Climate Change

Naomi Klein Changes Nothing With This Changes Everything

The laws of nature do not mandate a progressive paradise.

|

This Changes Everything

This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, by Naomi Klein, Simon & Schuster, 576 pages, $30

Naomi Klein keeps coming up with fresh new ideas about how to spark an elusive mass social movement against capitalism and corporations. In her 2000 bestseller No Logo, the progressive journalist attempted to harness the nascent anti-globalization movement to unleash "a vast wave of opposition squarely targeting transnational corporations." In 2007, her book The Shock Doctrine bogusly asserted that free market institutions spread only by taking advantage of coups, wars, and natural calamities. The book debuted at the beginning of a massive recession and featured economist Milton Friedman as its chief villain. But still no dice.

Now comes Klein's newest screed, This Changes Everything. "Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war," she asserts. Climate science, Klein claims, has given progressives "the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism" ever. If the stresses of globalization and a massive financial crisis cannot mobilize the masses, then the prospect of catastrophic climate change must.

Canonical Marxism predicted that capitalism would collapse under the weight of its class "contradictions," in which the bourgeoisie profit from the proletariat's labor until we reach a social breaking point. In Klein's progressive update, capitalism will collapse because the pollution produced by its heedless overconsumption will build to an ecological breaking point. "Only mass social movements can save us now," she declares.

Is she onto something? Man-made climate change, if unaddressed, may well become a significant problem for humanity as the 21st century advances. But is Klein right that progressive values and policies are "currently being vindicated, rather than refuted, by the laws of nature"?

First, a quick review of the state of the climate. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is indeed increasing because humanity is cutting down forests and burning coal, oil, and natural gas. As a result, the world has warmed, glaciers are melting, and the seas are rising. Since 1951, average global temperature has been increasing at a rate of 0.12°C (0.22°F) per decade. "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th Century," states the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2013 Physical Sciences report. The vast majority of climate researchers agree that man-made global warming is now underway. It bears mentioning, however, that the global average atmospheric temperature has not significantly increased for the past 17 years, a "pause" not predicted by the computer climate models.

Klein acknowledges that not all weather disasters can be attributed to climate change. But she doesn't let that stop her from trotting out tragic stories of hurricanes, typhoons, and droughts to shore up her thesis. She quotes the Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann: "There's no question that climate change has increased the frequency of certain types of extreme weather events, including drought, intense hurricanes, and super typhoons, the frequency and intensity and duration of heat waves, and potentially other types of extreme weather though the details are still being debated within the scientific community."

Yes, those details are still being debated among climate scientists. The United Nations' Special Report for Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (2012) projects that global warming will generate more heat waves, coastal floods, and droughts as the century unfolds. The researchers, however, could not draw firm conclusions about its effects on current trends in hurricanes, typhoons, hailstorms, or tornadoes. Given projected carbon dioxide emissions, the report notes that weather extremes will likely remain within the normal range of nature's own inherent variation during the next several decades. 

What's more, while the world has experienced greater economic losses as a result of extreme weather, that's due primarily to the fact that the world has gotten richer and more populous: There are more people with more stuff of more value to destroy. A 2011 review of 22 weather damage studies in The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reported, "The studies show no trends in the losses, corrected for change (increases) in population and capital at risk that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters."

Even more happily, a 2011 Reason Foundation report found that deaths from all "extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90 percent since the 1920s, in spite of a four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events." This is mostly good news, despite This Changes Everything's scaremongering.

Klein's list of remedies is more alarming than her exaggerations of climate change's present-day effects. She wants to ban fracking, nuclear power, genetically modified crops, geoengineering, carbon sequestration, and carbon markets, thus turning her back on some of the climate-friendliest solutions currently on offer. She wants to block the Keystone pipeline, which would transport petroleum from Canadian oil sands to U.S. refineries; she would pressure pension funds and endowments to divest from fossil fuel companies; and she thinks we should transfer trillions of dollars to poor countries to pay off the rich countries' debt for dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

"We need a Marshall Plan for the Earth," Klein declares, updating one of the most tired historical metaphors for her purposes. "It is entirely possible to rapidly switch our energy systems to 100 percent renewables," she asserts. As an example of "one of several credible studies" showing how such a vast energy transformation could be achieved, she breezily cites a 2009 Energy Policy paper by two researchers, Mark Jacobson of Stanford and Mark Delucchi of the University of California, Davis. Jacobson and Delucchi think we can replace all coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power by 2030 with wind, solar, and hydropower while fueling a fleet of electric cars. How? By deploying 3.8 million 5-megawatt wind turbines, 5,350 100-megawatt geothermal plants, 500,000 1-megawatt tidal turbines, 720,000 0.75-megawatt wave power generators, 1.7 billion 3-kilowatt rooftop solar panels, 40,000 300-megawatt solar panel farms, and 49,000 300-megawatt concentrated solar power plants.

Sound easy? Well, if the world were to begin deploying these renewable energy technologies next year that would mean erecting approximately 250,000 wind turbines each year for the next 15 years. As of the end of 2012, there were a total of 225,000 wind turbines operating around the world.

Similarly, the world would have to install 113 million rooftop solar panel systems per year in order to meet the 2030 goal of 1.7 billion. In 2013, the U.S. installed a record 4,751 megawatts of solar panels, which would be roughly equivalent to 1.6 million 3-kilowatt rooftop solar panels. As of 2013, the entire world had installed 100 gigawatts (100 million kilowatts) of solar photovoltaic panels. Combining the rooftop and solar panel proposals, this hyper-solarization would mean deploying more than 10 times the current installed capacity of photovoltaic panels, not just once but every year for the next 15 years. And never mind that there are virtually no commercial wave or tidal energy production systems currently operating.

Klein never ever discusses how much her solutions to the climate crisis will cost. But Delucchi and Jacobson estimate a price tag of about $100 trillion for their program. That entails spending about $6.6 trillion per year from now until 2030, more than 11 percent of the entire world's 2013 output of $75 trillion. Such a crash plan for global energy transformation might be possible, but it would be a massive shift from our current course. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projected in July 2014 that $7.7 trillion total will be invested in building new power plants between now and 2030, of which renewables will get around two-thirds. And Klein accuses the proponents of free markets of "magical thinking"?

Klein is giddy over the renewable energy schemes in Germany and Denmark, which she lionizes as "two of the countries with the largest commitment to decentralized, community-controlled renewable power." Specifically, she adores Germany's national program of feed-in-tariffs (FITs), which have subsidized huge numbers of solar panels and wind turbines. Klein rhapsodizes that "roughly half of Germany's renewable energy facilities are in the hands of farmers, citizens groups, and almost nine hundred energy cooperatives." She adds that they are "offered a guaranteed price so the risk of losing money is low."

In fact, owners of new renewable energy plants are paid a guaranteed fixed rate for every kilowatt-hour they generate, at administratively set prices far higher than conventional generation. Utilities must take the energy generated and consumers must pay the fixed fee for the energy. Somehow, Klein concludes that these government-set prices "make renewable energy affordable."

But a July 2014 report by the Swiss economics consultancy Finadvice, commissioned by the U.S.–based Electric Power Research Institute, found that the cost of Germany's FIT program has been more than $412 billion so far and will rise to a total of $884 billion by 2022. As a result, German household electricity rates have more than doubled, increasing from $0.18 per kilowatt-hour in 2000 to $0.38 per kilowatt-hour today. Households in Denmark pay even more: $0.39 per kilowatt-hour. Meanwhile U.S. electricity prices have remained stable, at an average of around $0.13 per kilowatt-hour.

The installation of solar and wind energy systems has contributed to reducing Germany's carbon dioxide emissions, but at an estimated cost of more than $1,000 per ton avoided by solar power and $80 per ton avoided by wind power. The average price for carbon dioxide emissions permits in Europe hover at about $20 per ton. Electricity rates this high might well be the price for protecting the climate, but Klein is keeping her readers in the dark about what her proposals would cost them.

Even as Klein claims that it's a delusion to think we can rely on market forces and technological progress to solve our climate problems, a consensus to the contrary is emerging. Groups such as Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, the Breakthrough Institute, and the Brookings Institution favor a policy platform that rejects energy puritanism and embraces technology.

This new coalition spurns schemes to restrict energy use, such as the International Energy Agency's anemic recommendation that annual access to 100 kilowatt hours of electricity per person will be enough. (That's the amount of electricity that the average American burns in three days.) Instead, proponents of the new consensus tend to support more government spending on research and development aiming to make clean energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels. 

