Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Paris Climate Talks Reveal Progressivism's True Hypocrisy

Progressive politicians use concern over climate change to push the agendas they've always wanted to.

What do you call it when elites fly their private jets to an international climate change conference to forge a deal with despots that caps American prosperity without our consent? You call it progressivism.

It's estimated that 50,000 carbon-spewing humans participated in the Paris climate conference. But while President Barack Obama was taking his working dinner at the three-Michelin-star L'Ambroisie, public protesters were banned from protesting in the aftermath of the Islamic terror attacks. Liberté?   Not so much.

It took a handful of gunmen only one night to impede free expression in Paris. Yet according to the president, the 0.1 to 0.2 C of warming we might see over the next decade, the worst-case scenario predicted by global warming alarmists, is the biggest crisis facing mankind, worthy of a massive and expensive curbing effort.

That doesn't mean Obama won't use the issue of terrorism to refocus our attention where it belongs. Millions of people might live in fear and suffer under the genuine, deadly threat of radical Islam, but the president contends that the Paris conference itself is "a powerful rebuke to the terrorists" and an "act of defiance" in the face of extremism.

Why not? True believers are rarely dissuaded by reality. Socialist Francois Hollande, president of a country that not only was recently a target of Islamic terror but also witnessed the bloodiest conflict of the 20th century, claimed: "Never have the stakes been so high at an international conference. It's about the future of the planet, the future of life." Never?

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a man whose divided nation still suffers unconscionable destitution and tyranny, told leaders that humankind has "never faced such a test" as climate change. Never?

These are preposterous exaggerations that have as much to do with history and science as the book of Revelation. But that's nothing new, is it? On Wednesday, Obama alleged that without a climate change agreement, there could be "submerged countries, abandoned cities, fields that no longer grow," assertions that are no more than fearmongering, ratcheted up over the decades by frustrated environmentalists and now confidently thrown around by presidents. These prophecies are tethered to reality in the same way Donald Trump's whoppers are, although the media treat the former with undeserving respect.

Transforming ideology into a "science" is not a new development on the left. But the most useful indicators tell us that humanity's prospects are on the upswing. Poverty is declining; crops are producing higher yields; and humans are living longer and healthier lives despite the mild warming we've experienced. And in spite of these advancements (or maybe because of them), Western leaders are prepared, conveniently enough, to cap growth, spread wealth and centralize power in the way progressives have always wanted to cap growth, spread wealth and centralize power.

The world looks ready for a deal. Developing nations will receive reparations for the capitalist sins of advanced nations—bout $100 billion each year. Corporations will be subsidized so they can create more unproductive industries to meet arbitrary caps. And the worst carbon offenders in the world will have to do nothing. What's not to like?

If a deal can be reached, Obama will have to trust that Communist China—the world's most prodigious carbon emitter —will voluntarily implement economic restraints about 30 years from now, by which time the U.S. will have to reach a 26 to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Obama will implement regulations to get that done unilaterally. So China will have more of a say in what happens to our environmental policy than Congress. But Obama will also negotiate with a number of other unsavory despots, such as the homicidal Robert Mugabe, who represents the African position at the Paris negotiations. He will not, however, bring the deal to Congress, which represents the majority of the American people.

The Paris agreement might be the biggest, most crucial international deal the world has ever known, but it is not important enough to be subjected to the traditional checks and balances of American governance. Global warming "does not pause for partisan gridlock," the president explained this summer. In other words, the president does not have to "pause" for Congress if he feels like using the regulatory state to implement his preferred partisan policy.

This kind of circumvention will be cheered by those who once feigned indignation when prior presidents abused executive power. This is really important, as you know. Obama hopes "to make climate change policy the signature environmental achievement of his, and perhaps any, presidency," said an approving New York Times editor. Progressives are perfectly content to surrender freedoms to fight global warming—perfectly content to give the executive branch unprecedented power to "act." And when the private jets come back and the pretend offsets are cashed in and the moralizing begins, you will know they did it for your own good.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Socialist Francois Hollande, president of a country that not only was recently a target of Islamic terror but also witnessed the bloodiest conflict of the 20th century, claimed: "Never have the stakes been so high at an international conference. It's about the future of the planet, the future of life." Never?

