty years of warming will happen all at once.

                      I wonder what they’ll say when that prediction fails.

                2. “What FA is talking about are surface temps. It’s a giant zombie lie meant to make people stupid. ”

                  You mean those same surface temps that all the scientists were pointing to in the 90s to say “AGW IS REAL!!!”? You mean those ones?

                  I just wish you would AT LEAST admit to the revisionism that has been going on since the 90s. You know that these models from the 90’s and early 2000’s did not predict this “pause”. None of them did. So today, they have come up with explanations of why those models were wrong.

                  Maybe those explanations are right, I don’t know. But I do know that when assholes like yourself blatantly deny that they were wrong and act as if the Pro AGW people have never made a mistake and that all these criticisms are somehow propaganda, you come off merely as a shill. One that just isn’t credible, IMHO.

                  1. Science progresses. It thrives on being wrong. What do you want? A pat on the back for being wrong now?

                    1. Or you could admit what he actually asked you to admit instead of stomping your feet like my two year old.

                    2. “Science progresses” yet you unironically said “Scientific fact” above. Pick one you innumerate twat.

          3. How many years must we go without warming before you recant?

            Just wait. This year there will be a huge El Nino and the surface temps will spike. This will cause all the alarmists to break the glass on all the alarms in the world at the same time. All the alarms will repeat “Toldyaso! Toldyaso!” But then the temps will go back down the next year.

            1. This year there will be a huge El Nino and the surface temps will spike.

              Climate event!

              But then the temps will go back down the next year.

              That’s just the weather. Everyone knows that weather is not climate.

          4. It doesn’t matter what the data says – this whole thing is about power and envy . .
            We could have no rise in temperature for 50 years and this debate will still be going on because the moronic Tonys of this world just want to give ‘oil companies’ the bird

          5. This is an interesting question to me. I’m 63. This is not the first big scare I’ve seen. They all have some sort of reasonable position that is worth looking into, in the beginning. They all go through the same sort of cycle of little scare, that is worth looking into, to big scare, to big big scare, to big big scare someone can make some money on, to let’s drop this one and go on to the next one.

            This is the first one I’ve seen that has really gotten people invested in it, in all ways, spiritually/mentally/physically/emotionally, etc.

            It is weird. I’m assuming Tony is a 20 year old who got excellent grades in high school, and is used to looking for the ‘right answer’ and getting it, rather than looking for what is true. But, there are a lot of 50 year olds who should know better who have bought into this.

        2. When government pays for research, there is no bias at all because government is perfect and wonderful. When research is not funded by government, then it is biased because EVIL CORE-POUR-RAY-SHUUUUUUUUNS.

          /Tony derp

          1. Government pays for lots of research. Or is the Internet you’re shitting all over just a figment of your imagination?

            1. Yeah, the internet would have never been invented without government. Nor Velcro.

              derp

              1. I will credit the government with this – they did drive banks to invent the subprime mortgage, so they’ve spurred some innovation that would not have emerged on its own. (admittedly not good innovation)

              2. Yeah, the internet would have never been invented without government. Nor Velcro.

                Fire was invented by a government committee!

            2. Tony|4.16.14 @ 12:45PM|#
              “Government pays for lots of research. Or is the Internet you’re shitting all over just a figment of your imagination?”

              You claim to be educated and you post that non-sequitur?
              Did your mommy tell you that you were smart?
              She lied. Fuck off, you lying piece of shit.

            3. Because climate research and the Internet are the same thing. How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

              1. How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?

                Too many to count I’m sure. I also strongly suspect that his mother stabbed him in the head with a wire coat hanger while he was still in the womb. At least it would explain a lot.

              2. Uncover a conspiracy of basically the entire global climate science community or fuck off. You don’t get to just throw shit. You’re making claims too, and they’re far more outlandish than the one about how increasing greenhouse gas concentrations causes warming.

                1. A conspiracy isn’t really necessary. Confirmation bias, arrogance and the politicization of the issue can account for it.

                  1. Confirmation bias, arrogance and the politicization of the issue can account for it.

                    Yeah that explains all denier horseshit, but the point of science is to eliminate such biases.

                    1. Why don’t you reply to what I have actually said? I’m not denying anything.

                2. You’re making claims too, and they’re far more outlandish than the one about how increasing greenhouse gas concentrations causes warming.

                  You mean the claim that has been falsified by the data? Because there has been no warming for the past 17 years even though greenhouse gases have increased? How can anyone be that stupid? Are you really that stupid, or are you just lying to promote your political agenda? Is Tony stupid, evil, or both?

                  1. Is Tony stupid, evil, or both?

                    The odd thing about evil I’ve discovered is that most evil people don’t even know that they’re evil. They think that by supporting the use of violence to get their way, that they’re doing some greater good. What’s that old C.S.Lewis quote? Here it is:

                    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

                    1. That is a great quote, and all too true.

                  2. So, WTF, you’re saying that the greenhouse effect isn’t real?

                3. Hasn’t this already happened? What was the whole ‘climategate’ thing anyway?

                  A conspiracy of global climate scientists.

                  Now, I know the proper thing to do, and I’m sure Tony will do it, is to claim that all turned out to be nothing–the climate scientists investigated themselves and said there was no wrongdoing.

                  I just have real problems with the idea that this is so easily accepted by so many. I know people who will leap on the least mistake, the least flaw, the least tiny bit of erroneous data–who just accept every utterance.

                  It’s as if they pulled down the curtain, saw the man squeaking ‘I am OZ, the great and terrible!’ into the voice changer and went over, helped him put the curtain back up and then went back to cower in front of the fake.

                  1. What was the whole ‘climategate’ thing anyway?

                    A political witchhunt that ended up in the complete vindication of the scientists involved?

                    1. A political witchhunt that ended up in the complete vindication of the scientists involved?

                      Yeah, no.

                      It still turns out that the scientists involved were conspiring to manipulate data that falsified their hypothesis.

                      The “witchhunt” also exposed the fact that these very same scientists were preventing articles that pointed out the falsification of their hypothesis from going to print and peer review.

                      The only truly provable conspiracy cabal in the Climate Wars is a group of government-funded pro-AGW scientists attempting to manipulate and destroy data and silence anybody who disagreed.

                4. Why is warming bad ?

                  I was taught in public school that we were entering into an ice age.

                  Global warming seems like a good thing to me and I don’t even live in a Siberian Gulag.

                  I bet those guys love the idea.

                5. Tony,
                  How many no shit degreed climate scientists would you say there are?

                  Would you bet that number is greater, or less than, the number of oil company board members.

                  Just curious what your feeeeeelings tell you.

        3. I really mean you’re a bunch of fucking morons who are doing free propaganda for oil ‘clean energy’ companies, whose heads are so far up your own asses that you can’t even bother to do a Google search on what the evidence says, or ascertain just how absurdly huge the conspiracy has to be in order for your denier claims to have merit (Wikipedia is in on it! All the world’s scientists and governments are in on it! Exxon Solyndra is in on it!!!!)

          There is no excuse for this level of ignorance. It is breathtaking.

        4. There is no excuse for this level of ignorance. It is breathtaking.

          Yeah, you’re the living embodiment of it every time you post.

          You had your ass handed to you in the comments above by people who actually know what they’re talking about. All you had is your prissy little Google searches, which turned up articles which didn’t even confirm the bullshit you and the rest of your Coffeehouse Klatch repeatedly spew.

          You and the rest of your ilk are nothing but a Christfags, Tony, except your religion is the Church of Social Engineering. You just don’t like it because the heretics are calling your bullshit for what it is.

          1. Changing the subject. You’re concerned about “social engineering.” Fine, but that doesn’t mean you get to invent your own fucking facts. Deal with the world as it is, not as you want it to be, like a fucking grownup.

            1. Fine, but that doesn’t mean you get to invent your own fucking facts. Deal with the world as it is, not as you want it to be, like a fucking grownup.

              Oh the irony.

              1. Not an argument.

                1. But truth.

            2. Fine, but that doesn’t mean you get to invent your own fucking facts. Deal with the world as it is, not as you want it to be, like a fucking grownup.

              Considering you’ve been making shit up all over this thread, I’ll take this statement for the massive amount of projection you engage in on a regular basis.

            3. But apparently it’s okay to pick and chose the data that fits your feelings?

        5. what are you joking Tony? We’ve been reading this stuff for years. Do you really think we’ve not? Why do you think that you’re the only one who’s researched this? Why is that your only explanation as to a disagreement? Typical liberal thinking

          I’ve been reading tons of this stuff for years and the fact of the matter is global warming has some pretty god damned big holes in it, and is far from “settled” in any real scientific sense.