Given pervasive and massive government meddling in energy markets, subsidizing low-carbon energy R&D is arguably the least bad feasible policy option for addressing climate change. The new consensus also embraces fracking. In fact, the U.N.'s Physical Sciences report identifies power generation using natural gas as a "bridge technology" that can be deployed now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; burning natural gas releases about half the carbon dioxide that burning coal does. Coal-fired electric power plants are largely being shut down in the United States because they are being outcompeted by natural gas–powered plants that emit far less carbon dioxide.

And nuclear power is back on the table, after a long decline. In 2013, climate researchers James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley—people not known for soft-pedaling the threat of global warming—issued an open letter challenging the broad environmental movement to stop fighting nuclear power and embrace it as a crucial technology for averting the possibility of a climate catastrophe through its supply of zero-carbon energy. The letter states that "continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change." They add, "While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power."

Klein acidly dismisses reliance on science, technology, and markets to address the problems of climate change as embodying the attitude that "We will triumph in the end because triumphing is what we do." Well, yes. And that's a much better bet than imagining the laws of nature mandate a post-capitalist utopia.

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.

305 responses to “Naomi Klein Changes Nothing With This Changes Everything

  1. *YAWN* She is about five years too late with the publication date. Had this come out then … she would have made a mint. She would still be wrong about AGW, but the hysteria wave was cresting then.

    1. she is an opportunist just like Al Gore. Nobody in their right mind believes this crap – its just an opportunity for progs to expand their control over the economy and have their pet companies eg… GE Solyndra, Tesla etc make more money.

      1. Nobody in their right mind believes this crap

        True, but that’s not her audience.

    2. She is about five years too late with the publication date.

      Actually, I’d say about six. The price tag of environmental posturing became too high for most people in the fall of 2008.

      1. No, no.

        The price tag of posturing is still low and affordable!

        Actual action If They Were Really Serious, sure, that’s ridiculously expensive and none of them really suggest it once someone points that out.

        But posturing? That’s almost free!

      2. I don’t see what her posturing has to do with the environment, actually.

  2. Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war

    I thought Krugbe wanted an interplanetary war to stimulate the economy.

    1. What about the War on Women? Which side is the planet on?

      1. It is on the side of planet sized women with multiple, low carbon, cats.

        1. *DINGDINGDING*

          We have a winnah!

      2. Don’t call it a war. It’s a major countervagina operation.

      3. Mars vs Venus!

      4. The planet is technically neutral in the War on Women, but it’s supplying them with soft pink weapons. Get ready for some blowback.

        1. More words of wisdom from a radical environmentalist /feminist /communist /lesbian /self-hating jew. How perfectly boring.

          1. And, of course, she still wants your money. I would ask Ms. Klein to support her beliefs by sending me a copy of her book gratis so I don’t have to support the evils of capitalism. I will then use the pages instead of toilet paper to assist in healing the planet.

          2. agreed!

    2. From da wiki:

      A planetary system is a set of gravitationally bound non-stellar objects in orbit around a star or star system.

      Is capitalism disrupting the orbits of the planets? You might think twice about purchasing that Hummer if you knew it was going to make Mercury crash into Venus.

      1. There has to be a way to work Uranus into this comment…

        1. I knew some asshole would write that.

      2. I would totally buy the Hummer to see that.

      3. I’ve been told that 200 years of industrial pollution has shifted the Earth’s axial tilt, which should also change our orbit. So yes, it is.

        DOOOOOOOOM!

  3. taking advantage of coups, wars, and natural calamities

    Never let a crisis go to waste.
    — some libertarian

    1. I don’t understand why Reason gives voice to people that are so radically anti Libertarian. There are plenty of outlets for progressive ideas (if you care to call them that) all over the Internet and beyond.

      1. the idioms “know thine enemy” and “keep your friends close but your enemies closer” come to mind.

        Helps to have a broader view of the various topics that just those that give us warm fuzzies. Tunnel vision doesn’t help you mount coherent stances or rebuttals.

      2. Reason isn’t (here).

        Bailey’s taking her theses apart, which is useful because the Average Progressive is, if history is any guide, totally going to buy Klein’s crap.

        Her books are nearly gospel to some people; I remember when Shock Doctrine came out, fools were parroting it to me as if its thesis was indisputable scientific fact.

        The more sunlight gets put on her drivel, the better.

  4. I saw the price of the book, and thought to myself “who would be stupid enough to pay $30 for that shit?” Then I realized that I had answered my own question.

    1. I saw the price and wondered, wow, what’s the profit margin on that book!

      1. I’m sure the last thing she wants is to make money!

        1. Progressives hate profit, other than their own.

          1. agreed

      2. How many trees must this bitch murder to save the enviroment. Then she has the gumption to charge money for her books! How very exploitative of her.

        1. I guess capitalism is OK with her when she’s the one profiting.

        2. And I’m sure she’s conducting a book tour via Oxcart and rowboat, for environmental reasons. Because, in an era of instantaneous communication, you still have to physically travel everywhere to tell people to minimize their carbon footprints.

        3. Trees are eco-friendly renewables, maaan.

          (I mean, give the eco-people some credit; the whole “tree killer” thing has been dead for decades.

          They farm trees for making paper these days.)

          1. yeah and recycled paper is costly and bad for the environment because of the chemicals they use… source: Penn & Teller’s Bullshit

  5. It bears mentioning, however, that the global average atmospheric temperature has not significantly increased for the past 17 years, a “pause” not predicted by the computer climate models.

    No, that refutes the models that didn’t predict it – in other words, every model used to try to rush new emergency powers to the government.

    1. Oh no, those are projections, not predictions.

      -Every sabermetrician who ever lived

  6. It is entirely possible to rapidly switch our energy systems to 100 percent renewables

    lol

    1. It would quickly solve the scourge of overpopulation, too.

    2. Great! Lets just shut down the current grid and see how far they get with their massive infrastructure project. I wonder how they will get those solar panels in place… Perhaps they have a wind powered truck.

    3. its a joke right?? She can’t actually believe this crap

      1. Have you ever listened to Naomi Klein being interviewed?

        Her brain is almost entirely uncontaminated by logic and rigorous thinking.

      2. Look at her face, those dead cow eyes – you think she knows – much less cares – whether her claims are true or not?

        Truth doesn’t sell books.

      3. You don’t know any real porgies do you ?

      4. Naomi Klein is a Canadian hippy-spawn who got her BA in…something, presumably Journalism…from U Toronto. There is absolutely nothing about her background, writing, or speech which would lead any reasonable, fair-minded person to conclude that she knows dick of shit about economics, ecology, environmentalism, political economy, geopolitics, fucking horseback riding, or anything else. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say she’s not much of a journalist, either.

        Which makes it so surprising that the President didn’t give her a cabinet position, frankly.

    4. Nuclear power is renewable, by any sane use of the term, using breeder reactors.

      And “rapidly”?

      Well, if “we” wanted to, it could be done in about a decade.

      So, yeah.

      Just not the way the hippies want it to be, but it’s true.

  7. I predict in the future we will have Green Concentration Camps. The place will make citizens, consuming a gruel of soy and crushed organic whole grains, work to remove the blight of humanity from the Earth. Of course those few who do not work hard enough will have to suffer the consequences. Natural fertilizer, after all, is needed to make more food.

    1. Well, it was called soylent ‘green’

    2. “Of course those few who do not work hard enough will have to suffer the consequences”

      You have entirely misunderstood the Green mindset. It is those who work who will be punished and corrected. You are still thinking in terms of Capitalism and Socialism, ideologies where work is seen as a positive.

  8. Find this and hundreds of other interesting books at the Reason Shop, powered by Amazon.

    Whores.

    1. Don’t slander whores!

  9. Yes it is true that “free market institutions spread quickly when…” “…coups, wars, and natural calamities.” occur but that is because FREEDOM is more nimble and adaptable than Group meetings. Ya… surprise!!!! an individual taking advantage of an opportunity is better than a group basing decisions on the politics (or how the situation will keep them in power)….

    1. Exactly. Coups, wars, etc. tend to clear out the choking underbrush of the State, allowing freedom to reassert itself.

      1. Not always … plenty of coups ended with the llikes of a Mugabe taking the reigns

  10. “We will triumph in the end because triumphing is what we do.”

    You know who else emphasized triumphing?