    It's official. Global Warming is worse than Hitler.

    No one is going to follow a zealot who fails to plot the most hyperbolic course to and also away from certain global doom. And they're absolutely not going to take serious the man who tries to perform his acolyte duties via teleconference.

  • Intraveneous Woodchipper||

    You'd have thought a Frenchman of all people would have felt the irony of that statement. "WW2 < Climate change!" is a whole new level of derp

  • Jimbo||

    "It's official. Global Warming is worse than Hitler."

    So no more "you know who also thought/did/killed something, something?"

    Thanks for being the killjoy!

  • Microaggressor||

    You know what other cult led to worldwide human suffering?

  • ||

    Catholicism?

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    The Church of Starry Wisdom?

  • Craig Smith||

    ...cult of Justin Bieber?

  • DenverJ||

    You know what else caused sea levels to rise?

  • ||

    Chris Christie visiting Cape May?

  • SQRLSY One||

    The Kardashians?

  • d_remington||

    Your mother's beachside vacation?

  • ||

    "U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon"

    Quite the appropriate and ironic name, no? Ban the Moon!

  • ||

    "If a deal can be reached, Obama will have to trust that Communist China—the world's most prodigious carbon emitter —will voluntarily implement economic restraints about 30 years from now, "

    Scouts Honor, China?

    I don't think they really give a shit about China and India. I'm afraid this is exactly as painted I've come to conclude. It's all about the West wanting system change. What a disaster this will end up.

  • Jackand Ace||

    I guess keeping up with current events is tough for David. In fact, China isn't waiting for 2030. They just mapped out a cap and trade program intended to bring down carbon emissions, and will be implemented in the coming year. .

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....-congress/

  • Jackand Ace||

    To be fair, I know that David knows of current events, and probably knows that China isn't waiting 30 years to implement solutions.

    Why didn't he inform his readers of that? Because it intrudes on his ideology, and doesn't fit the meme by which he chooses to live.

  • GregMax||

    The trouble with all your bullshit is that it's based on a false premise. Anthropogenic climate change is an unproven hoax. Start there and prove your point.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Nah, you start there. Just don't whine, like Savid does, when all the solutions come from those who realize it's all not a conspiracy.

  • Jim176||

    Jackland Ace-[" When all the solutions come from those who realize it's not all a conspiracy"] this is actually self fulfilling because if there is not a real problem then the zealots can claim that they were right because the climate change did not occur. The truth is it's all bullshit. Here educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOjyMir6Z0 and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t5R5Bp_RXE.

  • DarrenM||

    I'll believe it "will be implemented" when it's implemented. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with China kneecapping it's own economy. I'm just skeptical they'll actually do it.

  • Jackand Ace||

    It's all promises right now. That's why they are called pledged. Even ours are just a promise.

    You know who should be worried about a country not living up to their promises? China, about US promises. Next election will determine whether or not we will live up to any promises we make in Paris.

  • DenverJ||

    Hitler?

  • Win Bear||

    The operative word being "intended". Communist countries have a lot of "intentions", but trouble delivering on them.

    China probably needs to "cap" its emissions for a much simpler reason: its badly built power plants are creating so much real pollution that it kills people in large numbers.

  • BigT||

    You are right. China isn't waiting for 2030 - they are building about one new coal burning plant per week.

    Ah, the irony, it burns ..... coal!!

  • Jackand Ace||

    By the way, the government in China just issued this new report on how bad the damages will be in China from climate change. And it is a dire warning to their own people on how serious this is, something that they are realizing each year.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015.....oogle.com/

    Everyone is taking it seriously. Well, other than Harsanyi, American conservatives, and libertarians.

  • Vapourwear||

    Appeal to popularity?

    That's what you're going for?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Do I appeal to the scientific community on scientific issues? Indeed I do.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    The scientific consensus on global warming is illogical crap.

