My Photo

April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

BlogStats


« Sandbox - 20mar18 | Main | What happened to the FBI? »

20 March 2018

Comments

scenes

on "Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex"

I admit that I like the Amazon reviews. As usual, the one star reviews aren't purchasers of the book. Mass thinking is a funny thing, it's baked into the cake of humanity.

Heck, if people really cared about human-caused environmental degradation, and Lord knows there's a lot of it, they'd care primarily about population reduction. While I appreciate the whole global warming kerfuffle, and don't entirely discount it's possibility, the solutions always seem to involve political remakes of the economy and nothing really practical.

If you want to worry about the environment, worry about this purple line.

https://assets.weforum.org/editor/TSLHIEgHkoZ3oD0xDX6F7OC_aDS-WiECe5SWPLgyLuw.png

Of course, that's not allowed.

Russ

I am just starting Chapter 8, Models do not Equal Evidence in the

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (The Politically Incorrect Guides), but Marc Morano

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change gives a voice -- backed by statistics, real-life stories, and incontrovertible evidence -- to the millions of "deplorable" Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar "climate change" complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven wrong.

Get your copy here:

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B074TTRCQD/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o03_?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Scenes

One thing that confuses me is what the Green Libertarians expect to do if we are heading into some kind of dormant phase of the sun (is 'Maunder Minimum' the phrase I want?).

So, if the temperature starts heading south, is everyone expected to start burning coal and use human activity as a giant sort of thermostat, or is nature gonna do what nature is gonna do?

Robert Cross

"The importance of the GWP Foundation’s work receives its strongest testimonial from the constant attack it has been under since its inception by those who have the most to lose in grant funded livelihoods"

Your logic is astonishingly delusional. They are under constant attack for the crackpot science they put forth as real and their close ties to EXXON. GWP is the largest climate denial organization in the UK. You fail to mention that the wealth of fossil fuel industry stockholders dwarfs the money scientists receive from grants. I would think the fossil Fuel cabal would do about anything to cash in on the billions of dollars of investment they have in gas and oil that has yet to come to the surface. Just who has the most to gain or lose here? GWP is just another crackpot denier group like WattsUP. GWP won't reveal its donors because if people (RR readers accepted) found out that GWP is just another shill for the fossil fuel industry, like the Heritage Foundation and many other denier groups, the arguments they present would carry so little weight as to be laughable.
source: source watch

Don Bessee

We should all go out and let our cars etc. idle for half an hour in tribute to the oh so cross one. He could of course call grandpa jerry and buy some cap and trade offsets. ;-)

Scott Obermuller

from the crossed-up one - "You fail to mention that the wealth of fossil fuel industry stockholders dwarfs the money scientists receive from grants."
Yeah - I see the obvious symmetry.
(sarc off)
Do you mean pension funds like CalPers?
I'll listen to bobby when he stops buying anything made from crude oil.

George Rebane

RobertC 506pm - Right on Mr Cross, I rest my case.

Scott Obermuller

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5518761/Fourth-Noreaster-month-arrive-day-spring.html
But, but, but, but.. "The End Of Snow!!!!"
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html
Settled science, bobby - no more snow.
Maybe us uneducated 'deplorables' happen to have functioning brains with operating memory systems.
No more oil. wrong.
No more snow. wrong.
Manhattan streets under water. wrong.
Really sucks to be wrong so often, bobby.

Scenes

re: RobertCross@5:06PM "Just who has the most to gain or lose here? "

If the point is that people will tend to bend the truth, it seems to me that everyone has a good reason. To be fair, I would expect that the coal industry would spend a lot more on lobbyists than the natural gas guys, but the latter appear to be particular bad guys to the global warming/cooling folks.

It's a world filled with oddities. You don't get to build nuclear plants, there's mass importation of people from the third world to the first (where they get to produce more greenhouse gases), pollution from the 'green' solar panel and battery business is largely ignored, the dirtiest vehicles in the world (old VW buses) are driven by the most vehement.