    1. Yosemite Sam?

        1. Leni Riefenstahl?

          1. Great horny toadies hopping in close formation !

    2. Bob and Doug MacKenzie?

    3. Duke Leto?

      1. For the father, nothing.

    4. Dizzy Gillespie?

      1. Dammit. Two days in a row, I’ve been beaten to my answer!

        1. Grapevines think alike.

    5. Hey, you can never surrender cause we’re just living in a world of fantasy so fight the good fight, follow you’re heart, and keep on living for the weekend were you can lay it on the line and be a rock and roll machine

    6. But does she have the will to triumph?

      1. I knew that I should have said Jesse Owens.

    7. Robert Smigel?

    8. Bill and Ted of Wyld Stallyns

  11. Ah, Klein.

    Canada’s gift and contribution to the pseudo-intellectual community.

  12. fresh new ideas

    More like repackaged old ideas. Progs are terribly boring since the world is always stuck in the 1930s.

    1. The MO is to apply the same old shitty ideas(central control and statism) to the fresh new problems. Of course, they’re not above creating a problem when one isn’t readily available.

  13. Why in the heck would anyone listen to anything Naomi Klein has to say? Aside from diligently publishing her opinions and being the daughter of communists/leftists, what in god’s name qualifies her opinions to be taken as more informed than, say, the guy who picks up my mail? Hell, she couldn’t even be bothered to complete a degree in journalism in less than 10 years

    1. Aside from diligently publishing her opinions and being the daughter of communists/leftists, what in god’s name qualifies her opinions to be taken as more informed than, say, the guy who picks up my mail?

      You partially answered your own queestion: the fact that she diligently publishes her opinions (and she has the “right” opinions) and is the daughter of communists/ leftists (which is why her opinions are “right”).

      I’m sure if she were publishing liberty oriented or conservative opinions and was the daughter of right wing Christians she wouldn’t have much of a writing career.

  14. They been pushing this shit since at least the sixties. Like a Hollywood reboot they try to rev it up every few years.

    1. It’s a little like that constant drip of water that gradually erodes the rock of society, but it’s more like a wave that picks up a beached turd and carries it downshore a little each time.

  15. In most branches of science, when one’s model doesn’t line up with observed natural processes, one is expected to figure out what’s wrong with the model. In climatology, when one’s model doesn’t line up with observed natural processes, one is expected to figure out what’s wrong with nature.

    1. They’ve got a consensus. So they must be right, and nature must be wrong. Because consensus.

      1. You hear that Earth? CONCENSUS! Get with the fucking program.

    2. We say this a lot, but sadly the “my theory is right, it’s the facts that are wrong” attitude is commoner in the history of science than a lot of folks want to believe. Yes, science isn’t supposed to work that way, and sometimes a revolutionary new theory does carry all before it, but more often the accepted theories change as the older scientists who cling to the older theory die off.

    3. The missing heat is hiding in an ocean of secrets.

    4. This is why climate scientology is such a perfect match for Marxian socialism.

      The utopian vision of Marxists was that the working class enjoy boundless prosperity without the oppression of the capitalists. At first it seemed unfortunate that it delivered mass poverty, starvation, and ruin. With the discoveries of climate scientology, however, Marxists now recognize that mass poverty, starvation, and ruin are a feature, not a bug, of their ideology.

      1. Find the “Hidden Howler?”:

        The key insight (missed by many) that explains how this Marxist Sciency Earthsaving Program is gonna work, is that most of the people in the West will have to give up their prosperity. It’s their (our) comfortable lifestylds that are killing Mother Earth!!

        If the energy, food and product consumption of the West was reduced by, say, 80%, the pressure mankind puts on the finely balanced systems of Gaia would be adequately reduced. I can’t imagine why the Greens don’t make this more clear to everyone.

        Now, the people who implement and enforce this reduction* will still have to have cars and jets, live in skyscrapers and have high-bandwidth internet and reliable electrical systems, but that’s for the Good of Humanity AND Gaia so shut up!

        *-including Ms. Klein, to be sure.

        Hidden Howler: “…finely balanced systems of Gaia”. The planets’ systems; meteorological, biological and ecological, have never been “finely balanced” except through destruction, disruption, extinction and cataclysm, and have never had the kind of stability we are now expected to try and engineer.

        1. “I can’t imagine why the Greens don’t make this more clear to everyone.”

          You might want to read the article again. It’s no big mystery. A lot of greens, including Klein, believe rather that an 80% INCREASE in (renewable) energy consumption and production is the answer. Most greens still seem to believe, with capitalists and socialists, that economic growth will address this climate business.

    5. I think you just described nutrition research

  16. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, by Naomi Klein, Simon & Schuster, 576 pages, $30

    it’s self debunking.

    1. Maybe I’ll steal a copy for the lutz.

    2. Jesus, 576 pages? I hope most of those are graphs and data tables.

      1. Knowing her intended audience I suspect it’s really large print with lots of crayon drawings.

      2. No. I sure this bitch can incoherently rant and rave for hours about ‘big corporations’ and such. Just like my commie aunt.

        1. Get a proggie started on the Kochs & they can make up shit for 576 easy.

  17. transnational corporations; unfettered capitalism; make renewable energy affordable.

    I assume these progs have a bunch of macros programmed into their word processing software?

    1. Its so outrageous that capitalism is unregulated!

    2. If they’re not entirely bot-written.

  18. Spounds like a pretty good read to me dude.

    http://www.Crypt-Tools.tk

    1. We found her target market!

      1. Not even anonobot is that gullible.

    2. You misspelled dupe.

  19. Nice to see a guiding light of leftism admitting to exactly what I and so many others have accused them up so long. The mask is all the way off, and what is underneath is uglier than the progs will ever admit.

    1. Actually, until she utters the words “2/3 of the world population needs to be culled,” the mask isn’t all the way off. Anti-GMO and anthro-climate change are just policies that will conveniently kill off millions while appearing to care about people. It’s like a Ukrainian mass starvation but on a global scale.

      Interesting that none of these proponents are volunteering for sterilization or to smother there own children for the sake of the planet.

    2. Unfortunately, the real value of a title like that is mitigated by the fact that people have no meaningful concept of what capitalism is.

      I blame Ayn Rand. Marx used the term “capitalism” because thought that free markets and cronyism were one and the same, but he had the excuse of being a moron. Rand tried to use it to mean just laissez-faire and not the other thing. She should have known better.

      1. I hope that was sarcasm. I agree with Rand’s meaning.

  20. Since 1951, average global temperature has been increasing at a rate of 0.12?C (0.22?F) per decade… It bears mentioning, however, that the global average atmospheric temperature has not significantly increased for the past 17 years, a “pause” not predicted by the computer climate models.

    So an alternative way of presenting the same data would be that avg global temps have not increased at all in the past 17 years, but did increase 0.17 C per decade from 1951-1997.

    Your formulation is like saying “the US and USSR have been facing each other in the Cold War since 1947, but it bears mentioning that the USSR ceased to exist in 1991.”

    1. Bad choice of analogies. To the climate mullahs the USSR never dissolved, it “progressed”

      1. The Cold War is hiding in the deep ocean.

        1. The USSR is hiding in the deep ocean.

    2. Even worse, if the earth resumes warming today and over the next 65 years warms at double the rate that it warmed for the last 65 years and then warms at double that rate for the next 65 years we finally reach the dreaded 5 degrees C of warming 130 years from now. Things that are major problems today won’t even exist in 130 years and we don’t have even the slightest way of predicting where technology will have taken us 130 years from now

      1. We will if we go back to dark age energy technologies like wind and hydro.

      2. Good point. The accumulation of horse manure on city streets is no longer a pollution problem we need to worry about. I’m sure people 130 years from now will have new pollution problems to concern themselves with, but we can all rest assured that Naomi Kline IV will be there to urge more power be given to the federal government in order to save the Earth.

    3. Your formulation is like saying “the US and USSR have been facing each other in the Cold War since 1947, but it bears mentioning that the USSR ceased to exist in 1991.”

      Ron is a former believer and sits the fence pretty well. To me, he uses the word “pause” to imply exactly what you’re saying; 17 yr. and ongoing… “pause”.

      I would say bad choice of analogies because while the USSR did cease to exist, our relationship with the current leadership of the resulting nations isn’t exactly warming.

      1. The thing about calling it a “pause” is it builds in the assumption that global warming will resume.

        How that is a scientific assumption, I have no idea. Climate is inherently cyclical. We obviously don’t really understand its cycles. Why assume that we are “pausing” an up-cycle, instead of rolling over into a down-cycle?

        1. “How that is a scientific assumption”

          Because of the heat trapping nature of greenhouse gases such as CO2 which continue to be emitted into the atmosphere. This emission is not cyclical. Much of it comes from burning carbon based fuel.