    I mean, I am a scientist. I have a degree in science and a career as a scientist. You people act like this gives me some special magical authority over issues of climate change, when in reality my profession as a Computer Scientist gives me no special insight into the field of climatology. But nah, you treat ALL of us scientists as if our opinions on climate change are somehow more credible then the opinions of you lesser, unscientific persons.

    Also you act under the false notion that we scientists are, like, virtuous paragons with no human faults or self interest whatsoever. You act like climatologists, and all research scientists, despite having a VESTED FINANCIAL INTEREST in raising a panic, which gets public attention, and therefore more money to continue their research, would NEVER act on this vested interest to actually do this. You act like we are all sworn agents of the scientific method, reporting the raw facts regardless of how doing so would affect us financially. You act as if we scientists are wholly virtuous and incorruptible, and that no scientist would cause an undue panic, even though without that panic they would receive no funding.

    And before you try to dispute me, remember: I am a SCIENTIST, and thus my opinions somehow have more factual weight then your own. Because Science!! If a Scientist says it, then it MUST be true!!

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    "The scientific consensus on global warming is illogical crap."

    Sorry, I meant to say the APPEAL to the scientific consensus.

  • KDN||

    Pshaw, everyone knows computer science and engineering aren't REALLY science. Now shut up and listen to your betters.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Vested interest in money makes all of these climate scientists issue fraudulent studies? Really.

    Let's take just one group of scientists, Berkeley Earth, and what they had to say. You should read carefully regarding vested interests. Maybe you can tell me what theirs are.

    "In recent weeks we’ve seen a political controversy over NOAA’s adjustments to temperature records, with accusations from some in congress that records are being changed to eliminate a recent slowdown in warming and to lend support to Obama administration climate policies. This makes it sound like the NOAA record is something of an outlier, while other surface temperature records show more of a slowdown in warming. This is not true; all of the major surface temperature records largely agree on temperatures in recent years. This includes independent groups like Berkeley Earth that receive no government funding. A record warm 2014 and 2015 (to date) has largely eliminated any slowdown in temperatures, whether data is adjusted or not."

  • MokFarin||

    Oh, look! You're posting a scientist's opinion again and saying everyone thinks it's a conspiracy again!

    Prove that anyone here thinks it's a conspiracy. While you're at it, prove that the paradigm shift in the tectonic plates was a conspiracy (either before or after. I'm charitable.) Or, why modern nutritional recommendations from medical researchers is a conspiracy (also, either for or against as I'm charitable.)

    You seem to not understand anything but how to appeal to authority. Instead, you should learn about an appeal to evidence, which you never provide and avoid at all costs when presented to you.

  • Jackand Ace||

    And speaking of conspiracy theorists, mok checks in!

    All I have to do to know how about conspiracy theorists is read the comments here. I will give you one example.

    " Note that there were large conflicts of interest in those investigations - they were conducted by the institutions that received money from the grants, not an independent party."

    That was said about 6 different, independent of each other, investigations of climate-gate. A conspiracy that reached groups in other countries, in order to arrive at the same conclusion. And who is that conspiracy theorist?

    Why, that would be you, mok.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|12.5.15 @ 9:30AM|#
    "And speaking of conspiracy theorists, mok checks in!"

    And speaking of ignoramuses, Jack checks in!
    Hey, Jack! Tell us about how fracking causes earthquakes no one can feel; that's a good one as warning against your 'disaster'!
    Or about the tremendous storm that harmed no one; do we see a trend here? I think the science is settled!
    But Jack, I always love to hear about the rapture and how the bleevers will be saved. Please tell us when that's to happen Jack! You're sooooooooooo good at tossing bullshit.

  • MokFarin||

    Yes, and you linked to the site that showed that five of those investigations were being handled by the people who had benefitted from any potential wrong doing.

    You didn't disprove that, you just shrieked about conspiracies. I gave alternative reasons when you went there, but - no - it has to be a conspiracy!

  • Jackand Ace||

    And exactly how did Nationsl Science benefit? Please do explain. And also Parliament. I know your too paranoid to believe Penn State is on the take. But explain the other two. It'll be great to see your paranoia.