    4. It is global warming you fucking idiot, not climate change. Global. Warming.

    5. I’m willing to assume that humans are likely making a non-trivial contribution to changes in climate. I have my doubts, but for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s all true.

      I still think that pretty much every policy proposed to do something about it is a terrible idea. For several reasons.

      – They will definitely not work. Even if the US and Europe stop burning fossil fuels entirely, the rest of the world still wants to develop and will pick up the slack.
      – Even if it were possible to do something about it, such policies would put a huge load on the economy, which does really harm people. Lomborg may not be a climate science expert, but he is right that you still have to do the cost/benefit analysis. I don’t think it adds up.
      – Everyone dwells on the negatives of a warmer climate. There are undoubtedly upsides as well. It is just stupid to deny this.

      Even if the science is settled, the appropriate policy response most definitely is not.

      1. “Even if the science is settled, the appropriate policy response most definitely is not.”

        This. This really should be the bumper sticker.

    6. I think it’s quite telling that you have mentioned “oil companies” no less than three times so far. Basically you are keeping this fight up because korpuhrayshuns. You keep mentioning science as if that is your real reason, but your mask keeps slipping.

      1. “You” being “Tony” (as if I really needed to clarify).

      2. Maybe that’s because “do not stop burning fossil fuels” is the upshot of every single denier commentary on the matter, especially of the libertarian sort. For people talking of a giant global conspiracy headed by Al Gore you guys certainly have a hard time following the bright, straight line of money right in front of your faces.

        1. You mean the way the entire warmist movement is money driven? Show me climatoligists ‘studying’ global warming who wouldn’t lose their jobs if they suddenly concluded- “Nope, we were wrong. Global warming just isn’t a thing. Nothing to worry about.”

          They say that, their jobs go away, their careers go away, and everything they have worked for all their life goes away.

          Compared to them, Exxon doesn’t give a shit about global warming. “Government wants to raise taxes on gasoline? Eh, we’ll just pass them along to consumers. No skin off our teeth.”

          1. Any evidence, any whatsoever, for this claim? You’re claiming that alone among all the fields of science, there is some cabal or conspiracy forcing researchers to come to a certain conclusion? (Luckily for these hidden puppet-masters, those conclusions are just what you’d expect from basic physics.)

            If scientists were to somehow convincingly demonstrate that warming hasn’t actually been happening, that physics has heat all wrong, that emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect, then they would no doubt have many a respectable outlet for their papers.

            What you’re doing is pathetic. The science doesn’t agree with what you want to believe, so you invent a conspiracy theory.

            1. What you’re doing is pathetic. The science doesn’t agree with what you want to believe, so you invent a conspiracy theory.

              “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”

              – Steven Chu

              It’s all about sticking it to the oil companies so their cheap (by comparison) resource is forcibly priced out of the market.

            2. Tony, you twit, a conspiracy is not necessary here. People get things wrong sometimes. Until the early 20th century, the scientific consensus was that there must be some “luminiferous aether” medium for light to be transmitted through. We now know that can’t be the case. And the science behind that now discredited theory was far more rigorous and useful in making predictions than anything climate science can do today.

              1. So get published and win your Nobel.

            3. If scientists were to somehow convincingly demonstrate that warming hasn’t actually been happening, that physics has heat all wrong, that emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect, then they would no doubt have many a respectable outlet for their papers.

              You mean like the actual temperature measurements which show no warming for 17 years? And yet, rather than accept this fact, they try to obscure it by making unsupported claims that the heat has started hiding in the ocean, while working to censor opposing views. Sorry moron, but what the AGW crowd is doing is not science, it’s politics.

              1. Stop repeating lies. There has been no stop in warming, and a slowdown in the increase (which is what you’re talking about) is expected to happen on timescales of that length. Why is it as exact as “17 years”? Why don’t you pick 20 or 30? Because then you couldn’t cherry pick your starting point to make it seem like you have something to say.

                1. Why is it as exact as “17 years”? Why don’t you pick 20 or 30?

                  Because it started 17 years ago? Because that’s when your guys said it started?

                  You are aware, aren’t you, that this ‘pause’ thing came from scientists in the IPCC report? That it wasn’t fabricated by Rush or some right wing bloviator?

                  That it was first reported on a few years ago in the Guardian or the Telegraph?

                  Oh, it wasn’t ’17 years’ then, the years add up as they pass without statistical warming, so it’s 17 years now–18 soon, unless you guys get a dream summer.

                  1. But 17 years isn’t long enough to represent a significant shift. The relevant timescales are multi-decadal. You and rightwing deniers are picking 1998 because it is the start of an apparent leveling, but no scientist would say that’s an appropriate thing to do or that it gives us any information.

                    The hottest 13 years on record have all happened in the past 14 years. Normal climate inputs can explain a pause in the rate of warming. What you’re trying to do is twist it to mean something it absolutely doesn’t (CO2 doesn’t cause warming; humans don’t produce CO2; whatever other absurd bullshit you’re trying to claim).

                2. Because the models all predicted a hockey stick and we got a baseball bat.

                  Your models didn’t predict a leveling off, they predicted an acceleration.

                  You models predicted a rise in average global atmospheric temperature directly proportional to CO2 levels. Average global atmospheric temperatures have remained constant with a corresponding increase in CO2 levels.

                  Your theory has been disproven and you are grasping at straws to keep the money flowing.

                  The scientific method, how does it work?

            4. ” You’re claiming that alone among all the fields of science, there is some cabal or conspiracy forcing researchers to come to a certain conclusion?”

              We have already seen based on the HadCrut emails that there was a lot of coordination to get editors removed for publishing contrary science in journals and a lot of collaboration between influential members of the AGW research body to explain away critiques of their work from “multiple sources”. It isn’t a conspiracy, just a Good Ol’ Boy’s network of folks whose lives depended on “confirming” an apocalyptic scenario.

              What I find hilarious is that you deny such a conspiracy could exist, while insisting that there is some conspiracy among oil companies for the oposite. Why do a bunch of competing oil companies suddenly have the ability to keep hidden a massive conspiracy when you deny it is possible for a much smaller group of publishing scientists to do the same?

              1. Because KORPORASHUNS!!!!1!!!111!!!!

            5. “alone among all the fields of science, there is some cabal or conspiracy forcing researchers to come to a certain conclusion?”

              Yes, exactly. Because, no other field of science has 95% of its funding, and basically its entire existence, predicated on a specific theory being correct.

              They admitted themselves, albeit indirectly, that the greenhouse gas theory of warming their models are based was false. They tried to make it sound like a little thing, but it was incredibly major- “ooops, it isn’t the atmosphere warming, it’s the oceans…”

              And they DEFINITELY admitted in the process that their models aren’t worth crap- they can’t predict where the heat goes.

              REAL scientists would have discarded those broken ass models and would stop making policy recommendation based on them.

              But… reality and climate science do not overlap.

        2. Maybe that’s because “do not stop burning fossil fuels wasting taxpayer money on unsustainable ‘clean energy’” is the upshot of every single denier warmist commentary on the matter, especially of the libertarian progtard sort. For people talking of a giant global conspiracy headed by Al Gore the Kochtopus you guys certainly have a hard time following the bright, straight line of money right in front of your faces.

          For the record, nobody here that I am aware of is against so-called “clean energy,” rather against the fact that 1)it is way less clean than you would ever admit and 2)it is in no way economically sound or nearly as efficient as fossil fuels today.

          For someone who has said that he is so against taxpayer subsidized industries, you sure seem to shill for a pretty big one pretty hard.

          By the way, how much money has Al Gore made off of AGW claims in the last fifteen years?

          1. If you’re not calculating the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels into your comparison, then you’re not being honest.

            1. If you’re not calculating the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels using huge swaths of land for giant, bird killing turbines and solar panels, dumping hazardous chemicals used in the production of solar cells, or that Toyota admitted that the the Prius is less environmentally friendly than its gas-only models when they take production factors into account into your comparison, then you’re not being honest.

              Care to keep going? You really are just making my argument for me.

            2. And you aren’t calculating the environmental costs of wind and solar.

              To replace fossil fuels would require a wind farm the size of South Carolina or a solar array the size of North Dakota. Think of the energy used to build an array that size or the energy required to move that much material. Or the ecological disaster of covering up that much land.

              For Christ sake, look at the unintended consequences of Ethanol. We are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere because of an unthought out policy than by burning gas.

              You don’t get to invoke magic as an implementation measure.

              1. You probably don’t want to know what my policy prescription is (it ain’t filling unoccupied lands with solar panels).

                1. I’m sure it has something to do with lining anyone who doesn’t agree with you along a wall and shooting them once in the head.