          1. mtrueman|9.16.14 @ 2:36PM|#
            “Because of the heat trapping nature of greenhouse gases such as CO2 which continue to be emitted into the atmosphere. This emission is not cyclical. Much of it comes from burning carbon based fuel.”

            Your assumption (absent evidence) is nothing more than an assumption,
            And given it comes from you, probably a lie.

            1. The theory of greenhouse gases goes far beyond an assumption. And it’s certainly not mine. It’s been established for some hundred years before I made the scene. All of this is untrue of course.

    4. It’s like a straightened hockey stick.

  21. “Only mass social movements can save us now,” she declares.

    I take this to mean that someone is going to put a gun to my head and that she is ok with that.

    1. You are not of the body!

    2. You will be comelled to comply for your own good. If you resist you will be robbed, kidnapped and/or murdered for the good of everyone else. Social justice.

    3. “I take this to mean that someone is going to put a gun to my head and that she is ok with that.”

      You mean someone ELSE is going to put a gun to your head. You’re deluded if you don’t think you’re already surrounded by head pointing gun holders. You seem accustomed to it though, even accepting. OK with it as you say yourself.

  22. Anybody who believes “capitalism will collapse because the pollution produced by its heedless overconsumption will build to an ecological breaking point” fails to see WHO is over consuming: the proletariat! Yes, the rich consume a lot; but, their “consumption” – in environmental impact terms – is miniscule compared to the masses’ mass consumption. If nobody but the rich drove cars, where would “global warming” be? If nobody but the rich turned on their lights and watched TV, where would “global warming” be? It is the massive scale of consumption – made available only by “capitalism” – that is the danger she warns against. So, preaching to the choir, are we?

    How’s that working out for ya?

    1. That’s a funny contradiction that’s come about from critics of capitalism. Sometimes they say only the rich live high on the hog at everybody else’s expense. Then other times they say capitalism generates over-consumption which damages the planet.

      1. And globalism leads to poverty, except in Cuba where the opposite is true!
        See, it’s complicated! And stuff….

        1. As noted above, the discoveries of climate scientology have clarified matters: widespread poverty is a feature of Marxism, not a bug.

    2. That’s OK, Helices. The AGW types are planning to grind down the consumption of the masses, not the elites to which they fancy they belong.

      1. I should refresh more often before replying.

    3. Well, if they get their way energy prices will be driven up to the point where only the rich will be able to afford to turn on their lights or their TV or drive cars. Which to most of these limousine liberal types is just fine by them. They’re “saving the planet” afterall, which is far more important than making sure the majority of the “poor” can afford to live decent lives. They’ve got theirs, fuck everyone else.

    4. Very good observation.

      One of the least talked about phenomena of the development is that, as income increases, the proportion of our consumption comprised of actual physical resources drops pretty precipitously. Really, how much are the physical materials that make up your computer or smartphone worth? My guess is, on the outside, $10-$20. The bulk of our consumption becomes the intellectual content applied to those resources.

  23. Fucking. Communist. Cunt.

  24. That is A LOT of solar panels and wind turbines. Surely anyone advocating for such a shift in energy production would have checked to see what thermodynamics has to say about it. Right? Or are all the FEELZ supposed to offset sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere?

    1. You expect Naomi Klein to understand logistics or engineering constraints? That’s…optimistic.

      1. Not her specifically, but at least the “researchers” she cites.

    2. Lots of foolishness here. Notice Ron writing, in all sincerity, that nuclear was a zero carbon source of energy?

      1. mtrueman|9.16.14 @ 1:06PM|#
        “Lots of foolishness here. Notice Ron writing, in all sincerity, that nuclear was a zero carbon source of energy?”

        Lots of lies from Truman; did you have a point, or just one more lie?

        1. “or just one more lie?”

          There were exactly 3 lies there. Can you spot them? Betcha can’t.

  25. Klein never ever discusses how much her solutions to the climate crisis will cost.

    Any mention of Klein requires a reference to Sowell, whose trenchant attacks on the Anointed of the utopian vision (opponents of trade and markets are necessarily utopian) perfectly encapsulate Klein’s worldview. Klein and her ilk see the world through the lens of problems that all have ideal solutions; global warming can be solved if only the politically anointed make energy vastly more expensive by abandoning fossil fuels.

    That this is politically impossible given the explosion of wealth in China and India in the past twenty years is irrelevant to Klein, as is the fact that, even if her initiatives were feasible, the deaths and human suffering caused by redirecting capital from valuable, market-derived technologies to solar and wind power will result in a far worse outcome for everyone but those who stand to profit from expensive “renewable” energy and the advocacy of such.

    1. I appreciate Bailey’s counterarguments, but pointing to studies doesn’t get at the heart of the matter. Klein is an ideologue who begins from a position of anti-capitalism and anti-individualism, then struggles to justify her bigotry through whatever means is most popular in bien pensant intellectual circles. Four hundred years ago, she would’ve preached the divine right of kings. The current intellectual trend is positivism and mathematical modeling, an approach that has yielded unreliable results and undeserved confidence in climate modeling and economics, so naturally Klein goes with that instead of common superstition.

      The real story is in the “most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism” quote. There’s Klein’s real motive. Like Piketty, Klein spits on the idea of individuals trading with one another to mutual advantage, as some people will be better at the game and enjoy a greater advantage than the other. Worse still, in a two-party transaction without mafia or state interference, there’s no opportunity for the anointed to skim wealth for their grand vision of humanity’s future, which is naturally what’s best for everyone. That their utopian, top-down vision could possibly be wrong is inconceivable.

  26. which she lionizes as “two of the countries with the largest commitment to decentralized, community-controlled renewable power.”

    Methinks she does not know what these words mean.

    she adores Germany’s national program of feed-in-tariffs (FITs), which have subsidized huge numbers of solar panels and wind turbines.

    Hmm.

    1. owners of new renewable energy plants are paid a guaranteed fixed rate for every kilowatt-hour they generate, at administratively set prices far higher than conventional generation

      There’s also this. But, ya know, it’s “decentralized” and “community-controlled” and stuff.

  27. Climate science, Klein claims, has given progressives “the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism” ever.

    That’s absolutely true. Which is precisely why all climate science and proscriptions for the supposed problems, should be regarded with the utmost suspicion. Because of the potential for expansion of state power presented by this field you can expect this field of study to become profoundly distorted, bastardized and manipulative. If Marxism is to ever again murder millions of people, climate science is the vehicle that will bring it back to the marketplace of ideas.

    1. If you want to make an omelette…

      1. …you’ve got to murder millions of people.

        1. Millions ? Try billions.

    2. By that statement she has just exposed the real agenda of Climate Change activism. It is not about climate change; it is anti capitalism.
      If you equate capitalism with economic freedom then she is against freedom and choice and for central planning and communism.

    3. “Because of the potential for expansion of state power”

      I hope you haven’t overlooked the fact that Naomi’s opponents are also advocating an expansion of state power in their advocacy of nuclear power. This technology exists and only exists thanks to being propped up by a command economy.

      1. An expansion of state power how exactly? Nuclear energy is made “commercially” viable vis a vis insurance subsidies that would otherwise prevent producers from receiving insurance coverage for these reactors, reactors whose failure would mean insurmountable losses by the unfortunate insurance carrier. Not command economy exactly, but it’s certainly been propped up artificially which doesn’t further the incentive to make nuclear more reliable and in fact induces operators of these reactors to take unnaturally high amounts of risk.

        Proponents of nuclear energy are not automatically deniers of the Great Consensus I guess is the main point…

        1. “An expansion of state power how exactly?”

          You’re fooling yourself if you don’t think that with every new reactor that comes on line we also see more government regulations and regulators. State power is also enhanced by the centralizing and giganticizing character of nuclear.

          1. You’re fooling yourself if you think anyone here thinks you are posting one lie after the other.

              1. How clever to find a typo, liar.

                1. Ok, it was poorly put. Happy now?

  28. I said years ago that any movement that attached itself to the global warming scam train would be pulled off the cliff with it when it turns out to be a hoax. Even if your claim is correct using climate change to justify it will just end with your claim being painted hoax when the dust settles.

    1. I hope the train goes over the hoax cliff, before we are all forced on board… Next stop, green reeducation. Yaay!

    2. They’ll find something else.

    3. Good to see that Ronald doesn’t buy your theory that global warming is a scam.

      1. It’s just a shame we get watermelon ignoramuses out of the deal, right, watermelon?

    4. It won’t go off a cliff for a hundred years or more. The technical knowledge required to discuss the subject and the apparent low burden of proof puts the falsifiability of the theory out of the reach of the vast majority of the people. ANY counterargument to the existence or effects of man-made climate change can be made confused and jumbled by some technical jargon that will alienate most people from rebutting. It’s the perfect ideology to promote elitism and central planning.