  • Win Bear||

    Let's take just one group of scientists, Berkeley Earth, and what they had to say. You should read carefully regarding vested interests. Maybe you can tell me what theirs are.

    They want to continue to receive grant funding from government agencies, and they want to be able to publish in scientific journals. That requires some degree of political conformity, and it requires a large degree of scientific conformity and publication bias.

  • Jackand Ace||

  • MokFarin||

    Since all you care about are appeals to authority, here:

    “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.11 C per decade” – University of Alabama, Huntsville - reason.com/blog /2015/07/06/ global-temperature-trend- update-june-201

    “The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.” “After 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming.” – Remote Sensing Systems - www remss.com/research/climate

    “Satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor global temperature change.” – NASA, April, 1990 - trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122096963

    There is a “robust” cosmic ray-global temperature relationship… and thus provide further corroboration of the solar/cosmic ray theory of climate of Svensmark et al. - National Academy of Sciences - www. pnas.org/content/112/34/E4640.full

    “Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates." Mass Institute of Technology, globalchange .mit.edu/files/2015 Energy & Climate Outlook.pdf

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks for all this authority figures. Huntsville and Spencer? Maybe you'll want to come to grips with this quote from their last posting on October temps.

    "The satellite temperature dataset shows an overall warming of about 0.39 C during the past 36 years."

  • Jackand Ace||

    And Remote Sensing. Glad you appeal to the group who had to correct Spencer's initial mistakes.

    Love who you quote selectively from them. Typical of a libertarian. You can explain this quote from them.

    "Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
    Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation."

    Hmmmm?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Since you're too lazy to post actual links, I will do it for you.

    http://www.remss.com/research/climate

  • Jackand Ace||

    Could you do me a favor? Show a bit more creativity than simply going to a post at WUWT and recurgitate their links from a day ago. It's not quite a scientific source.

    Tell you what. Get me that link from NASA in 1990 (over 20 years ago) that says satellites are the only measurement.

  • MokFarin||

    I already did, not that you'd notice. And posting from WUWT is as much as you can handle. Quite frankly, you're too lazy to do anything but cherry pick your own quotes from places like Berkely, why should I be any different especially when you can't refute them without pretending you actually know what you are talking about. After all, since you can't understand the data, what makes you qualified to judge which scientists to follow?

    That's right. Nothing. But you pretend you understand it and you "understand it" by posting links to certain groups and not others and you demean those groups you don't agree with, not because you understand what they are saying but because you don't agree with it on a political level - which isn't science and shows you to be a shill. And when people challenge your politics, all you do is scream about conspiracies.

    Since you aren't being intellectually honest, I fail to see why I should put in more effort than to show you how wrong you are by simply copying from a blog.

    Now, show me the data that proves the CAGW hypothesis. I can falsify it just by linking WFT. Want a hint? There is no correlation to the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the global temperatures. Both have risen over the entire trend, but temperature has gone both up and down since Mauna Loa came online. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/plot/esrl-co2

    But, of course, I'm sure BEST has something to say about that, too. Maybe the same exact words I've seen you post three times.

  • MokFarin||

    The core of the CAGW hypothesis is that CO2 will increase the temperature a little bit, causing water vapor to increase, causing the global mean temperature to increase from the warming effects of water. This has not happened, and the models used to identify this have consistently hugely overshot not just the raw temperature data, but also the manipulated land and ocean compilation data.

    There are many research reports that show that the temperatures aren't matching up, especially in the troposphere. DOIs:
    10.3390/rs2092148
    10.1038/361335a0
    10.1002/joc.1651
    10.1029/2004GL020103
    10.1038/nature09394

    Additionally, the radiative imbalance model, in particular, doesn't match up to what the models say it does, such as in DOI 10.1002/2014GL060962.

    But, of course, none of this matters, right? The science is settled and everyone who disagrees is embroiled in a conspiracy with Exxon, aren't they? Sorry, I didn't mean to get my facts in the way of your political beliefs.