                  1. What do you think is the appropriate punishment for people actively working to destroy the human species as we know it?

                    1. And the mask falls right out. There it is, folks: Fascism laid bare.

                    2. Oh, I’m saving that shit. Tony admits he wants to kill those who don’t agree with him.

                      There you have it folks, progressivism in a nutshell. FINALLY, the truth!

                      Christ you are an immoral pig.

                    3. Death! Death to all who oppose us!!

                    4. Oh, you mean the mass murders? We’re well aware of that already.

                2. I can imagine how painfully stupid it is.

        3. Burning fossil fuels does a lot of good for a lot of people. It has also done an enormous amount of good toward making the environment cleaner. Establishing that burning fossil fuels does some harm is not enough. You must also demonstrate that the harm outweighs the good they do, which is not at all clear.

          1. “You must also demonstrate that the harm outweighs the good they do, which is not at all clear.”

            Right. Clean Energy is more expensive. And I am sure that fucks like Tony are willing to pay a few nickels more for their kilowatt hour for the good of the world. But what they refuse to accept is that in a country where the average income is a couple bucks a day, that nickel increase means measurable, debilitating decreases in their daily callorie count, and in their ability to stay healthy.

            AGW and Clean Energy is the “Unseen Costs” analogy writt large. Billions of people will silently cry out in anguish as energy and food gets more expensive for them, while folks like Tony pat themselves on the back for their good deeds.

            1. But people who live on tiny islands and low lying coastal areas might have to move, so we all have to be poor now.

        4. Maybe that’s because “do not stop burning fossil fuels” is the upshot of every single denier commentary on the matter, especially of the libertarian sort.

          Right, because the development of wind and solar projects produces, from start to finish, no environmental impacts whatsoever.

    7. Actually man made global warming is going to save the planet from the coming ice age.

      Deniers are pro active environmentalists.

  7. Symbolic. Environmentalism is now more religion than science.

    Has been for some time. Mike Crichton summed it up nicely back in 2003.

    Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

  8. Is it Lenin’s birthday again already?

  9. “Environmentalism is now more religion than science”.

    True at all levels!

    The local conservation boards seems to take the attitude that New England was some sort of Eden before the wicked Europeans arrived and cut down all the forests and shot all the deer. However, the people who were here pre-1492 used the land very hard too, and not long before that, the whole place was a mile deep with ice. So tell me, just when was this paradise?

    But like all religious folks, they don’t want their beliefs disturbed with facts.

    1. the people who were here pre-1492 used the land very hard too

      It always amazes me how many people buy into the myth of the noble Native Americans who were all these perfect peaceful folks who lived in harmony with the land.

      Yet there are countless ruins across the country (Mesa Verde in CO, Chaco Canyon in NM, Azatlan in WI, and many others) where:

      1) The settlements were built in obviously defensable locations and/ or had walls around them. Why would they need to do that if they were such noble, peaceful souls? And

      2) The people who lived there eventually left, usually because they were no longer able to grow enough food to support their numbers because they used up the land.

      None of which is intended to disparage the Natives, but merely to point out that they weren’t really that different from the “war mongering, mother Earth raping” EVUL white men from Europe.

      1. Bingo, my point exactly: to these folks, people are bad, white people are worse, and white industrial people worst of all… if all those nasty people would just all go away, then the ecosystem would be in perfect, perpetual harmony and the bunnies and wolves could all just romp together peacefully in fields of clover.

      2. The Maya and Aztec, who are much considered to be among those “noble savages” were cannibals and mass sacrificial murderers of an organized style.

  10. Actually, Bjorn Lomborg does not disagree with the scientific conclusions of the IPCC, he disagrees with the policy prescriptions of the writers of the IPCC reports.

    Even if the earth is getting warmer, it doesn’t mean we have to commit economic suicide.

    1. Isaac Bartram|4.16.14 @ 12:56PM|#
      “Actually, Bjorn Lomborg does not disagree with the scientific conclusions of the IPCC, he disagrees with the policy prescriptions of the writers of the IPCC reports.”

      This is the point that zips right by Tony and his lying posse.
      Saying the demonstrated warming (not the failed predictions of same) can easily be accommodated is not the same as ‘denying’ anything.
      Tony doesn’t give a shit about the earth, the poor or any other of his supposed concerns; Tony cares about forcing people to do what Tony wants.
      Tony is fucking Lenin without Cheka.

    2. Yeah one thing that always annoys with this topic is that the warmists conflate several questions into one big hysterical shrieking fit.

      1 Is the globe getting warmer?
      2 Is this a net negative?
      3 Is this caused by human beings?
      4 Is it possible to reverse this?
      5 Is it sensible to attempt to reverse it, weighing all the pros and cons?

      The warmistas have persuaded themselves that proving the first automatically proves the rest, so they are very confused when someone can say that the planet may be warming, but that on the whole results will be positive. It confuses them greatly.

      1. How about, 6. Is it possible to reverse it? If the US regulates itself in the area other parts of the world market will take up the slack.

      2. Excellent summation, VAn. Those are precisely the correct questions and you are spot-on with your assessment of the position of the Warmers.

        I’m going to bowwow that list, if you don’t mind.

      3. But look at the comments here. We can’t even get past #1, even though science has long, long since figured it out. Why is that? What is it about being free market dogmatists that makes it impossible to just accept facts as they come in this matter? Maybe before you start lecturing others about their nefarious motivations you should look at yourselves and figure out why you can’t just deal with facts on the ground. But then you can’t do that when it comes to anything, because you’re a bunch of utopian simpletons who don’t care about facts as much as being right about your quasi-religious bullshit.

        Everyone is talking about policy approaches. Doing nothing is one approach, and it is certainly not cost-free. It’s probably the most costly of all options. There is no free lunch here.

        1. It’s probably the most costly of all options.

          Speaking of denialism… that’s not even true according to the IPCC’s own estimate.

          1. No, the IPCC says it’s difficult for economists to calculate the coming environmental harm, so modellers are calculating costs of policies assuming no economic impact of climate change. That’s a big gap, as I’m sure you appreciate, because the costs of doing nothing are going to be huge (immeasurably so).

            Since we’ve been hitting worst-case scenario outcomes on a regular basis, we can’t for sure say that the worst-case outcome is out of the realm of plausibility: the near-complete destruction of the biosphere of planet earth.

            Pointy-heads like Lomborg can’t calculate the cost of things even a fraction of that magnitude and they shouldn’t pretend that they can.

            1. That’s why they provide a range.

              The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP ? and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). Achieving material mitigation, at a cost of 2 per cent and more of global GDP, would require international co-ordination that we have known since the failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change simply was not going to happen. Even if it did happen, and were conducted optimally, it would mitigate only a fraction of the total rise, and might create its own risks.

              1. Ah, an opinion article from before the actual report release, which gets all of its facts wrong.

                1. Which facts are wrong?

                  1. He’s not going to tell you, Jordan.

                  2. Which facts are wrong?

                    “The ones in your link, of course. DERP.”

                    -Tony

                  3. Jordan Tony has his own set of facts and he won’t let anyone else play with them

                    It’s a sort of privilege that sets him apart and above.

                    Be nice to him though. he is expecting to be one of those TOP MEN when he gets out of school.

        2. Tony|4.16.14 @ 1:40PM|#
          “But look at the comments here. We can’t even get past #1, even though science has long, long since figured it out.”

          Yeah, the data says no increase for 17 years and counting, while the predictions were for an un-inhabitable NYC by now, so we should definitely listen to assholes like you!

          1. Have you been to NYC, it is uninhabitable by normal humans! A New Mutant race of socialists has been bred to occupy it instead.

            1. True enough, but we can blame Bloomy for that, not GW.

        3. I liked whoever was ghostwriting for you before – much more articulate yet still as fucking stupid.

        4. Tony lectures about facts:

          “it impossible to just accept facts as they come in this matter?

          and figure out why you can’t just deal with facts on the ground.

          because you’re a bunch of utopian simpletons who don’t care about facts”

          Tony you are welcome to your own opinions but you may not have your own facts.

          Well as that old singing cowboys once said, ” Happy Trolls to You”.

      4. 1 Is the globe getting warmer?

        Yes, we are leaving an ice age.

        2 Is this a net negative?

        No. Warmer means more arable land, more fresh water that is not locked in ice, and a more hospitable climate overall.

        3 Is this caused by human beings?

        Unknown. While humans must affect the climate, as all things within the climate must, we do not have enough evidence to suggest that humans are the primary cause. Since we are coming out of an ice age, a process that neccessarily involves warming, and since this process started before modern industrialized civilization, logic suggests that while humans may be aiding the process, they are not the cause of it.