      1. If the next solar cycle is as weak as some expect, the rapid cooling in the coming 20 years will seal the deal. Invest in energy stocks for your retirement.

      2. It won’t go off a cliff for a hundred years or more.

        Sorry, but it already has. Now, we’re just waiting for that sudden stop at the end. Like I said earlier, a lot of people’s appetite for environmental posturing took a nosedive in the fall of 2008. They’re a lot more interested in finding out why they don’t have to live in squalor.

        1. The Great Consensus has been peddling their alarmism unabated since the 70’s. The fact that the predicted doom hasn’t materialized numerous times in the past has done absolutely nothing to sway majorities of people and institutions from touting the theory. I dare say that next time their predictions fall short of the mark, they’ll be just as popular and influential as before, if not more so.

  29. And anyone who talks about the dangers of “unfettered capitalism” needs to be slapped down as an advocate of slavery and violence. Every discussion of the unfortunately named capitalism needs to have the crystal-clear definition of capitalism as private property traded voluntary between two parties sans interference from a third.

    Anyone who despises “unfettered capitalism” is necessarily the personality who’d despise individuals’ right to “unfettered speech,” “unfettered sexuality,” or “unfettered worship.” Market advocates should take the moral high ground of voluntaryism at the outset of every debate.

    1. When I think of ‘fettered capitalism’ I think of chains of slavery hanging off the vast majority of people while those with political influence lord over them, for their own good.

      Market advocates should take the moral high ground of voluntaryism at the outset of every debate.

      Ah ha! So libertarian principles do have moral content after all 😉

      1. Provided that murder is considered universally immoral, not murdering someone is certainly more moral than murdering them.

        1. It’s certainly universal. However ‘rape’ makes a better example since you don’t need a caveat like “rape is bad unless in self-defense”. But I digress.

          1. Homicide is sometimes justifiable, murder isn’t.

            1. A teenage boy raped by his father repeatedly might understandably at some point, murder his father. Whereas the moral content of the act of rape is indefensible in all circumstances for all reasons, now matter how profound the transgressions of the transgressor.

    2. I find it hilarious that they have tried so hard to make “capitalism” a dirty word and have failed so spectacularly at it.

      1. That’s part of what makes assholes like Rand so great. She not only accepts the word, she embraces it and uses it as a weapon against the socialists.

    3. Strange.

      When I read or hear the term “unfettered capitalism”, for some reason, open air markets come to mind.

      I think of the flea markets where I would trade toys I’d bought at another flea market a couple of weeks earlier (and a few bucks allowance) for a new toy that would entertain me until I decided to trade it again.

      I think of the Italian Market in Philadelphia where I would be able to get the makings of a great dinner to make for a date when I was young and too poor to afford to go out.

      I think of the street fair where my late wife finally accepted my marriage proposal and we picked up a $15 “engagement” ring (that she wore till she died, even after I offered her multiple times to replace it).

      Now, I know that none of these things really meets the Platonic ideal of some imagined pure unfettered capitalism. But, the dynamism of open competition that is the heart of unfettered capitalism was certainly on display. And all of these things are happy memories, things I can’t understand how someone could view as a problem.

      1. “When I read or hear the term “unfettered capitalism”, for some reason, open air markets come to mind.”

        I always make it a point to visit these markets when travelling. They are usually the most colourful, lively and enjoyable places, even if I don’t wish to buy anything.

        But capitalism is an ideology, not a physical space. The problem I have with it lies in its injunction to grow and expand, to consume more, to produce more and to waste more. I believe there are problems that we face where growth is not the answer, and clinging to capitalist ideology will only hinder us and prevent us from getting closer to solutions.

        1. mtrueman|9.16.14 @ 3:37PM|#
          …”The problem I have with it lies in its injunction to grow and expand, to consume more, to produce more and to waste more”…

          So, since that’s a lie, you have no problem, right?
          Is it written somewhere that you cannot post without lying?

          1. Lie in here means ‘come out of’ or ‘arise from.’

            1. mtrueman|9.16.14 @ 7:21PM|#
              “Lie in here means ‘come out of’ or ‘arise from.'”

              Lie here means LIE, liar.
              Do you think joking about your lies makes them less obvious? Are you that stupid?

              1. “Do you think joking about your lies makes them less obvious?”

                I’ve told you before I really don’t care what you think about what I write here. I’m flattered that you choose to read me with such care and attention, but don’t assume the feeling is mutual.

  30. It is entirely possible to rapidly switch our energy systems to 100 percent renewables

    I’m sure China and India are turning handsprings over this idea.

    Eight-year-olds, Dude.

    1. Have you talked to any of these people?
      Only the corporations are holding us back!
      All we need is solar!
      Just make the roadz out of solar panels!
      I want a flying pony!

      1. Y’know, I could go for a flying pony.

        1. Midterm elections are just around the corner… Have you written to Santa… Errr, your congressman errr… Congress person for a flying pony?

  31. I always get my Naomi’s mixed up. Is this the retarded one? Oh, wait…

    1. Not sure I’ve ever met a non-tarded Naomi. Her parents tested the amniotic fluid and then cursed the Teathuglicans that they couldn’t abort at 8 months when they discovered she was a tard. So the next best thing was to name her Naomi.

      1. I’ve met a few that were sluts too. Naomi = I moan backwards:)

  32. Ms. Klein, Google is your friend:

    http://www.economist.com/node/327069

  33. Let me see if I understand Naomi’s writing process…

    1. Imagine a problem (does not have to be real).
    2. Blame it on “Unfettered Capitalism”.
    3. Advocate more government power and other policies that will make everyone (who isn’t part of the chosen elite) significantly less free and prosperous.
    4. Dig up some “facts” to support conclusion.
    5. Omit anything that would make readers question conclusion.
    6. Sell this tripe to schmucks for 30 bucks a pop.
    7. Profit! (ironically)

  34. I read “Shock Doctrine”…a good read. I didn’t get your take that she claimed ALL of capitalism is based on taking advantage of disasters and disruptions, just some people, and companies. Regardless, businessman John Perkins said the same as Naomi.

    I will read her new book, but I have no idea if she includes what the costs are. But any such discussion would have to include the costs of doing nothing as well. And it seems the more we learn about potential costs from climate change, the higher those costs go.

    http://www.startribune.com/business/274841511.html

    “Most studies show the more we learn, I think the more alarming it is,” said Michael Greenstone, an economist who heads the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute. “Not every study goes in that direction, but the general thrust is that the estimates of the costs are increasing as we learn more.”

    1. The ‘Shock Doctrine’ completely ignores the fact that her own thesis of ‘taking advantage of disasters’ is more commonly used to promote her brand of politics…with more disastrous results.

      And I mean, it’s not like Klein is now trumpeting some major disaster so she can force people into her collectivist worldview…oh wait, that’s the entire subject of this book. Funny how she’s a blatant hypocrite like that.

      1. How many times can they rebrand fascism?

        1. As many as it takes.

      2. When your house is destroyed by an earthquake, it’s generally wise to rebuild with a sound foundation and superior building materials. Klein contends that this advice amounts to earthquake advocacy.

    2. The careers of climate scientists aren’t particularly served well by reaching findings that countervail the intentions of your bank rollers. And so what then if some business take advantage of disasters etc? Do you enjoy drinking water after a major hurricane? Gasoline? Medicine? Moreover by expounding on the badness of businesses during calamities and disasters is done she is intentionally reinforcing the prejudice against free enterprise to demonstrate that freedom goes hand in hand with abject human misery. She’s a slaver.

    3. Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 10:09AM|#
      “I read “Shock Doctrine”…a good read.”

      What does that not surprise me?

    4. Who was it that said to “never let a crisis go to waste”?

      1. You would be mistaken, Eric, if you think Klein wasn’t also calling out Democrats.

        1. Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 11:08AM|#
          “You would be mistaken, Eric, if you think Klein wasn’t also calling out Democrats.”

          Which, of course, is totally irrelevant.

    5. The models are crap, nobody even knows what the sensitivity to doubling really is, and the phantom deep ocean heat has been largely refuted. The whole premise is bullshit (or at least not well understood) so the rest of the book is nonsense by definition.

      1. Deep ocean heat has been refuted? By who exactly?

        1. No need to refute something which has not yet been proven.

          1. Indeed the burden of proof is always on those making the affirmative condition claim – no one is required to prove a negative.