  • Jackand Ace||

    It is indeed settled. You should get all your supposed proof refuting AGW published. It would shake up the scientific world!

    Enjoy your evening, mok! It's been fun!

  • MokFarin||

    All of this is already published. I referenced them. And it is not settled, except for people like you that have a political belief.

    I love how you disregard published papers without having actually read them or even understood them.

  • Win Bear||

    It is indeed settled. You should get all your supposed proof refuting AGW published. It would shake up the scientific world!

    Many people (including myself) simply don't care whether AGW is real or not. The major problem with the discussion around AGW is that it exaggerates the costs and neglects the benefits.

    I think a few degrees of warming for the planet is the best thing that can happen. I hope AGW is real!

  • Eman||

    im reserving forming an opinion about global warming (or climate change or whatever you wanna call it) until i've learned enough meteorology to actually understand the science. im really not very interested, so that probably won't ever happen. I assume the planets not going to disappear underneath me, and I don't anthropomorphize it at all. morality is about how you interact with other people, so attaching some moral value to how we treat the earth is very much anthropomorphizing it. besides all of that we've historically been terrible at predicting the future, so there's a limit on how much we should do based on people's guesses, regardless of how well informed or credentialed they are

  • Jackand Ace||

    Got that NASA link? You posted the statement....

  • MokFarin||

    Above. Again.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Where? Get me The NASA link.

    By the way, thanks for this

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g.....:360/trend

    Your site

  • MokFarin||

    Gee. I wonder why you chose GISS instead of the BEST I used. Hmmm.

    I also wonder why you started the data set at 1985. Hmmmmmm.

    Gee, sure looks like you were cherry picking, once again! http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b.....:360/trend

    I also noticed that you didn't both to show the CO2 having a completely different trend and a poor relationship to that 1985 start date. Hmmmmmm.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Oh, I have to use the site how you would use it, eh? What's wrong with GISS? They part of the conspiracy?

  • MokFarin||

    Once again, you talk about conspiracies. It must be very sad in your world, with all of the conspiracies that go on constantly.

  • Jackand Ace||

    By the way, here is BEST.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/b.....:360/trend

    Next!

  • Jackand Ace||

    Your "above" isn't a NASA link.

  • MokFarin||

    It's a newspaper article from 1990 that uses NASA as a source. I'm so sorry that you can't accept that as a source. But after all of your linking to places that talk but provide no data, I figured that's all you could handle.

    Funny how that's the ONLY link you care about in that series, including ignoring the quote from the National Academy of Sciences that diminishes the role of CO2 being the primary driver of climate. And also ignores the statement that the agreements that have been sought by COP meetings for 21 years will do nothing about global warming even if they are kept 100%.

    Once more, you do nothing but cherry pick.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Oh, it's a newspaper article that SAYS it was a NASA statement.

    Says it all, mok, about your seriousness. Your a piece of work.

  • MokFarin||

    I note again that that one link is all you concentrate on. You have not even read the published work I linked.

    And, do you have evidence that the article author lied about his sources? Come on, prove it to me. Provide some data that refutes that article that isn't "Oh, yeah, that one think amongst the dozens of things says it all about you!"

    Jackand, your continued jumping around and avoiding actual questions of substance says everything about you.

  • Jackand Ace||

    By the way, mok, that's what happens when WUWT is your source. You pass BS. Good try.

  • MokFarin||

    Of course, you are now ignoring ALL of the non-WUWT sources I cited.

    Poor try, Jackand.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Like Remote who says the troposphere has warmed significantly? Yes, you cited it. Thank you.

  • MokFarin||

    And has no warmed as the models said they would. But that's not the only thing I cited, either.

    Have you read any of the published work I cited? Didn't think so.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tell you what, mok, I read Remote, I read Spencer, I even used Trees.

    Get back to me when you read Royal. It's just one.

    Now enjoy your Saturday evening.

  • MokFarin||

    I already read it. It has no data, as I already told you. It's only talking points without the calculations, data sets, or anything else to back it up.