        4 Is it possible to reverse this?

        Reverse what? The warming of the climate to non-ice age levels? Or whatever the human contribution might be? One is insane–it would mean attempting to restart an ice age. This is an extinction event. The second is impossible. We cannot erase the evidence of our existence on this planet while we still exist–unless we leave.

        5 Is it sensible to attempt to reverse it, weighing all the pros and cons?

        See above.

        1. 3 Is this caused by human beings?
          This is where a little science and math would come in handy. Observability theory says that making this determination is impossible even IF we can measure the relevant climatic data at every point on the earth.

          Why? Climate and weather are both chaotic, non-linear systems. Observability theory demonstrates that one cannot determine the output from such a system due to a single input unless one turns off all the other inputs first.

          In short, unless we turn off the sun, vulcanism and the impact of the earths topography on ocean currents and the jet stream, as well as a half a dozen other effects, there is no way we are going to determine what is the result of humanities impact on the global climate.

    3. it doesn’t mean we have to commit economic suicide

      Everything the left wants to do is economic suicide. They won’t be satisfied until we’re all in subsistence communes, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers.

      1. “they propose to arrange a world in which change is brought under control so as to put an end to a disturbingly free will and to society’s uncharted moves. They aspire to return from the linear Hebrew-Christian concept to the Greco-Hindu cycle ? that is, to a changeless, timeless permanence. []But, he [Marx] wants to abolish the marketplace and its economic as well as intellectual (‘legal, political, philosophical, religious, aesthetic’) components, so as to restore a simple world ? a monochrome landscape. His economics is not economics but an instrument of total control”

        Not a lot of people fully appreciate how dangerous leftism is. The idea of economic suicide as you mentioned is true, but it’s part of a larger issue, namely the fact that utopianism has an implied “stasis” once everything is perfect, there is no need for change.

        1. the quote is from thomas molnar btw

        2. It’s not that environmentalism is a religion-it’s that leftism is a religion, the greenies are just one aspect of it. I might have mentioned this before-but leftism is nothing more than a secular carrier of “gnosticism.” Any Eric Voegelin fans here? those who aren’t, check out his works..very VERY cool.

  11. “Environmentalism is now more religion than science”

    What do you mean now?

    When was it ever anything other than that?

    1. Real pollution and deforestation among other environmental things are legitimate problems. Maybe you wouldn’t call people who think realistically about such things “environmentalists”, but not all environmental problems are bullshit.

      1. It’s the ISM at the end which tends to bring on the religiosity.

        Recognizing that the river is on fire and saying, “This is screwed up, we have to fix this” doesn’t necessarily make one an environmentalist.

        There are lots of localized environmental problems that I’m fully believe need remediation, but I will never call myself an environmentalist.

        1. The global warming crowd is the worst thing to happen to the environment. Before global warming people’s energies went to making their little ecosphere a healthier, cleaner place. All that energy was misplaced and has been put into a non-event. The pre-AGW environmental movement was basically okay. It took stinky rivers and made them okay to swim in.

      2. Zeb|4.16.14 @ 1:23PM|#
        “Real pollution and deforestation”…

        I’ll go with pollution, but I’m pretty sure we are now seeing REforestation, unless the ‘sustainable ag’ folks get their way and we return to slash and burn ag.

        1. I’m disappointed that we don’t have rivers we cna light on fire anymore.

        2. Well, that’s just the US. The Amazon and Indonesia are two places that are being hit pretty hard by deforestation.

          1. Juice|4.16.14 @ 1:51PM|#
            “Well, that’s just the US. The Amazon and Indonesia are two places that are being hit pretty hard by deforestation.”

            Any cites on this? I seem to remember something not long ago re: Brazil where the ‘deforestation’ is cutting second-growth forest.
            Dunno about Indonesia.

            1. Sumatra had plenty of trees when I was there.

        3. Not necessarily immediate problems everywhere, but they are legitimate things to be concerned about generally.

      3. Almost anywhere that deforestation is a problem it has been caused by government subsidies to either timber or agricultural interests.

  12. I agree with the article that environmentalists seem to come in increasingly extreme strains of late. Also, why I think some environmental regulation comes pretty darn close to a true public good that a minarchist could respect, it is something that also seems to fail the NAP. Having said that, it seems that our opponents could rightly point to some strong strains of dogma, battles over symbolism, and ‘doomsday’ like thinking among libertarians too.

    1. Many libertarians seem to think that if you can’t see it, it must not do you harm. Therefore they dismiss the realities of radiation, particulate matter and other pollutants which kill and hurt millions.

      Nixon created the EPA. In the scope of history, this is a great thing. You sure cannot count on the industrialists to keep the water, air and land clean.

      I have a family member who is also an “esq” who worked in clean water litigation. It would make your skin crawl to hear what corporations do – and often get away with due to multiple bankruptcies, lax enforcement, corporate shell games, etc.

      Basically it’s the same old story – they privatize the profits and socialize the costs. One case she worked on involved literally tens of millions of Americans who are paying more for water because of corporate ground pollution. New equipment had to be installed to filter out these poisons, but the companies who made them are now defunct and hidden under many layers.

      Sad. People talk about leaving a better world to their kids and then they want to do away with air, water and land protection?

      1. You’re putting words in our mouths.

        Just because we do not believe in the same process to protect our environment as you, does not mean we are not for protecting the environment.

        Most libertarians that I know are actually for some environmental regulation, just not to the point of using it to justify the destruction of capitalist markets.

        Pollution is considered a form of aggression. If you put particles in the air that cause me to have lung cancer, you should be held liable for that. The problem is that it is very hard to say whose particles they were, which is why libertarians are okay with environmental regulation. It is the most intelligent way to deal with the problem.

        But again, we’re not for using it to destroy our enemies, as the left is wont to do.

        1. Actually, just the wanting of a “different process” other than the laws and institutions developed over decades and centuries DOES pretty much mean you aren’t serious about protection of the environment.

          This would be like me saying I believe in rolling personal transportation safety, but we should throw out cars as they are, air bags, seat belts, etc. and go with some unproven method which I thought up and wrote some fictional books about (see Atlas Shrugged, etc.)….

          It’s easy to whine about stuff. And, no, the existing ways are never the best possible. But to think that some “new way” is going to happen is plain old crazy. Then, thinking that new way is superior to the existing one – without many decades of testing and results – is secondarily crazy.

          Anyone of “reason” know when you take one tiny percentage and then multiply it by another tiny percentage, you have “virtually impossible”.

          We might as well discuss what would happen if the Lord God descended and cleaned up the air by breathing in and out, and the water by drinking it and pissing. That has about the same chance of happening as a successful dissolution of our modern institutions and the replacement of with something better.

          Again, this is not to claim existing systems are perfect.

          1. You mean some “new way” like the clean air act was? A rational, intelligent person might propose, oh, say, a Coasian solution which could be much more effective than the centrally controlled EPA. But that would be a rational person.

            Get back to me when you actually have an argument to make.

          2. “Again, this is not to claim existing systems are perfect.”

            “Perfect” is not an option; tell us how you and other TOP MEN are equipped to make better choices than the market.
            And please do so in DETAIL.

      2. Nixon created the EPA. In the scope of history, this is a great thing. You sure cannot count on the industrialists to keep the water, air and land clean.

        And then you idiots wonder why blue-collar industrial union jobs dried up left, right, and center immediately following the establishment of said EPA.

      3. As usual, you make spurious generalities that you could not possibly back up. It’s amazing how much mileage you’d get with “I think that…” rather than idiotic general statements.

  13. In fact, testimony by William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University who pointed out the pause in warming to members of Congress, spurred some of Santer’s research into the topic.

    Happer believes that carbon dioxide does have a warming effect on the atmosphere but that its effect has been wildly overestimated by climate models.

    So, don’t believe those climate models any more, but trust us, these climate models are correct-er.

    1. It’s circular logic anyway. The conclusion is the premise: human activity is bad and needs to be controlled.

      The stuff that happens in between the premise and the conclusion doesn’t really matter, since the entire argument is a fallacy.

      1. That assumption really does underlie all of this. Even if you accept global warming as fact, it is far from obvious that it is a completely bad thing and even farther from obvious that the proposed cures are not worse than the symptoms.

        1. It’s pretty clear that we can’t go on heating up the planet or increasing the concentration of CO2 beyond where it’s been during the entire time the human species has existed. That is not a cost-free or minimal-cost option, and it should be pretty clear that it’s not.

          1. You can’t increase CO2 without causing harm because you can’t increase CO2 without causing harm.

            More circular reasoning.

          2. It’s pretty clear that we can’t go on heating up the planet or increasing the concentration of CO2 beyond where it’s been during the entire time the human species has existed.