What I'd like to see is for activist weather scientists or their followers make serious bets on predictions. We could set up something in Vegas to let everyone get skin in the game.

George Rebane

Scenes 601pm - Skin in the game, now that's a good idea. Vegas would be an ideal place to start making book on it with a verifiable metric as the adjudicator. That would cut the bullshit, and we'd see all the libs placing bets against GW.

Don Bessee

Ooopsie!

The linking of rising temperatures to increased mortality rates and lower economic output, on the basis of historical correlations, is flawed and provides results that vastly exceed those "from more traditional analyses of climate change's expected effects on the physical world."
The aforementioned Berkley-Stanford study found warm countries experienced lower economic growth in abnormally warm years, while cold countries experienced higher levels of growth. The economic model designed by the California academics concluded unmitigated climate change would decrease gross domestic product (GDP) by more than 20 percent by 2100. The study did not take into account a country's existing resources, but rather only drew estimations by looking at the "historical relationship between temperature and a country's economic output."

http://freebeacon.com/issues/flawed-methodology-behind-studies-measuring-cost-climate-change/

;-)

Scott Obermuller

"Skin in the game, now that's a good idea."
Al Gore agrees. How many 10s of millions has he made with his 'gamble' on the green economy? It always helps when you can salvage your crappy investment by getting laws passed that force tax dollars to prop up failed eco-corps.

Don Bessee

Al I invented the internet Gore is gunning to be the first global warming billionaire lemora. ;-)

Scenes

re: ScottO@6:41PM

The Algore fortune was made the old fashioned way. It's funny how many businesses depend on proper application of the government cudgel, even in cases where it isn't so obvious. I'd love to hear an hour from Elon Musk on how crooked the laws concerning car dealerships are. Algore Sr. was a bit of a shady character, but it's probably unfair to bring him into the picture. I'll start sounding like those idiots (some on this channel) who made a big deal about Prescott Bush.

It's funny to me how many industries are wrongly blamed for global warming anti-lobbying though. People will see that silly movie on the GM electric car, and then nod knowingly about how the fix is in. Truth is, car companies will happily build their product to run on nuclear waste, cow poop, solar panels, or zero-point energy. PGE will buy power from anyone who will sell it to them cheaply enough. The free market has a pretty good mechanism for figuring out the best solution, the only thing really needed is to deal with things like pollution (a village commons problem), and the real cost of greenhouse gases isn't a thing I've seen accurately calculated.

Scenes

re: GeorgeR@6:11

The bet could be as simple as an over-under on something like sea level or average temperature from a known future dataset. You'd have to keep them from fudging the numbers, though.

Russ

Robert Cross@6:05 PM

It is easy to attack organizations with specious claims without a shred of evidence. It is harder to show us that the papers presented by those deniers at Watts Up With That and GPW are flawed? A plethora of documents has demonstrated that anthropogenic warming is not scientifically sound, in many cases because the underlying data is wrong, faked, misused or just computer models with missing information.

Here are some things that these climate models do not includes, all significant contributors to the global climate:
La Niña and El Niño Cycles
Ocean Oscillations, AMO, PDO, etc.
Ocean Currents
Volcanoes (Land and undersea)
The Wind
The Variable Sun (models use set value)
Galactic Cosmic Rays and Aerosols ( increase cloud cover)
Milankovitch cycles, and
Cloud Dynamics

With these deficiencies known, do you think climate models represent the real world and can be relied upon to forecast the climate 50 to 100 years in the future? They have been unable to predict the global temperatures over the last 20 years. How can you keep supporting this apparent failure? Please explain.