    You see, all of the backup is in the published work, some of which I cited and you refused to go into, probably because you don't have access to publishers and you can't easily cherry pick off of an abstract.

  • Suicidy||

    I never treat the opinions of others as being more credible than my own. Unless I examine their argument, related facts, and deem them to be an improvement over my current analysis. Which happens once in a great while.

  • Curt2004||

    So how about the opinions of actual climate scientists? Are they for some reason less credible than those of right-wing politicians and energy industry lobbyists?

  • Jackand Ace||

    As far as popularity, let me know when Reason and libertarians don't appeal to polls from the American people.

  • Will4Freedom||

    If the American people stand for this, they deserve what they get. I'm very sorry people with a clue must also suffer.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Maybe you and David missed that the American people want to be part of the solutions being implemented in Paris, by as much as two thirds.

    http://environment.yale.edu/cl.....ent-paris/

  • Governor Squid||

    Bear in mind that these are the same people who flocked to theaters to see how Titanic would end.

  • Sevo||

    Jackand Ace|12.4.15 @ 9:16AM|#
    "Maybe you and David missed that the American people want to be part of the solutions being implemented in Paris, by as much as two thirds."

    Jack, tossing that crap out is a bit much even for an imbecile of your caliber:
    'Question: Do you want to do good?'
    Real question: Is Jack that stupid? Answer: He just proved he is.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, Jack, thanks for that 'survey'; the link is now saved for when imbeciles like you start claiming they're all 'sciency' about their religion.

  • Suicidy||

    Complete bullshit. From a bullshit bill of goods. When the progs are dealt with, it will not end well for you.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "Transforming ideology into a "science" is not a new development on the left."

    Rejecting science simply because it intrudes on your ideology is a sad province of the right.

    What is more sad is the whining now coming from the right about the left wing solutions being implemented when you rejected the science all along. You abdicated the solutions to the left.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "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." -Richard Feynman

  • Jackand Ace||

    Thanks, skip!

  • MokFarin||

    Show me the experiment or data where the AGW hypothesis was proven.

    I can show you the data (which you refused to look at last time) that shows it is a flawed hypothesis - not only via the predictions made for the last 30 years using the theory, but the theory itself not equating to real-world measurements.

  • Jackand Ace||

    You didn't show the data. I asked you to show it. Still waiting.

  • MokFarin||

    I gave you the data to look at, as well as some things you can do with that data. Still waiting for you to go get it. Oh, that's right. You haven't, yet. "You can't be bothered."

    Because you'd rather ignore evidence and link to opinion pieces that make you think you know something.

  • MokFarin||

    Oh, and you still haven't given me the experiment or data to show that CAGW was proven.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Ha! Tell you what, go here to the Royal Society explain it to you simply. I know, I know, you have proved Royal Society and National Academy wrong...we're just all waiting for you to get it published.

    Oh yeah, I just did appeal to authority. Let me know when you get to be an authority.

    http://royalsociety.org/topics.....n=standard

  • MokFarin||

    Yes, yes. I know. You love yourself the Royal Society and ignore the National Academy of Sciences quote I posted that you didn't like.

    Funny how you like to that site but you never, ever (ever) link to any evidence or data, which is what I requested. You know, actual published work like you keep claiming I should do, despite the fact that I have already referenced published work to stand my statements on.

    Keep pretending you know what you are talking about.

  • Suicidy||

    He doesn't know shit. Lots of bad math he can't begin to understand with that dim mind and meager little sack of talent he has.

  • Jim176||

  • MarkLilly||

    I have not this information and would be interested. Could you post it here again? Thanks.

  • Jackand Ace||

    No one has it. Including mok.

  • MokFarin||

    Once again, Jackand Ace doesn't know what he's talking about.

    If you go to WFT and compare CO2 with what the temperature does (And what the temperature has been doing over the entire time line that we have records) the temperature doesn't follow a linear trend. It's trend is roughly sinusoidal in a periodicity of ~60 years or so. This means it goes up for awhile and then turns around and comes down for awhile. The Early 1900s were a cold time, the 1930s to 1950s were a warm time, the 1950s to 1970s were a cold time, and the 1980s to early 2000s were a warm time. Right now we are still riding the plateau of that "warm time," but several climate scientists around the world have opined that the temperature is due to come down and be in the "cold phase" again by the 2030s.