            And those making that affirmative condition claim have to prove it to be so with literally and exactly the same level of definitiveness that I can prove that my car has 4 wheels attached to it or they have proven absolutely nothing.

        2. Certain physical laws come to mind…

        3. Deep ocean heat has been refuted? By who exactly?

          By the lack of historical wide-spread measurement?

    6. Bullshit.

      This omission of a 7 percent figure masks just how dependent the SCC is on discount rates. As indicated in Figure 1 from the May 2013 update, when the Working Group used a discount rate of 5 percent, more than a fifth of the computer simulations reported a SCC that was near-zero or even negative, and that was for the year 2020.(See the three left-most blue bars in Figure 1 below.) If the Working Group ran the computer models again, this time using a 7 percent discount rate and an earlier reference year suchas 2015, presumably a larger fraction of simulations would register zero or negative values for the SCC, so that the mean result would itself be closer to zero?or conceivably even negative, meaning that carbon dioxide emissions conferred extra benefits on humanity.

  35. Did anything change here except for the watermelons openly showing their slices?

  36. No one discredits Naomi Klein more than Klein herself. The Shock Doctrine was hilarious. Overpriced, horribly researched, badly sourced, and easily challenged (especially when you consider her whole complaint about ideologues using crises to affect policy more applies to HER political views). You can replace every use of ‘neoconservative/conservative/libertarian’ with ‘Jews’ and it comes off like the worst anti-Semitic arguments of the 19th century. It’s literally conspiracy theory level stuff, but is taken seriously because it validates certain people’s politics.

    Klein has never gotten out of her ‘university student who believes she can micromanage the world’ phase and it shows. She assumes she can just spew nonsense and people will nod up and down like bobbleheads. She’s purely a ‘preach to the converted’ type and the fact that her work is used in universities discredits those institutions.

    1. She assumes she can just spew nonsense and people will nod up and down like bobbleheads.

      That’s not necessarily an ill-conceived assumption.

      1. Also, Michael Crichton put forward both her theses from the Shock Doctrine and This Changes Everything in State of Fear years ago. Except he was applying it negatively to people like her who would demand vast resource re-allocation to fulfill their political whims through environmentalist dogma.

        1. Crichton’s book was excellent although he was pilloried for it at the time. He also made the point that climate scientists have every incentive not to bite the hands that feed them. So when an interest group says “we want to hire you to measure the latest increase in man-made global warming,” well you’d damn well better find something or else you’ll get no more grant money in the future.

    2. You can replace every use of ‘neoconservative/conservative/libertarian’ with ‘Jews’ and it comes off like the worst anti-Semitic arguments of the 19th century.

      And that’s no coincidence. If you look at Nazi political views, programs, and propaganda, they were predominantly progressive. And eugenics in the US was primarily a progressive program, and was picked up by the Nazis as the starting point for their policies.

      1. Eugenics was to be part of the Marxian utopia as well. According to Trotsky:

        “Man at last will begin to harmonize himself in earnest … Even purely physiologic life will become subject to collective experiments. The human species … will become an object of the most complicated methods of artificial selection … The human race will not have ceased to crawl on all fours before God, kings, and capital, in order later to submit humbly before the dark laws of heredity and a blind sexual selection!”

  37. Naomi Klein walks into a bar.
    The vartender says “Why the long face?”

  38. The book mostly puts on paper what anybody with half a brain had already realized: climate change activism is simply an attempt to get people to agree to central planning by spread FUD.

  39. All we need are carbon taxes that no one is willing to pay, and we’ll all be fine. Democracy will sort this out, soon enough. For the people!

  40. “Man-made climate change, if unaddressed, may well become a significant problem for humanity as the 21st century advances.”

    Said no rational, objective, reasonable person, ever.

    1. Al Gore? Michael Mann? James Hansen?

      Nope…uhoh…Ronald Bailey.

      1. Al Gore?

        To be honest, I don’t know much about the other two. But you cannot be serious with this one.

        1. Serious, because he’s the boogeyman around here.

          1. Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 11:35AM|#
            “Serious, because he’s the boogeyman around here.”

            He’s a boogeyman because he’s an ignoramus and a hypocrite besides.
            Nit surprising you missed that.

            1. “He’s a boogeyman because he’s an ignoramus and a hypocrite besides.”

              Not only on this subject but others as well.

              As evidenced by his spewing misinformation and deliberate distortions about “children” killed by guns back when he was Clinton’s VP.

              1. Don’t forget that it was because they listened to demon lyrics in heavy metal music. Thanks for the laughs on that one, Al.

          2. Al “hockey-stick-graph” Gore is the boogeyman everywhere because he is a lying hypocrite that leaves a bigger carbon footprint in a single day than I do all year.

          3. You mean the guy who predicted the north pole would be ice-free by last year? That Florida would be underwater right now?

            Shockingly, false prophets tend to discredited as rational, objective or reasonable.

            1. In all seriousness, the claims of people like Michael Mann, Al Gore, and James Hansen are a major reason for the discrediting of runaway global warming arguments. Why? Because they make absurd predictions about the near future that are quickly falsified by the actual climate at that point in time. This might shock True Believers like you, but Chicken Little theatrics designed to scare people into agreeing with you is not a logical long term tactic and actively undermines your argument.

              1. In all seriousness, you would be one of the reasons I categorized him as the boogeyman for most here. What gets attributed to Al Gore is usually way overstated, like he is an apparition.

                The ice cap being ice free? Gore was quoting the study of Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski, Oceanography Department at the Naval Postgraduate School, who said it was possible it could be ice free for a couple of months by 2016. Here is Al gore quoting him, and saying “we will see.”

                http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/…..e-5-years/

                Hardly a prediction, just quoting another scientist. Now he can be wrong about that “possibility,” but its hardly a prediction.

                But he is the boogeyman.

                1. What gets attributed to Al Gore is usually way overstated

                  Have you not seen his signature work of propaganda? He did not suggest things in that film. He stated them as if they concrete fact.

                  1. And it’s not like Gore didn’t create a propaganda piece that was filled with determinist statements, cheap psychological manipulation and photoshopped imagery in a pathetic attempt at emotional appeal. Yeah, that guy is just ‘repeating the claims of other scientists’.

                2. Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 12:39PM|#
                  …”Hardly a prediction, just quoting another scientist. Now he can be wrong about that “possibility,” but its hardly a prediction.”

                  Doesn’t all that spinning make you dizzy?

              2. Here is Maslowski himself, on that possibility.

                http://thinkprogress.org/clima…..pwiththat/

                1. ‘Boogeyman’? Grow up. It’s called criticizing a public figure.

                  He deserves to openly be mocked for even suggesting that the ice caps melting at such a rate was a serious prospect. Throwing out qualifiers like ‘may’ and ‘we shall see’ does not justify outrageous claims or repeating them.

                  “In 2015 a solar flare may come and wipe us all out due to increased solar activity, we shall see. We can only stop this through a vast reallocation of resources to a solar shield.”

                  Oh look, I’m immune to criticism because I qualified it, fantastic! It doesn’t matter that the models I used are crap and that I’m actively using garbage data to affect public policy. I qualified it as a ‘maybe’ so I should never be criticized for spreading false information! You live in a world of zero accountability.

                  Maslowski’s claim itself was outlandish and ridiculous from the start, and for Gore to even treat it seriously speaks of his (and your) gullibility.

              3. By the way, forget Al Gore…I was just being facetious. The point of the quote above, is that its Ronald Baily you seem to have a complaint with.

                1. Where is Bailey suggesting widespread resource re-allocation backed by force based on his religion?

                  1. OK Jensen, don’t let the fact get in the way of what you believe people said.

                    Go ahead, show me the quote attributed to Gore that Florida would be underwater by now. You said it, we know that, but show us Gore saying it.

                    1. Um, that’s based on his sea level statements in An Inconvenient Truth. You know, that part where he ‘scientifically’ shows photoshopped images with dramatic music in the background.

                    2. Well there you go, Jensen…you yourself attributing something to Gore he never said. He is the boogeyman.

                    3. Keep moving those goal posts. He makes a claim, shows a graphic of Florida sinking below sea level, and that’s not something that can ever be attributed to him as dishonest fearmongering in JackandAce world. Right.

                    4. Its you that made a claim…that Gore said Florida would be underwater right now (you said it). Its you fearmongering about the boogeyman. Its dishonest, no?