            Is it?

            That is not a cost-free or minimal-cost option, and it should be pretty clear that it’s not.

            Neither is forcing people to use less energy or less efficient and economical sources of energy. Why do you think that cost/benefit analysis doesn’t apply here?

            1. Everything should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Why do you think you should be able to destroy other people’s lives so you don’t have to alter yours?

              1. Did I say that?

                Poor people in low lying coastal areas benefit from the use of fossil fuels as well. And retarding their economic development will only hurt their ability to adapt if and when anything catastrophic does happen.

                It is just stupid to pretend that only rich Americans (and I am pretty far from rich) benefit from cheap energy and technology. It is poor people who will be hurt the most by artificial restrictions on development and energy use.

                1. It’s poor people who will be hurt first by climate change and it will be much worse than higher gas prices.

                  Could you be any more of an industry apologist?

                  1. Jesus tap dancing Christ, no, you’re wrong, fuck you. Poor people will first be hurt by economic self destruction and artificial scarcity in energy resources created by asshats who are so full of themselves that the can reverse planetary trends that have been happening for 4.5 billion years.

                    Fuck you.

                  2. Sorry:

                    “full of themselves that *they think they can reverse or alter* planetary trends that have been happening for 4.5 billion years.

                    And fuck you again.

                  3. I’d love to spend more time making fun Tony’s innumeracy but I have to go and cash my oil company check and head to the monocle emporium. I’ll make sure and drive my most fuel inefficient vehicle, just for you Tony.

        2. Well, on NPR the other day, they were talking about how greenhouse gas emissions were going to have to drop to ZERO in like the next century, and scientists are seriously looking at terraforming the entire globe to fix Climate Change.

          Basically, if I understand the vision, all economic activity must stop, we must all jog in place while eating organic kale, and/or a massive, global terraforming project must take place involving the United Federation of Planets.

          1. Yeah it’s going to be next to impossible. Which is why we should just sit around and wait for the end? Guess the NAP doesn’t apply to future generations.

            1. Which is why we should just sit around and wait for the end?

              The end of the world is nigh! Stop your carbon sinning ways! Repent! Repent! Look at the signs! The droughts! The harsh winters! The storms! It’s the end! Repent I say! Repent!

              /doomsday cult preacher

              1. Wait for the end? It’s like they don’t even know that historically, humans have thrived during the warmer periods and suffered during the colder periods. Longer growing seasons, milder winters, etc. have historically been a great boon to human progress and civilization. They also don’t seem to know that the globe has always cycled between cold periods (ice age) and warmer periods (inter glacial). The cold periods are actually the more typical state of affairs, while the warm periods are anomalous. In fact, we are just about due for the onset of another ice age, which would be orders of magnitude more devastating to human civilization than an extended warm period.

                1. The interglacials are part of the ice age. As long as there is continental glaciation (Greenland, Antarctica), we are still in an ice age. There have been much longer warm periods where the poles were not permanently covered in ice. Of course this was well before humans existed.

                2. There has never been as heavy a concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the entirety of the existence of the human species. We are not only entering a climate phase unlike any our species has ever seen, we are causing a global extinction event, with pretty much the exact same techniques of a large asteroid or other causes of prior extinction events.

                  1. We are not only entering a climate phase unlike any our species has ever seen, we are causing a global extinction event, with pretty much the exact same techniques of a large asteroid or other causes of prior extinction events.

                    That has to be the dumbest, most baseless statement you’ve made here, amongst an embarrassment of riches. Every time you mock evangelicals for their beliefs in apocalypticism, someone should throw this quote back in your face.

            2. What end? That is what is so fucking stupid about Tony’s argument. Even if the worst predictions come true, it’s not the end of the world. It makes things uncomfortable for some people in some places.

              It is absurd to think that the planet being a bit warmer is going to mean an end to the species which evolved on tropical planes, yet lives everywhere on the planet that it is even remotely possible to live.
              Do you really think that people are just going to sit there and not adapt to a changing climate? Honestly, what is this “end” that you imagine? If the worst predictions come true, it will not be a happy situation all around, but humans survived a fucking ice age. I think we can figure out how to live on a slightly warmer planet.

              1. The people I talk to on a regular basis actually believe their children will live in a (I’m quoting directly here) “Mad Max wasteland”.

                When a co-worker, whose wife happened to be pregnant at the time, expressed this opinion, I really had to suppress the urge to ask him why he was having children at all when by his own admission he was consigning them to a life of violence and misery.

              2. I saw a NOVA series recently on Australia, which started with the formation of the planet to the present day. They talked a bit about one of our warmer periods, which apparently had a tremendous amount and variety of life. Far more than today.

                So I’m a little surprised the Gaea crowd doesn’t actually crave a warmer planet.

                1. I liked that series a lot.

                  I think that a lot of supposed liberal enviro-types really are reactionary conservatives. They want the whole world to be a museum. It is irrelevant that change is really the norm. From now on, things have to stay the same.

                2. So I’m a little surprised the Gaea crowd doesn’t actually crave a warmer planet.

                  I’m sure they would be fine with it if it was natural. But this is happening because of human activity, which is unnatural. To make matters worse, evil corporations are making profits. Capitalists are getting rich. That in itself is bad and must be stopped, but it’s even worse because it’s causing unnatural climate change. To say that a warmer climate would be better is to admit that maybe capitalism isn’t all that bad. Not going to happen. Remember that the logical conclusion of environmentalism is all of us living in subsistence communes surrounded by razor wire and armed guards. That’s the only sure way to keep us from harming the planet, other than eliminating the human race. And if you haven’t noticed from those Life after People programs, killing everyone is their morbid fantasy.

                  1. As individuals we are all very clever and rational, I’m sure. But collectively, humanity is just another force of nature. I assume that everything that is possible for people to do, people will do at some point.
                    I comfort myself with the thought that people are never organized or brutal enough on a large enough scale to bring about the logical endgame that you imagine.

                    1. I comfort myself with the thought that people are never organized or brutal enough on a large enough scale to bring about the logical endgame that you imagine.

                      Do you forget the horrors of the last century?

                    2. Zeb, human nature is no different today than it was when we were clubbing each other while wearing animal skins. The only difference is that we’ve got more toys. That’s it. We’re still three steps out of the cave as far as human nature goes. So yeah, we’re totally capable of that logical endgame.

                    3. I don’t know. The horrors of the 20th century ended for the most part. Communism collapsed, the Nazis were defeated.
                      I maintain some hope that these things are self correcting to some extent. People will only put up with that shit for so long. Once people’s comfort and safety are threatened, they will fight back.
                      Human nature is in many ways brutal and cruel, absolutely. But it is also selfish and individualistic. It may have to get pretty bad for it to happen, but people will push back eventually.

                    4. There seems to be some progress, but on the news the other day 100 young girls were kidnapped by Islamic extremists from a school in Nigeria. I don’t think they were taken to the prom.

                      And, when they went after the Arizona rancher they actually had snipers in place. SNIPERS!!! Over fees.

                      “Captain, I’ve got one of the daughters in my sites, should I take the shot?” “Which one, the one in pigtails, or the one with the ponytail?” “She looks about 11. I’d say pigtails.” “Yeah, take the shot. They deserve it. They didn’t pay their fees.”

                      What kind of human shows up to collect fees and puts snipers in place? And, what kind of human, the sniper himself, agrees to kill someone over fees not being paid?

                    5. “I maintain some hope that these things are self correcting to some extent. ”
                      The self correction is called total war (fascism) and economic collapse (communism). The cold was has left an economic dent that we are simply refusing to accept – and delaying the inevitable only makes it worse.

                      The self correcting mechanisms are a bitch.

              3. I go to Mexico every winter. I go from freezing to living in 80 degree weather. I adapt by putting on some flip flops. My adaptation period is about 2 minutes. Apparently, we can live in igloos in the Arctic, and tropical huts around the equator, and be able to withstand these 40 degree celsius changes, but if the atmosphere warms up 1 degree….it is curtains for all of humanity.

          2. terraforming the entire globe

            What the hell does that even mean? Pretty sure the Earth is by definition already terraform.

            1. According to the story, massive, global-scale CO2/Greenhouse gas catchment systems would be put into place to store the CO2.

              The person describing this was vague about what that would look like because he admitted, there’s no model for this, and no one really knows how it will work, but it’s an option “we” should be looking at.

              Climate Change Adjustments Must Be Fast And Major, U.N. Panel Says

              Greenhouse gas emissions will have to drop 40 to 70 percent by 2050 ? and then drop even more, to nearly zero by the end of this century ? the report says.