    CO2, for the time frame since the early 1960s, has been steadily increasing it's yearly average each and every year while the temperature swings. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/plot/esrl-co2

    Thus, the CAGW hypothesis that CO2 will increase the temperature enough to increase water vapor, which will increase the temperatures further has been falsified. The temperature has gone both down and up while CO2 has been rising, which is not expected from the hypothesis or the models built on that hypothesis.

  • MokFarin||

    Note that there have been quite a few attempts to make the climate models match reality, but they haven't been able to successfully do so. The claims that the science is "Settled" or other such things are a political statement that has no real relationship to the actual science that's going on. A few scientists have signed on to the political activism that gives it a "sciency" sheen, unfortunately that means that people who have no understanding of the science because it's a political topic for them, have no recourse but to smear anyone who they don't agree with.

    Right now is not the time for political action to "curb CO2" because the place of CO2 in the global warming equations have obviously been overstated. We will get 25 years into "stopping CO2" and then find out that it was something else - possibly something we can't even control - that is at fault for the way the temperature is.

  • Suicidy||

    A big factor is solar activity. Which should be mathematically obvious.

    And I do like how you're staying scientific, unlike Jackoff Deuce. Keep it up.

  • MokFarin||

    Off topic, but Peter Griffin has a bad feeling about you.

  • Suicidy||

    Indeed. As do most people. It's my curse, it's my blessing.

  • Curt2004||

    All questions answered (with data):

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

  • Old.Mexican||

    Re: Jackass Ass,

    Rejecting science simply because it intrudes on your ideology is a sad province of the right


    The "right" didn't invent Lysenkoism, Jackass.

    What is more sad is the whining now coming from the right about the left wing solutions being implemented


    It's funny how you framed them within political boundaries, Jackass. I don't know if that was unwittingly or not (since you're witless, I would put my money on the first), but it is interesting.

  • Suicidy||

    People like Jackoff should be executed for treason when the revolution comes.

  • Win Bear||

    Rejecting science simply because it intrudes on your ideology is a sad province of the right.

    People aren't "rejecting science", they are rejecting specific statements made by scientists. And people are rejecting policy proposals that have nothing to do with science.

    The idea that we should engage in massive government intervention in our economy for the purpose of lowering CO2 emissions and keeping temperatures down is not a scientific idea, it is an ideological idea, and a bad one at that. It means that you accept the unproven premise that lower temperatures are good. And it means that you accept the unproven premise that the fastest way of lowering CO2 emissions is for government to intervene.

  • tarran||

    It's all part of the COP script:

    1: The Hopes!
    2: The Last Chance!!!!
    3: Time Is Running Out!!!!!!!
    4: The Celebrity Circus!
    5: The Deadlock! (The horror) <--- Where we are now
    6: The Breakthrough at Five Minutes Past Midnight
    7: The Cold Light of Day

  • tarran||

    It's all part of the COP script:

    1: The Hopes!
    2: The Last Chance!!!!
    3: Time Is Running Out!!!!!!!
    4: The Celebrity Circus!
    5: The Deadlock! (The horror) <--- Where we are now
    6: The Breakthrough at Five Minutes Past Midnight
    7: The Cold Light of Day

  • ace_m82||

    These are preposterous exaggerations that have as much to do with history and science as the book of Revelation.

    To be fair, the book of Revelation was likely written by someone who did see what he said he saw. It's also possible that what was predicted could happen.

    So no, these preposterous exaggerations have much less to do with history and science as the book of Revelation.

  • Win Bear||

    To be fair, the book of Revelation was likely written by someone who did see what he said he saw.

    Ergot poisoning and schizophrenia don't actually count as "history and science".

  • Old.Mexican||

    Paris Climate Talks Reveal Progressivism's True Hypocrisy


    No!