Bonnie McGuire

Ya gotta have common sense, along with a sense of humor nowadays. Dr. Rebane...thinking about "Group Think," this discussion brings out an education I experienced yesterday. It began in the morning when I was wondering why so many people say one thing, but do the opposite and don't notice the difference. The thought I had was that their physical brain isn't aware (or denies) their living spirit and Creator...and the physical brain is almost robotic according to how it's been educated (programmed-group think). Most of us aren't aware that doctors determine a person dead if there is no "electric activity" in the brain. Is it because the "spirit" left? Last night when we arrived at the Deloro to see the movie "Tortured for Christ" I noticed I didn't have enough cash, and was getting in line to use my credit card. A man (and wife) said he'd bought too many tickets online and gave me one. I handed his wife what I had that was $5 less and thanked them for saying it was okay. The movie was horrible. It showed why the Bible says "fear of God is the beginning of wisdom," and what happens when there is no recognition of a higher spiritual power than physical self. I was thinking ...what am I doing here watching this true horror movie about calloused people torturing other people for believing in God. After the movie an older gentleman from Romania came over to me and asked what I thought of the movie. When I said I thought it was good he looked at me very seriously, until I added that it was quite an education, and then he smiled. The movie showed me what indoctrinated robot mentality can cause. He told me he'd known Richard Wurmbrand and had recordings of his sermons. I mentioned Uncle Pete, and Luschen friends who had left Russia and Germany during that time, because of what they saw happening, much like we've been watching here with the promotion of socialist/communist Pschycological group thinking mentality that's been going on for some time. Why shouldn't America use its own uranium instead of selling it to Russia while feigning concern about Atomic warfare with our so-called enemies North Korea and Iran (that received $millions of cash in unmarked planes from our former administration). Truly amazing regarding the climate change fiasco. Anyone who's paid attention to the history of earth's climate knows humans aren't in charge. You could almost say that when earth's had enough...all hell breaks loose, and what's left starts over.

Bonnie McGuire

To make a long story short...when you look at what we know about earth's climate history along with civilization's history...do you really trust those who get rich making a living off those who pay taxes supporting those in government who are supposed to represent and protect us? At least President Trump doesn't need it, and donates his salary to wherever it's needed. However, because he's human...he's not perfect. I hope he seems sincere, but always pay attention, because it looks like there's no real law enforcement regarding those in high places. The entertainment we've been watching is continual high paid investigators investigating investigators at our expense. If they were in the private sector they'd be fired and maybe prosecuted.

L

Bonnie, that's really something to consider. We're paying for all sides in this on-going fubar at the fed level, for nothing.

Scenes

re: Bonnie@8:42PM

"The entertainment we've been watching is continual high paid investigators investigating investigators at our expense."

I'd say that the primary problem is that the law enforcement and intelligence branches of the government have been politicized. Imagine if the military took sides to the extent that the "17 intelligence agencies" have. Game over in that case.

Back to climate. I can understand keeping an eye on greenhouse gas emissions, although on a per capita basis they have been dropping over time, partly from regs partly from technology and efficiency. The hysteria gets boring after a bit, but then look at the population that climate 'activists' are drawn from.

Currently, the more frisky global warmists have an entire package of social change in mind, not just pushing EPA numbers on cars. If you ask for everything, you get nothing. What I'd like to see is more of a push for efficient energy production on economic grounds.

Natgas fracking (something global warmists hate, oddly enough) produces fuel with 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. Increasing US population (practically all due to immigration since the 1970s) results in more pollution of all sorts. The Wall = Cleaner Air.

There's nothing keeping folks who care about the environment from investing in some sort of clean solar panel manufacturing, if every warmist threw in a chunk of money you could start building in no time after the 20 years of environmental review. The thing is, all solar has to do is to be *cheaper* than other sources and it wins. Heck, just send a check to basic researchers in that area.

In-country fossil fuel extraction is going to be more controllable, more cleanly done than that in South America or the Middle East, and doesn't require the overhead of transport. Encourage it.

For once, don't picket a nuclear power plant. Just don't build them next to places with tidal waves.

Russ

Katharine Hayhoe is a hardcore anthropogenic global warmer, and she thinks it is pointless to argue the science, because scientifically literate skeptics “can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too.”.

Here is a sample of here twaddle in an article from EcoWatch:

What about when you get stuck? Say you’ve landed on shared values—you and a climate denier agree the weather has been wild, but they just insist, “Oh, it’s just part of the natural cycle.” What then?