              […]

              Another part of the report addresses so-called “geo-engineering” technologies that could possibly manipulate the atmosphere and artificially cool the planet.

              “It’s quite controversial. It’s controversial among environmental advocates, it’s controversial among scientists, and it’s certainly controversial among governments,” says Stavins. “But research is clearly needed.”

              The report doesn’t recommend specific policies; instead, it maps out the options. It says that delaying action will make it much harder to bring greenhouse gas emissions down.

              You didn’t… think I was… joking did you?

              http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw…..panel-says

              1. Whatever comes of the current theories of global warming/climate change, global environmental catastrophe is not an impossibility. So geo-engineering is something to think about at least. Better than shutting down all economic activity, anyway.

                I think Futurama gave us the right answer. Just grab a comet and put it in the ocean as a giant ice cube.

                1. Whatever comes of the current theories of global warming/climate change, global environmental catastrophe is not an impossibility

                  It’s certainly not an impossibility if a bunch of overeager scientists start “geo-engineering” the planet to stave off something climate models can’t agree on.

                  1. Lots of natural things too. Asteroids, comets, big solar flares, aliens, volcanism could all make life hard for people.

                  2. That actually is frightening. Who knows what kind of idiotic response they would take.

              2. I hope these “geoengineering” technologies also include great big heaters in them for when the ice sheets start moving towards the equator again.

              3. Another part of the report addresses so-called “geo-engineering” technologies that could possibly manipulate the atmosphere and artificially cool the planet.

                I can see this ending far more apocalyptically than the burning of fossil fuels.

                Setting out to intentionally manipulate weather/climate from a beginning of pretty fucking obvious ignorance of the processes involved in climate just seems like a recipe for disaster.

                And why in the Holy Fuck would we want the Earth to be cooler? Did this idiot miss the historical lesson of the Little Ice Age?

                1. “Did this idiot miss the historical lesson of the Little Ice Age?”
                  No. ‘This idiot’ uses the little ice age age as a baseline in order to hype up the ‘warming trends’, it was warmer 1000 and 2000 years ago. ‘This Idiot’ is not stupid – he is evil incarnate. The elites want their feudalism back.

  14. I would welcome the Environmentalist religious movement if its members swung (oops- swinging member? erm…) like the Libertarian Christians we have around here. From what I can tell the Libertarian Christian just wants to abide with their faith in peace without government sticking its fucking nose in their faith or being the long arm of their faith.

    1. Never going to happen because the first article of faith for the Environmentalist religion is that force must be used to stop the EVIL CORE-POUR-RAY-SHUUUUUNS from destroying the planet.

      1. Well, corporations can be pretty damn evil and environmentally destructive. If it can be proven that a corporation is poisoning the water your child drinks I’m all for a giant corporate wedgie smackdown. However, this is different than the free market aversion set on autopilot which seems to infect most environmentalists.

        Frankly, the fuckers SHOULD swing Libertarian just to get their collective cognition some perspective because in spite of evil ‘corepourayshuns’ who do pollute and abuse their labor there are plenty others who offer tremendous benefits to their employees and communities.

        1. I don’t think people hostile to capitalism are capable of seeing those benefits. All they see is rich people which causes an emotional reaction. The rest is derp.

          1. The brain is no longer part of the reality paradigm.

            1. That’s assuming it ever was.

        2. It can be proven. I have a family member who worked in water litigation and proved it.

          Problem is, such things cannot be proven until many decades later (just as radiation often kills 10-20 years after exposure), so the companies are usually long gone. So you and I pay up…and the people are already poisoned by the time it gets sorted out – if ever.

          Corporations are evil in this sense. If it’s profitable for them to hurt people, they will. Since most corporations tend to be short-term thinkers, the criminals are long gone before the jig is up.

          I’d be interested in how you can get the chickens back after the fox is already burping them up.

          1. “Corporations are evil in this sense. If it’s profitable for them to hurt people, they will. Since most corporations tend to be short-term thinkers, the criminals are long gone before the jig is up.”

            There is no doubt that corporations are really bad about that. Fortunately, not anywhere nearly as bad as the government.
            Now if your crystal ball is really good, why don’t you scurry off and get me next week’s lotto numbers?

            1. My ball says once the trillions of gallons of groundwater are polluted, you really can’t clean them up without socializing the costs.

              What does yours say?

              1. craiginmass|4.16.14 @ 10:38PM|#
                “My ball says once the trillions of gallons of groundwater are polluted, you really can’t clean them up without socializing the costs.”

                Uh, yes.
                So what? I notice you failed to address your implied claim that horrible KORPORASHUNS are worse than government.
                Why did you do that?

              2. Mine says that the government is one of the bestest polluters on the planet!

                “The Hanford site represents two-thirds of the nation’s high-level radioactive waste by volume.[8] Hanford is currently the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States[9][10] and is the focus of the nation’s largest environmental cleanup.[2]

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

                1. NAS,
                  Don’t use up all the ammo at once! I’m gonna ask cim to explain the mess in the former East Germany after he digs the hole a bit deeper.

                  1. Don’t worry. I’ve got more. 🙂

    2. That would be nice. A lot of environmentalism really comes down to personal aesthetic preference. I could almost call myself an environmentalist. I like wild, “natural” environments and places without people and all that. I’ve even been known to hug a tree now and then. I just don’t think I get to tell everyone else what to value as far as that stuff goes or force people to maintain that stuff for me.

      1. I tend to be like that also. I own acreage for the very reason to be close to nature and the privacy it offers. I cleared very little of the land to build the house on just to maintain the woodiness. Like you I love trees even though I’ve sold quite a few large white oaks off which has allowed the smaller trees to just take off.

        Environmentalism, tho, seems to have far less to do with ethical management, sustainability, and common sense conservation than it does about jamming unreasonable expectations perched on wild idealizations of the natural state down the throats of citizens behind the barrel of guns they supposedly hate.

  15. What the fuck is it with doomsday cults and suicide? If the envirowacko doomsday cultists would just off themselves, I’d be fine with that. But no, they’ve got to take everyone down with them by insisting on using government force to destroy the economy and everyone’s standard of living. They won’t be happy until we’re living a stone age existence, enforced by people with guns. I wish they’d just kill themselves and leave everyone else alone.

    1. Think of them as the crazy guy with an assault rifle who kills himself at the end. They can never just skip to the ‘kill themselves at the end’ part.

    2. The planet would be left without its bodyguard/savior so mass suicide would never be on the agenda.

  16. Honest question for Tony:

    You’ve been reading HnR for quite some time now. You don’t seem to turn up in the A.M./P.M. links too often, or in some of the other interesting threads that don’t hit your preferred topics (climate change, inequality, etc.), but even so, you must have gathered that many of the posters here, including those engaging you on this topic, are (1) intelligent, (2) well-spoken, (3) often well-informed on many diverse topics. For example, I think it’s FdA who knows quite a bit about military aviation (and he also likes Stossel). It’s part of what makes it interesting to read/post here. I would bet many of them know much much more about many science topics than you do. Physics, computer science, nutrition, among others, seem to be popular topics.

    What is it about climate change that makes you think they’re “ignorant”? Why are we the paid shills, while the motivations of those who are “alarmists” pure as the driven snow?

    1. Re: BiMonSciFiCon

      The sockpuppet is gone. Besides, he was never interested in an honest discussion, so he won’t answer an honest question. Don’ bother.

      You don’t seem to turn up in the A.M./P.M. links too often

      And never when there’s a report on government abuse, waste or mismanagement. He is never there to defend the government when the government does wrong despite his assurances that without government we would all live in a The Road kind of hellish dystopia; but he’s always there to give his inane and baseless accusations against libertarians whenever there’s a discussion on so-called climate change, inequality or gay rights.

      When the Brendan Eich/Mozilla thing happened, there was Tony with the freshly-minted Think Progress talking points, which did not deviate from the “anybody against gay marriage is a bigot!” boilerplate.

      1. If I don’t show up in a thread it usually means I agree with the argument. I’m more libertarian than you think.

        Though, nothing has pushed me further from it than debating you guys and realizing what unrepentant morons most of you are.

        1. Re: Tony,

          If I don’t show up in a thread it usually means I agree with the argument. I’m more libertarian than you think.

          I don’t think you’re libertarian at all. I prefer the simpler explanation: you’re a fucking hypocrite, like most proggies.

          Though, nothing has pushed me further from it than debating you guys and realizing what unrepentant morons most of you are.

          “I’m too sexy to respond! Too sexy, it hurts!”

          I rest my case, ladies and gentlemen.

    2. Unpaid shills, importantly.

      No doubt all of you have more expertise in various areas. I am an expert in one or two things, but they don’t often come up here. I do consider myself very well versed in at least understanding what makes something a fact and what makes something bullshit, and consider science to be the preeminent human endeavor when it comes to figuring out the way reality works.