    Transforming ideology into a "science" is not a new development on the left.


    They did pretend that Marxianism was "scientific," remember? The Jackass can tell you.

    But the most useful indicators tell us that humanity's prospects are on the upswing. Poverty is declining; crops are producing higher yields; and humans are living longer and healthier lives despite the mild warming we've experienced.


    But that's not good news! Can't you see that we're a virus infesting this world?

  • sasob||

    I can see that Marxianism, as you call it, is a virus infesting this civilization.

  • Suicidy||

    I've been saying that for ahwile now.

  • Jima||

    I don't think progressives are perfectly content to surrender freedoms to fight climate change. I think they're perfectly content to surrender OTHER people's freedoms to fight climate change. I.E., flying a 747 to Paris for a meeting isn't really a great example of your willingness to sacrifice your personal comfort for "the cause ". It's always been about the same thing. More centralized control.

  • Suicidy||

    They all think we will be put in chains while they will be the favored party members when they get their 'worker's paradise'. Little do they know they will be standing in line for three hours for toilet paper just like everyone else. Just like that other 'worker's paradise', Venezuela.

  • Chrxtoph3r||

    These people are insane. There is no other word for it.

  • Suicidy||

    How about 'traitors'? I think that is a fair word to use.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    time to cut open the watermelons again.

  • patskelley||

    The big "Other", the Noble Lie. I used to think all the world needs is one good alien invasion and everyone will join together to battle the boogie woogie. Sadly, aliens refuse to step foot (pad, tentacle, whatever) in this cesspool, so the next best thing is to convince us that 1. we're all mentally ill and need medication and 2. the sky is falling. What better way to ensure total non-competition but to convince developing nations they have nothing to offer but compliance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie

  • Jayburd||

    HIDE THE DECLINE!

  • MSimon||

    So is Climate Change worse than Pol Pot or Hindu Kush?

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    Obama hopes "to make climate change policy the signature environmental achievement of his, and perhaps any, presidency," said an approving New York Times editor.

    Why does the phrase, "legacy whore" come to mind?

  • Suicidy||

    I like that.

  • Harun||

    If Obama wanted to fight global warming, he'd have included Yucca Mountain in the stimulus, and found a way to expand nuclear power.

    If you want to remove emissions without much affecting our lifestyle, its electric cars powered by the atom.

    Instead Obama opposes waits until his last year in office to maybe do something. A real profile in courage to dump it on the next guy.

  • Harun||

    By the way, as more science is done, the risk of catastrophic warming has gone done.

    And if its not catastrophic, it really is a complete nothing burger, as it will happen so slowly that people can easily adapt to it. It will be as painful as the Rust Belt moving to the Sun Belt.

    And if a few islands go under, well, Montserrat had to be evacuated, too.

    Frankly, opening up more lands in Canada and Siberia probably is more beneficial than spending billions to do nothing.

  • Roscoe BoDeen||

    I trust climate change scientists like I trust Federal Reserve PHD economists, particularly when comes their respective forecasting models. I vividly recall when our 200 Federal Reserve economists failed to recognize warning signs of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Just go make and listen to the esteemed Ben Bernanke's public speeches and comments leading up to the crisis. What a joke!

  • Mudhen||

    One of the things missing for many of these arguments is Cost vs. Benefit? The recent VW Dieselgate scandal is an example. EPA pushes a reduction in emission that essentially has a minimal, if not meaningless benefit. The latest Cal regulations by the EPA is estimated to result in a .0015 degrees C difference over 100 years at the cost of as many as 125,000 jobs.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Paris Climate Talks Reveal Progressivism's True Hypocrisy"

    Hypocrisy?

    There are no contradictions once you accept that all their rhetoric is simply a ploy to aggregate power.

  • Charlotte Falcon||

    Question: if Obama can unilaterally enter into a Climate Change agreement, why can't the next President just unilaterally exit it?

  • Jason Vick||

    Progressive politicians use concern over climate change to push the agendas they've always wanted to. we will see what will happen in Cop 22 in Morocco

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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