                    5. Gore made a direct claim about sea levels rising in the next eight to ten years, then showed a graphic of Florida sinking beneath sea level. That is him presenting a narrative where in sea levels rising result in Florida being underwater. It is dishonest. Like you and your goal post moving.

                    6. The only one proven dishonest here is you, Jensen, by attributing something to someone which he never said, and you admit as much. What you suggest he shows in the film is a far cry from his saying Florida would be underwater by now.

                    7. Gore made a direct claim about sea levels rising in the next eight to ten years, then showed a graphic of Florida sinking beneath sea level. That is him presenting a narrative where in sea levels rising result in Florida being underwater. It is dishonest. Like you and your goal post moving.

                    8. By the way, sea levels ARE rising already. Keep up.

                    9. Gore made a direct claim about sea levels rising in the next eight to ten years, then showed a graphic of Florida sinking beneath sea level. That is him presenting a narrative where in sea levels rising result in Florida being underwater. It is dishonest. Like you and your goal post moving.

                    10. Enjoy your day, Jensen!

                    11. Enjoy your day, Jensen!

                    12. Jensen|9.16.14 @ 2:15PM|#
                      “Gore made a direct claim about sea levels rising in the next eight to ten years, then showed a graphic of Florida sinking beneath sea level.”

                      Jack’s ability to mislead in defense of these weasels is quite impressive.
                      According to Jack, that sorts of dishonesty really isn’t dishonesty if it didn’t come about, because he only sorta kinda ‘hinted’ at it with every bit of innuendo he could muster.
                      But like Jack when caught with a face covered in bullshit, ‘it was only a suggestion’.
                      If it had happened, Jack woulda been screaming from the roof tops. Slimy liars are like that.

                    13. Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 2:15PM|#
                      “By the way, sea levels ARE rising already. Keep up.”

                      Yes, at rates that are trivial. Keep up, twit.

                  2. What Bailey is suggesting is that man-made global warming is a problem, which is a similar stance to Al Gore (never said he agrees with everything, particularly who bad it will be, but he agrees its a problem and admits today that it could be a large one).

                    “For the record, I do think that man-made climate change is a problem…”
                    -Ronald Bailey

                    https://reason.com/blog/2014/07…..ays-reduce

                    1. That does not actually answer my question at all.

                    2. Goy above quoted Bailey, and its the basis of this whole discussion. And I quoted him again. What’s your question?

                    3. OK, folks! I think Jack just retired the chair for innuendo and false equivalence!

                      Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 1:47PM|#
                      “What Bailey is suggesting is that man-made global warming is a problem, which is a similar stance to Al Gore”

                      Jack, you’re full of shit; no way is Bailey’s stated opinion anywhere within a zip code of Gore’s.
                      I think you know that and I think you are a slimy liar as a result.
                      Or, you’re just plain stupid; which is it?

                2. Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 12:43PM|#”
                  “By the way, forget Al Gore…I was just being facetious.”

                  Of course you were! When caught with bullshit slathered all over you, why, claim it was a joke!

            2. Well, Hansen predicted “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup ? effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.”

              Of course, various measures of global temperature indicate no increase in temperatures since 1998. So it has not been monotonic on a decadal time scale.

              Doomsday cultists don’t have to abandon the cult just because the world doesn’t end on the predicted day. They just have to manufacture a reason for the postponement.

              1. The increase in temperature has been for the past 100 years. If this year goes above the 1998 temperature, do you start counting at 2014?

                1. Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 1:37PM|#
                  “The increase in temperature has been for the past 100 years”…

                  Except for the last 17 years; nearly 20% of that time. Pick those cherries, Jack!

                  “Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months”
                  http://www.climatedepot.com/20…..-9-months/

                  1. Do you know what “decadal time scales” means?

                    1. Tony|9.16.14 @ 5:18PM|#
                      “Do you know what “decadal time scales” means?”

                      Do you know what no increase for 17 years” means?

    2. It’s completely rational, objective, and reasonable because it’s content free.

      “Man-made pink robotic unicorns, if unaddressed, may well become a significant problem for humanity as the 21st century advances.”

  41. Climate science, Klein claims, has given progressives “the most powerful argument against unfettered capitalism” ever.

    She doesn’t realize this is a punchline. Or maybe an epitaph.

  42. “First, a quick review of the state of the climate. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is indeed increasing because humanity is cutting down forests and burning coal, oil, and natural gas. As a result, the world has warmed, glaciers are melting, and the seas are rising.”

    This was the most disturbing thing in the entire article. This may even be an accurate and correct statement but as yet, it is just a claim. And (in this article) an unsupported one. This is the kind of claim stated as God’s Truth that many Reason writers mock.

    I would love to see Reason devote a full print edition to the whole suite of climate change debates. Is it man-made? Is it just a cycle? Does tree cutting add or subtract from the carbon balance? Is carbon even the problem? How about some rational, rhetoric-free examination of evidence?

    I’ll leave you with with, instead of CO2, perhaps H3
    Hubris
    Homeostasis
    Heliosphere

    1. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought the world has been warming, glaciers have been melting, and the seas have been rising since the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, long before human beings began cutting down forests and burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Suggesting that the former is a “result” of the latter is absurd.

  43. With apologies to Monty Python:
    I’m Naomi Klein and I’m OK
    I sleep all night and I whine all day
    I cut down trees to sell my books
    They belong in the lavat’ry
    Chorus
    I cut down trees someone buys my lunch
    I throw it up in the lavat’ry
    On Wednesdays I go shopping
    To buy mirrors to look at me
    Chorus
    I cut down trees I bitch and grump
    I praise myself for hours
    I put on my rich clothing
    And sit alone in bars
    Chorus
    I chop down trees I despise men
    Unless they wear a bra
    I wish all men were girlies
    And I’d be their papa

  44. And speaking of costs, a new report today from a commission whose research was headed by Jeremy Oppenheim, Director at McKinsey Consulting, says that contrary to popular belief (particularly here at Reason), investment in renewable energy might in fact not be a cost, but actually economic stimulus.

    http://www.newscientist.com/ar…..BiAZXktCUk

    “Is it too good to be true? Top economists this week lay out an audacious argument for transforming the world’s economy into a low-carbon one. Even if you forget climate change, they say, it is worth doing on its own. That’s because a low-carbon economy is an efficient economy that will deliver faster economic growth, better lives and a greener environment. Forget the costs, feel the benefits…But its optimistic message is that there is no cost to share. Nations should be cutting their carbon emissions out of self-interest.”

    Do it out of self-interest! A libertarian principle at work!

    1. “”it is worth doing on its own.””

      If that’s the case, then you should have zero objection to the removal of all mandates and subsidies for the green-energy industry.

      Thanks

      1. Weclome.

      2. Me spell good one day.

    2. Jackand Ace|9.16.14 @ 2:33PM|#
      …”Do it out of self-interest! A libertarian principle at work!”

      Why is it nor surprising that Jack is totally ignorant of ‘rent seeking’?
      Because Jack’s an ignoramus, that’s why!

    3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp*
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      If that were true, then explain why Denmark and Germany have the highest electrical costs in Europe and are certainly no paragons of economic growth lately.

      http://www.spiegel.de/internat…..02269.html

      And the greater European experience is hardly better.

    4. Nations should be cutting their carbon emissions out of self-interest.”

      By “nation cutting its carbon emissions” that means that national government sends in a regulatory swat team to remove all unnecessary members of my family. I like how a nation cutting its carbon emissions is described like an individual making a personal choice.

  45. “Not SOLD by “No Logo”?
    Stunned into apathy and ennui by “Shock Doctrine”?
    Still too stupid to read anything by Actual Economists?

    TRY “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

    The newest list of “what to think” for the middle-class progressive-socialist!

    It expands its menu of ‘Who to Blame for Everything Wrong In The World from “Jews, Corporations, and BOOOOSH!!” to include a wider variety of other new hate-worthy capitalist and democratic institutions, all of which are conspiring to Rape Your Mind, Enslave the Brown People, and Blow Up the Planet!!!

    Buy it now before capitalism *implodes*!!

  46. my classmate’s step-aunt makes $69 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her pay was $15429 just working on the internet for a few hours. official website….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  47. I know about as much about climate science–or most other sciences–as the average “liberal” (and by “liberal” I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellator”) knows about economics and the syllogism. But the last people I’m going to believe about climate science are people promoting a socioeconomic philosophy based on legalized looting and pocket-picking. If you’re pointing a gun at my head, please forgive me for not trusting you. Especially if you belong to an ideological gang whose credo for about a century now has been “There is no truth but socialist truth.”