      I am not the one treating this field of science differently from how I treat others. That would be all these guys. There is a huge body of work out there, and the denier viewpoint is simply, obviously absurd. That you’re mostly in lockstep about it is something I find utterly astonishing. I’m not new to attacks on science, and the denier playbook might as well be pasted from the creationist playbook with some words switched out. Goalpost moving, special pleading, changing the subject–it’s all there.

      Except that the science behind climate change is, if anything, but less complicated than the science behind evolution, which these guys (except John) all accept. The reason for their denial is political and tribal. All I ask is that people proportion belief to evidence, and that they consult reliable sources for evidence. That’s it. I don’t know why it’s so hard.

      1. I do consider myself very well versed in at least understanding what makes something a fact and what makes something bullshit, and consider science to be the preeminent human endeavor when it comes to figuring out the way reality works.

        Bullshit. As it has been explained over and over, climate “science” does not follow the scientific method (hypotheses, prediction, test, analysis). It follows the political method (vote, consensus, endless propaganda).

        Goalpost moving, It’s warming the oceans! special pleading, ignore the last twenty years! changing the subject government funded the internet so you’re wrong! –it’s all there. Yes. It’s all there.

        1. Bullshit. As it has been explained over and over, climate “science” does not follow the scientific method (hypotheses, prediction, test, analysis). It follows the political method (vote, consensus, endless propaganda).

          You’re so fucking dumb it’s painful.

          1. What predictions of theirs have come true?

            Yeah. That’s what I thought.

            That’s not science. That’s politics.

      2. Re: Tony,

        I do consider myself very well versed in at least understanding what makes something a fact and what makes something bullshit,

        That’s debatable. Actually, the consensus is that you pretty much shovel it pretty thick. The science is settled.

        There is a huge body of work out there, and the denier viewpoint is simply, obviously absurd.

        First of all, there’s no “denier” viewpoint; there are alternative explanations for the same phenomena, none of which justify government control over people. That’s the difference you don’t like.

        Except that the science behind climate change is, if anything, but less complicated than the science behind evolution

        You’ve got to be kidding me, Tony. It is clear you have not even a clue of what you talk about. The science behind Natural Selection encompasses several disciplines and enjoys the fact that natural selection moves extremely slowly, whereas climate is many orders more complicated to study, requiring exact knowledge of how variables interact with each other plus is is still terribly young as a science.

        The fact that you prefer the explanation that best suits government control is what precludes people of critical thinking skills to take you seriously, me included.

        1. And the fact that you’re required to deny scientific fact in order to suit your dogma says what about you? Why not come up with solutions to the problem that fit your dogma? Why prefer to ruin your credibility by behaving no better than a creationist?

          Let’s say for the sake of argument that the world scientific community has it right about the problem. Aren’t you just conceding that there is no solution that doesn’t require large government action?

          1. What scientific fact? They’ve got a hypothesis. They’ve got predictions. Now what have they gotten right? Where are those rising sea levels? Where is the accelerated warming? Oh yeah. Obama got elected and stopped all that.

          2. All they’ve got is a consensus, which is meaningless in science. It was Einstein who said something to the effect of “It only takes one experiment to prove me wrong.” He wanted to be proven wrong! That’s science! AGW people say the debate is over. There are no experiments that can prove them wrong. Attempting to prove them wrong will get you kicked out of the club. That’s not science. That’s politics.

          3. Tony|4.16.14 @ 7:13PM|#
            “And the fact that you’re required to deny scientific fact in order to suit your dogma says what about you?”

            17 years and counting; no appreciable temperature change.
            Now, shitpile, who’s ‘denying’ science?

            1. 17 years and counting; no appreciable temperature change.

              I heard on NPR that that’s only because the sun isn’t putting out as much heat as normal (whatever normal is) and the global warming is still happening. When the sun gets back to normal (whatever normal is) then all that human caused warming will happen all at once. Like a staircase. We’re on a step, but what’s coming is vertical.

              I wonder what they’ll concoct when that doesn’t pan out.

              1. “I heard on NPR that that’s only because the sun isn’t putting out as much heat as normal (whatever normal is) and the global warming is still happening.”

                The same sort of special pleading that King has been doing ever since “PEAK OIL” didn’t happen when he predicted.
                The same sort of special pleading Ehrlich has been doing since “THE POPULATION BOMB” fizzled.
                And: “1988 Rob Reiss asked official Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, whereupon Climate scientist James Hansen issues this prediction, to be fullfilled in 20 years, which is to say, doom by 2008: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change?.There will be more police cars?.[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
                http://beforeitsnews.com/liber…..57872.html

                There was a claim about 2010 that Hansen had been misquoted; it was 30 years; 2018. Well, the Hudson had better start running at flood stage, stat!

          4. Look, Tony, a journal article. It’s in Nature. We call this a prestigious publication so it satisfies your appeal to authority. It certainly was peer reviewed, too. Shall we look at the abstract? We shall.

            “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.”

            Facts aren’t errors, Tony. Errors are errors.

            And lest we forget the Feynman quote,

            “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

            Now this doesn’t say that CO2 isn’t a GHG. That can and has been verified in a controlled setting. BUT, the models rely on an amplification of the effect of CO2 through a positive feedback on water vapor. And like aerosols the models fudge this factor to match the ~15-20years of warming at the end of the 20th century. But that simply introduced a warm bias to the models which have now broken when faced with the cooling part of the 60yr ocean cycle.

      3. Tony|4.16.14 @ 5:39PM|#
        “Unpaid shills, importantly.”

        Who’s dumb enough to pay for your lies, shitpile?

  17. Except for Nuclear … remember when “environmentalists” were against Nuclear? It’s ok now — the grandfather of the global warming hoax said so; and has received plenty of awards (with money) from people who have investments in the industry to prove that he’s right. Yep, all the “environmentalists” completely forgot about Big Nuc.

    1. 1970’s “China Syndrome”

      Yet another boomer regulatory neurosis that we are still paying for.

    2. Nuclear still not ok, and it never will be.

      Much like natural gas was great, until a way was developed to extract it that made it cheap and plentiful.

      Being anything other than a miserable half-naked ape squatting in a mud hut rubbing two sticks together for warmth is wrong.

      You can bet if the laws of physics suddenly changed and wind/solar suddenly became cost effective and produced cheap energy that allowed the unwashed masses to live comfortable lives the envirocultists would find a reason to be opposed to that.

      I’ve seen it posted here (and elsewhere) before, but all leftist thought can be understood if you start with the premise that “people” are evil and sinful and their evil sinful natures must be kept in check and work backward from there.

  18. I have kids in my house & I hate toilet training. They have accidents that I have to clean up. Baby wipes clean up faster & but I hate dirty wipes, so I flush them, & I flush a lot of them.

    My jerk neighbor works for the sewer department. He says there ought to be a law against flushing baby wipes. I hate this guy, he’s nosy & arrogant.

    I asked my plumber friends about wipes. 97% of them told me flushing baby wipes is a bad idea & I would pay the price. They told horror stories about rodding sewer lines to clear wipes. 3% of them said it was fine to flush wipes.

    We had a family meeting & my wife came up with 5 alternatives:
    (1) Use something different that doesn’t clog the sewer lines–but it would be more expensive & time consuming
    (2) put the diaper genie in the bathroom for dirty wipes — but then I am stuck emptying the genie every few days
    (3) only use toilet paper to clean up — but we would spend more on toilet paper & it would be a pain
    (4) put a bidet in our bathroom — a what!? that’s what europeans use, no freaking way
    (5) build an outhouse in back and let it fall where it may– this one I like because it would piss off our idiot neighbor, but no

    Option 6, I knew better than to say this, was to stop cleaning up the kids’ accidents & let her do it. Down this path is heartache & breakup songs.

    I decided that since I don’t like the solutions, & I hate my idiot neighbor, I am going to ignore the problem and keep flushing baby wipes.

  19. There are so few green libertarians here that it is probably a waste of time to point out that the oil/gas industry is getting more subsides then any clean energy efforts or pro environment efforts. All of these hit pieces are about Co2 and global warming, they all conveniently ignore species loss and deforestation.

    Even if we take out all of the global warming hoopla we are still stuck with this level of damage that “WE” have created on our own.

    http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html

    1. Any article which quotes Paul Ehrlich can be safely ignored. The numbers that writer comes up with look pretty ex rectum to me.

      But then unfounded assertions are the stock in trade of environmentalists.

      Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that libertarians have been railing against all government subsidies since, well, forever.