Here’s where you pivot and move on, beyond what they disagree on, to something you both agree on. You might offer one phrase of dissent—perhaps, “According to natural cycles we should be cooling down right now, not warming.” But then, before the conversation becomes a game of whack-a-mole, change the subject. Try, “Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries in the world? I’m a little worried the U.S. is falling behind; aren’t you worried, too?” At this point you’ve moved the conversation beyond what they don’t agree on. Because whether it’s a natural cycle or not, a lot of people are worried about losing the fight in the nuclear energy field. You want to acknowledge what people have to say but not to engage.

https://www.ecowatch.com/katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-2550366098.html

Yes, it is always about changing the subject when the left has to address the facts. We see that tactic used here on RR a lot. Never deal with the science, just trash the messenger who is presenting the data for examination.

Russ

Opps should read "Here is a sample of her twaddle"

scenes

“Did you know that China and India have more solar energy than any other countries in the world?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/clip-image006-thumb.png

'nuff said.

scenes

re: me@12:18PM

It's funny how the Green Libertarians aren't picketing the Chinese embassy, but really this isn't about greenhouse gases, it's all about domestic politics and a redesign of our economy and culture.

A thing to think about is just how much pollution the US actually ships to China. It isn't just CO2 production but God knows what all in terms of what they dump in the creek.

But...the moment the administration considers some sort of trade restrictions with China, all hell breaks loose. Orange Hitler is doing evil things after all.

There's no surprise that I essentially quit listening to the Green Libertarians some time ago. If they have no interest in thinking in terms of our national self interest, why should I help them out?

Scott Obermuller

re Russ 11:01 and scenes 12:18 - The take away from the much vaunted Paris Accords was that China openly stated they intended to INCREASE their CO2 emissions 'for a while' and then they 'planned' to decrease them. Their position is clear. Let the other developed nations wreck their economies while China builds their economy up. With a much stronger economy, China is building up their military to a level far beyond what is needed for defense. China has and is encroaching on territory and countries at will.
But the 'green' warriors such as gov Brown and Mary Nichols laud the Chinese for their 'commitment' to green energy. What a complete joke.

Gregory

"We must not have a Solar and Wind generation gap!"
-General "Buck" Turgidson, USAF (Ret.)

jon smith

Scott 12:38- I had to comment on your comment, "China is building up their military to a level far beyond what is needed for defense."

And where does the Chinese arsenal sit in relationship to ours?? When is enough, enough? I know our resident arms merchant (retired) will contend that one can never have enough weapons, but would you think is the capacity where China stop building their military?

jon smith

"but would you think is the capacity where China stop building their military?"

Scratch that non-thought. Instead, at what capacity do you believe China should cease developing it's military capacity?

jon smith

Still illiterate. Its, not it's

Scott Obermuller

jonnie boy, the topic of this post is the phoney-baloney lie that a slight increase in our atmosphere's CO2 content will cause the end of mankind.
I was pointing out the greenies sudden love of China as a so-called leader in lowering their CO2 output, when, in fact, they plan to increase it. They want the rest of us to cripple our economies so they can build up their economy and hence, their military. They saw what happened to the USSR when it tried to out race us in arms build up with out having a sound economy to support the cost of the build up. China has and is trying to expand their borders by deceit and force. There is no country in the world that would invade China, yet they are building up an offensive capability in their air force, naval and space based weaponry. The fact that left wing greenies would admire China and hold it up as a model for the rest of the world is extremely telling. China probably will, barring some odd event, effectively control the US within 50 years.
You will notice that I politely answer jonnie boy's question while he will not answer mine.

George Rebane

Now here's an unexpected turn of events on climate models, Chevron endorses the IPCC.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/21/chevron-agrees-global-warming/

Scott Obermuller

Hey jonnie boy. Lookie what just popped up in the news -
https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-paper-says-china-prepare-military-action-over-001031625.html
Cause Taiwan definitely could mess China over big time!
China should be put on a leash and brought to heel. But we really need our 84" flat screens, so we'll just let them take over the world. Because they're so green and everything. Right?