    1. So consult the science instead.

      1. Why do you keep ignoring the data, Tony?

        1. August 2014, scarcely two weeks ago, was the hottest month in history.

          1. mtrueman|9.16.14 @ 7:39PM|#
            “August 2014, scarcely two weeks ago, was the hottest month in history.”{

            So I’ve got one lefty ignoramus telling me we need decadal data, while another noted lying POS tells me about one month. Why don’t you guys figure out what cherries you’re going to pick. And while you’re at it:
            “Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months”
            http://www.climatedepot.com/20…..-9-months/

            Trueman, you have the cred of a convicted felon; you lie always and everywhere. You wouldn’t recognize the truth if it slapped you in the face.

            1. By all means ignore the data.

              1. mtrueman|9.17.14 @ 1:09AM|#
                “By all means ignore the data.”

                So you are simply saying you’re lying?

                1. “So you are simply saying you’re lying?”

                  Why so coy with all these leading questions? Got sommat to say, spit it out.

                  1. mtrueman|9.17.14 @ 1:39AM|#
                    “Why so coy with all these leading questions? Got sommat to say, spit it out.”

                    Why such an asshole hoping lies work?
                    Got something other than lies? Never seen it, liar.

            1. So it’s both irrelevant and a lie?
              Trueman freely admits to lying if it advances an argument, but says it’s just a minor issue, so it’s no great surprise.

              1. I’m sure he’s quoting GISS which runs significantly hotter than the other data sets and has all sorts of infilling tricks. I mean, why would you go to the 33year satellite record with 99% measured global coverage when you you can play sorts of interpolation games, right? And of course he isn’t bothered by the constant revisions which “cool” historical temps and “warm” recent temps. If it weren’t so bald-faced, you’d think it was some cheap conspiracy novel.

                1. I note he didn’t bother with a cite, so it’s a good chance he ‘heard it somewhere’.
                  Regardless, I can tell you that San Francisco had its hottest day ever 10 years ago, so that proves, uh, just about as much as his claim.

                2. NASA press release couple days ago.

                  1. mtrueman|9.17.14 @ 12:59AM|#
                    “NASA press release couple days ago.”

                    Did you see the cite above? So you admit it’s a lie?
                    What a fucking dipshit.

                    1. Did you see the cite above?

                      Didn’t see, didn’t look.

  48. As a German I find it funny (but not surprising) that Klein seems to be so giddy about our renewable energy scheme which’s implementation was (and still is) riddled with flaws. Even for many citizens/experts leaning on the left/green side of the political spectrum the assessment is not one of resounding success. The government has commissioned several expert reports on the scheme over the years which also casted some doubt on its efficiency.

    But what I find really funny are two things:
    1) That Klein, according to Ron, opposes GMOs even though there is overwhelming scientific evidence about their safety and risks beeing at least on par with conventional crops (with quite some evidence of environmental advantages to boot). You know you could almost call it a “scientifc consensus”…

    2) That Naomi Klein – THE Naomi Klein – that put forward a theory of ‘disaster capitalism’ (on very shaky legs, the review and responses by Johan Norberg cover it quite nicely) now seems to be pursuing the same strategy that she accused the evil capitalists of.

    1. Addendum:
      What I forgot to mention is, that the feed-in-tariff-system has a redistributional effect: from lower to upper classes. High energy prices are regressive while the lower classes lack the property (solar panels, equity in wind turbines, and so on) to participate in the scheme.

      “Progressive” policy, indeed.

      1. Energiewende fur alles!

  49. Anyone citing Jacobson is a moron. The numbers don’t even come close to matching up. Aside from the energy storage problem, there’s a slight problem with the supply of rare earths. Global production is ~150,000 tonnes/yr. A 2MW turbine uses about 400kg. Let’s assume that a 5MW turbine also uses 400kg (laughable, but I’m feeling generous). Jacobson calls for deploying 250,000 turbines a year. That means that those turbines alone would consume essentially all of the world’s rare earth production. And we haven’t even accounted for the fact that that 150k number is for all rare earths, heavy and light, and not just those used in PM production. And we haven’t even covered the total conversion of the US vehicle fleet to electrics let alone applied any of this to the rest of the world.

    Just more innumeracy from the Left.

  50. So, a kind of Disaster Socialism is what Klein is calling for.

    Check.

  51. What a fascinating echo chamber of climate change denial. Impressive! I guess this what is called sheep cheerfully lining up for slaughter. Funny how united you all are in your “Reason”. Nobody senses the irony in that title and the fact the this publication is backed by the Koch Brothers whose interests are clearly represented here. Deny, attack, refute, begrudge all you want. The facts are in: we are fucked unless we change course. Those who love Capitalism and staunchly defend it to the death: what has it really done for you? Given you a higher quality of life? Or, are you overworked, living a miserable life of desperation, always in debt, stressed about the future? If we humans are as intelligent as is evident here, why can’t we discuss better solutions to our needs and how we can steward the planet to a sustainable future? If one accepts the basic laws of physics, we all now that all of the earth’s resources have limits. Yet, we embrace an economic model based on infinite growth. The science on climate change is irrefutable: we are fucking this planet with carbon that should remain in the ground.

  52. We didn’t read the same book. (Commenters DEFINITELY didn’t read it.) Klein makes an airtight case, in agreement with the science community, that even with better technology business as usual will lead to disaster. Even technology currently available to forestall disaster is barely put to use as decision-making is all about short-term profit for a few rather than long-term benefits for the majority.

    While many consider religion to be “at war with science,” it turns out that capitalism is it’s true enemy. (Ironic, considering applied science is the true source of improved standards of living falsely attributed to it.)

    The dangers discussed go far beyond storms. Much of the world depends on water sources and farming patterns that are set to become extinct due to changing climate, or lives near coasts in places that is set to no longer exist.

    Since even recent small shocks to food supplies have led to conflict and revolution in the developing world (where most people live and where the damage of climate change will be greatest) it’s hard to overestimate the chaos that is being “locked in” through our blind faith in the so-called “free market” model applied to energy & resource sectors.

    Yet Ron has devoted himself to mocking what he sees as Klein’s “overestimation.” What does he recommend instead? Large public investments in R&D to improve the quality of our technological response. Klein agrees, though she sees this alone as tragically incomplete.

  53. He’s attacking a straw woman. Klein’s opposition to nuclear power and GMOs (at least as currently produced) is worthy of discussion, but is NOT related to her overall thesis about the massive failures of “business” and “tech” solutions alone to the crisis.

    Germany and Denmark are listed as countries that have made amazing progress despite natural limitations… Northern Europe is NOT the ideal place for solar power. With intl cooperation highly productive and efficient solar farms could be built near the equator, and the energy transmitted widely. Geography explains the limits of the programs, but the fact that they exist at the level they do is testimony to the power of popular will to change business as usual, even if it means paying higher power prices. (Mitigating such increases for the power is addressed in depth in the book, another reason I’m doubting he actually read it all.)

    And then there’s the tragicomedy of hundreds of ostensible human beings posting away about how Klein is a “Communist Bitch” and so many other non-sequitirs.

    What more could be expected from a publication that claims by their very title that their fringe, billionaire-enabled views have a monopoly on clear thinking? (Sorry scientists! Communist bitches.)

  54. I seem to have landed on an asteroid inhabited by commenters with double-digit IQ’s. I have a PhD in biostatistics from Columbia, have worked with scientists for more than 40 years, & have more than 140 first-authored scientific publications (none related to climate change). I also recently took a 2-year sabbatical to get an MSc at Cambridge U in the philosophy of science. You moronic commenters appear to be unaware that several prominent philosophers have written books (going back several decades) arguing that SCIENCE IS MODELING. After spending many hours during evenings and weekends studying the data, I’m strongly inclined to agree with the recent paper: Brysse et al. Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change 2013:23:327-37.

    And have any of you goofy know-nothing commenters even made an attempt to read Klein’s new book? I’ve already read it and she’s got me convinced. But most of all I’m disappointed in Ron Bailey – I’m not sure we read the same book. Internet Person is right on the mark when she/he says that Ron is attacking a straw woman. If capitalist fingers-in-the-dike solutions can fix the climate change predicament, I’ll cut off my middle leg and call myself an Irish eunuch. Fortunately for me, I’ll be dead when hell breaks loose, which will include water wars in Asia. My grandchildren won’t be so lucky.

    From a recent convert (thanks to Naomi Klein):
    Anarcho-syndicalist revolution ASAP! ‘Tis our only hope.

  55. “Mistakes of this size are never made innocently.” -Ayn Rand

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.