      The libertarian position is to eliminate all subsidies and let all energy sources compete in the marketplace.

    2. Daz|4.16.14 @ 5:42PM|#
      “There are so few green libertarians here that it is probably a waste of time to point out that the oil/gas industry is getting more subsides then any clean energy efforts or pro environment efforts.”

      Given that it’s an outright lie, you’re right.

    3. Lie. It’s even worse when you look at the subsidy in terms of $/unit of energy.

  20. “Do environmentalists even care about measuring costs instead of just assuming benefits? ”

    Whoever wrote this article has absolutely zero clue about the way things work – or else they know, but are trying to deliberately mislead. Either way, it’s a sin…..

    I’ve been involved in negotiations with the EPA and that is exactly how things work! That is, the costs vs. benefits are carefully plotted out by the EPA and the Industries affected – sitting at the same table. Science as well as BAT (best available technology) are called in to prove themselves.

    An example are the cleaner IC cars we all enjoy today – which are now slated to get much better in the future. The auto industry approved of the final standards – they can meet them and it’s best for everyone – even idiots who can’t understand about the millions who contact disease from bad air.

    I expected better from “reason”, but I guess whipping up the base trumps reasonable discussion.

    1. You mean established companies like regulations that raise entry costs to industry and create costs that they can more easily absorb than the competition?

      I’m shocked!

    2. “An example are the cleaner IC cars we all enjoy today”

      I’m glad you picked such a miserable example to show how EPA works.
      The ’70s cars, mandated by EPA were rotten automobiles and probably (given the unreliability of the MANDATED tech at the time) worse for the environment than the alternative.
      And then we have the fact that they were prematurely junked and replaced with cars with the required replacement load on the environment.
      Just for the heck of it, from the EPA site:
      “Often, environmental and social impacts have quantified effects that cannot necessarily be monetized. For example, reduced visual acuity has no direct monetized value. However, if visual acuity can be directly associated with increased age-related eyesight degradation, then this associated effect may be amenable to partial monetization or stated preferences.
      […]
      BCA is designed to examine both average and incremental changes in existing markets. However, it may be difficult to use many of the accepted monetized values for resources if the analysis is examining extreme changes in markets or society that might result from a policy with significant impact on technology or resource scarcity (e.g., extreme degradation of resources).”
      Put simply, compared to price signals, the EPA analysis stinks.

      1. Price Signals?

        You mean like $1.50 a gallon gas which makes people buy Hummers?

        Lots of big SUV’s were sitting in driveways and garages for the last couple of years.

        Obviously “price signals” mean something to the consumer and market, but when you are dealing with items like cars and power plants, you have to anticipate those signals by many years – sometimes even decades.

        If you can honestly explain how that’s done….how a consumer knows what power is going to sell for 30 years down the road and therefore decides he’ll allow more of his fellow citizens to get respiratory disease – I’m all ears.

        1. “If you can honestly explain how that’s done….how a consumer knows what power is going to sell for 30 years down the road and therefore decides he’ll allow more of his fellow citizens to get respiratory disease – I’m all ears.”

          If *YOU* can honestly explain why TOP MEN are better at it than the consumer, I’m all ears.
          I repeat my request: Tell me what next week’s lotto numbers are; you seem very certain that your crystal ball is the best.

        2. Oh, and:
          “You mean like $1.50 a gallon gas which makes people buy Hummers?”
          Yes, in fact I mean exactly that. Tell us why that is ‘wrong’, please.

        3. Oh, and let’s do one more from your first post:
          “Either way, it’s a sin…..”
          Yes, craiginmass, the god of stupidity favors those who favor the state!

        4. Yes, much better to follow the European model and force everyone on to diesel with punitive levels of taxation. We all know diesel is a much cleaner burning fuel, isn’t it?

          1. Seems TOP MEN told craig to go to bed…

            1. Gimmie single payer, dude!

              http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04…..d=pl-share

              “Two Florida doctors who received the nation’s highest Medicare reimbursements in 2012 are both major contributors to Democratic Party causes, and they have turned to the political system in recent years to defend themselves against suspicions that they may have submitted fraudulent or excessive charges to the federal government.”

              1. NAS,
                I appreciate the help you offered dealing with the Tesla PR rep months back.
                I was out of my depth regarding accounting arcana and you were kind enough to call the guy on his BS.
                Nice job.

  21. BTW, this link ought to be available any time Tony or craig start whining that they can’t exercise control over the rest of us, since everyone knows we’re headed for disaster!
    http://beforeitsnews.com/liber…..57872.html

  22. If there was no God, Man would invent him. Hence, the subtitle of the article, “Environmentalism is now more religion than science”.

    If you doubt, examine Tony. For every reference to AGW insert “Jesus”.

    I’ve come to understand that Tony is an example of many. He’s angry with God because (in his case) he’s a two dollar bill. Understanding not that his perversion is not what condemns him. To deflect his anger he has graduated to a faith he thinks he understands, being ignorant of the one that condemns him and unwilling or slothful in studying it for it’s truth.

  23. Your lack of understanding, John, is quite astonishing.

    Its not only the IPCC that is warning us about climate change, its every single major science organization in the US (actually the world). Yes, National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, American Meteorological Society…all of them, John. In fact find me just ONE that disagrees on AGW, and its potential for catastrophe. You can’t.

    But for a website that always laughs at conspiracies, Reason has found a guy who buys into the biggest one of all. All of these scientists have been bought off. Even the ones not affiliated with IPCC, right John? And pray tell, John, exactly who is funding this massive financial effort? Al Gore?

    Better yet, explain to everyone why all of the science organizations mentioned above were saying the exact same thing when Bush was President, and Republicans controlled both Houses and the purse strings. Hmmm?

    1. By the way, John, you want to know an even better example of religion? Here is one: “The free market will solve all our ills.”

      There you go…there is a religion that relies on a busload of faith (apologies to Lou Reed).

      1. Jackand Ace|4.17.14 @ 8:58AM|#
        “There you go…there is a religion that relies on a busload of faith”

        Obviously, your stupidity is such that the co0ncept of faith is a mystery to you.
        I have ‘faith’ the sun will come up each morning, which is not a religious belief, you dolt.

    2. Here you go, John, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest general science society in the world, with over 100,000 members. In their most recent report, they said this:

      “?Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.
      ?We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.
      ?The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.

      “This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems, even among members of the broader public who already know about the evidence for climate change and what is causing it, some do not know the degree to which many climate scientist are concerned about the risks of possibly rapid and abrupt climate change…”

      But I know, John, science has become a religion.

      http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-…..ange-risks

      1. None of that refutes that climate science is a religion.

        Of course, I wouldn’t expect an idiot like you to understand. Hopefully your solution isn’t as debased and evil as Tony’s though.

    3. Jackand Ace|4.17.14 @ 8:50AM|#
      “Its not only the IPCC that is warning us about climate change,”…

      Why, look there! Jackand Ace informs us that the AUTHORITIES say so! Gee, no one here even knew that.
      So, Jackand Ace, your answer to all the questions which have been raised is an appeal to authority!
      How………………..
      pathetic.

  24. The whole idea of “scientific consensus” is itself anti-scientific. The only reason for this consensus among “climate scientists” is that before you can be admitted to graduate school, get your thesis approved, receive your degree, get a post-doc appointment, get hired, get promoted, get tenure, get funding, or get published, you must FIRST profess your faith in AGW in the exact same way that Catholic priests must first profess their faith in God before they can be admitted to divinity school and ordained. Likewise, their consensus is not proof of His existence.

    If you want to know the motives of the global warming alarmists, look at their prescriptions. It becomes obvious that the AGW hoax is nothing but a pretext for liberals to boss people around and take their stuff.

    1. “We know enough based on the research and science that the risk (of climate change) is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk.”

      -Ken Cohen, Exxon’s government affairs chief

      Guess Exxon now wants to boss around people and take their stuff.

      1. Jackand Ace|4.17.14 @ 10:02AM|#
        “Guess Exxon now wants to boss around people and take their stuff.”

        Gee, Jackand Ace, an appeal to authority! How………………..
        pathetic.

      2. J&A, so exxon, an evil korpurayshun, is trustworthy when it agrees with your currently held belief. Really? How ……
        pathetic.

        Sevo, Sorry i stole your line

  25. Symbolic. Environmentalism is now more religion than science. It even comes with built-in doomsday stories to warn people about what will happen if they disobey …

    Michael Crichton revealed the environmental movement as a religion in 2003. The zeal with which the government embraces this religion can only be considered an unconstitutional establishment of a religion. The government funds and encourages the citizenry to embrace this religion.

    Read the Michael Crichton piece here:

    http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Prog…..talism.pdf

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.