Scott Obermuller

Ooh! The latest climate news about 'saving' the planet.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson
Funny how when GR brings this up the lefties laugh and call him paranoid.
Actually this was brought up in the book - 'All The Trouble In The World'.
We could all live in Texas and the rest of the earth would be vacant of humans.
All the more reason for the 2nd A.

Robert Cross

in the "you can fool some of the people all of the time" dept. A recent study found that ExxonMobil internal memos and emails since the 1970s have directly acknowledged human causation in climate change while their external communications (advertorials and other publicly distributed messaging) cast doubt open that same science for decades. They lied to the public about what they knew in order to protect their investment and future revenue while delays in taking action have caused billions of dollars in damages. In other words, all you deniers have been had and used at tools.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

scenes

re: Robert Cross@7:39AM

"delays in taking action "

Throw me a line here. What action should an oil company take?

Trying to not convince their customers to use their products? Force the car companies to improve their MPG or pollution numbers? Try to convince the Chinese to use less energy? Send a mean letter to the coal companies (where most greenhouse gas originated until about 1970 or so)?

The interesting thing to me is that real-deal environmental disasters are going to come from two places. Modernization in Indian and China, and the insane population explosion in sub-Saharan Africa. It might be best to get a grip on that.

scenes

Not making a point, but just to throw up a couple of graphs.

Global carbon emissions by fuel source.
https://i1.wp.com/climatechangeconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Global_carbon_emissions_by_fuel_source_1751-2007.jpg

CO2 use from top five emitting countries.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/afbeeldingen/009g_muc15_en.png

Shares including the rest of the world.
https://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/E0533893-A985-4640-B3A2-008D8083D17D/figure-2-e.jpg

Scott Obermuller

"In other words, all you deniers have been had and used at tools."
How can we have been 'had' if it isn't true? Maybe Bobbie can explain all the dire warnings that never came to be. I'm sorry that Bobby and the other lefty wackos had their minds controlled by the oil companies. Y'all seem easily led.

George Rebane

RobertC 739am - Mr Cross, you have again let your pre-cognitive emotions rule. Please attempt to connect the dots between your report about XOM, and your assertion about some RR readers being "had and used (as) tools." No matter how difficult, I guarantee that the exercise will be of benefit to you (and maybe even the rest of us).

scenes

"Maybe Bobbie can explain all the dire warnings that never came to be"

Well, there is that. The predictive abilities of the celebrity climate guys seems to be shitty at best.

Honestly, I'm willing to accept the concept of human-caused damage in a lot of ways. Messing with river systems, air pollution, reducing wildlife habitat, huge amounts of insecticide and fertilizer wandering downstream, even the odd bits of radioactive material and heavy metals all can do havoc to some degree. But, celebrity climate guys and their acolytes push an entire set of changes in politics and the economy that change a lot more than forestalling a homo climate apocalypse.

This:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3131160/Will-child-witness-end-humanity-Mankind-extinct-100-years-climate-change-warns-expert.html

Is all about building a new world utopia, not saving the environment. The underlying concept is *always* to install some sort of wise men in positions of power.

You wanna fix the environment? Push for zero or negative population growth. Don't import the third world into first world countries. Don't be freaked out if the Chinese produce less female children (less females = less offspring). Becoming cleaner or more efficient, while useful, merely pushes off the inevitable.

I'll probably run into a few arguments on this from both sides, but I must say that I'm tired of 'environmentalists' who do absolutely nothing to change the environment.

Gregory

cross 739am

A fine example of climate alarmism as an evangelical religious enterprise.

Because Big Oil was aware of climate alarmist's claims, or, The Truth, for decades, they've known The Truth and shall be judged lacking. Yea, verily, yea.

To paraphrase "Bones" McCoy, Naomi Oreskes' words are unimportant and I do not hear them.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad