Preventable Global Warming is a Tricky Business (updated 23sep15)

George Rebane

[Brian Hamilton, editor of The Union, emailed me that this piece was bit too long for their Other Voices columns, and invited me to shorten it.  I felt that a better alternative to abbreviation was to write them a letter-to-editor that cited Mr Paul Berger's dismissal of my previous OV column, and which also pointed to this post - look for it in The Union.  Thanks for your interest.]

The Preventable Global Warming (PGW) season is here again with another spate of conferences, new laws and regulations, media events, and VIP visits, all happening in short order to reignite public apprehension that man’s neglect will soon cause a worldwide catastrophe.  To prevent the calamity, timely intervention in human activities on a massive scale is now required.  However, some considerable number of people remains skeptical of the PGW arguments and its prescribed remedies.  The public debate about PGW today reaches from the highest levels of government down the lowest grassroots as witnessed here in our little community.

PGW is an extremely complex issue both in the technical and political sense, and made more so by the several confusing interchangeable names we use and don’t differentiate – climate change, global warming, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), … .  In this limited space I’ll try to shine a little light on some of the particulars.  First, every reputable skeptic acknowledges that climate change is always going on, and during the last couple of centuries the earth has again warmed.  Over longer timespans the earth has been much warmer (think Greenland) and much colder.

The current warming trend that appears to have halted coincides with human CO2-producing activities, and the most recent measurable increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 level.  However now there is also disturbing evidence that global warming will turn into global cooling.  But here I want to review the components necessary to understand what earth’s climate was, and what is used to predict its future.  The top line is that this enterprise requires skill sets that reach far beyond what the layman thinks belong to a ‘climatologist’.

First, there is no such thing as ‘earth’s temperature’ (ET), there is no place we can stick a thermometer to get a reading.  ET is a number calculated from a formula with many parts and many inputs.  Moreover, there are many ET formulas using different inputs and published by different agencies.  And historical ETs are even more complex since they require proxy observations like tree rings and ice cores which are then algorithmically combined to produce a temperature for the planet.  Almost all of these are generated by specialists who are definitely not climatologists.

All of these formulas, algorithms, and proxy datasets are combined by estimation theorists to produce probability distributions from which publishable numbers are distilled.  And you can be sure that many different ET histories have and continue to be computed.  There is so much more here, but we must continue.  The layman is just presented with one wiggly line and told that is THE unquestionable record of ETs.  For a scientist who knows what data records had to be computed and cobbled together to get such a wiggly line, this is beyond funny.

And then we come to the general circulation computer models (GCMs) used to predict ETs a century from now.  These are enormous software programs with many parts that require contributions from many different kinds of scientists and engineers, each submitting their own sets of equations that must be assembled into a computable architecture and programmed.  This again requires people with diverse skill sets – e.g. finite element modeling from materials science - that go far beyond what is taught in climatology, let alone what a climatologist is able to practice during his career.  The construction, exercise, testing, and validation of a GCM is really an exercise in the systems sciences and software engineering.  Again, all this is unknown to the lay public that believes it’s only the work of ‘climate scientists’.

Returning to the public debate, we must then consider arcane matters such as how much do CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect the transmission of heat through the atmosphere, and how much of that is contributed by man.  But finally, we have to come to grips with the whole preventable part of PGW because that’s where politics, economics, national sovereignty, human rights, etc collide.

The sticky part here is that in its make-up our universe doesn’t support long term predictions, especially of how chaotic systems like earth’s climate will perform over future decades.  This we learn, not from climatologists, but physicists and systems scientists.  You can’t simply crank those GCM equations into future epochs and expect to get reliable results.  But if your use for PGW is to promote a political agenda, then reliability takes a back seat to accommodating results made simple to understand and marketable to voters who are overwhelmingly innumerate and innocent of any of the pieces that make the case for PGW.

To the ignorant multitudes the politicians and their true believer acolytes sell PGW through ‘consensus science’, possibly the weakest and historically the most unreasonable basis for scientific truth.  And when material evidence is presented to counter PGW, the first response from the technologically naive acolytes is to dismiss such messages, especially if they are delivered by scientists and engineers having resumes unanointed with ‘climate’.

The part that eludes these defenders of the faith is that in science and engineering ALL the building blocks of a system or theory must work correctly to make the whole work.  It is like a chain, one weak link sinks the whole thing.  Therefore, any of the many non-consensus specialists worldwide, like those of us who understand what the GCM is and must do, and how their specialty parts must perform to contribute to the whole, any one of these is a credible referee to condemn the entire enterprise by pointing out how their link will not serve its intended purpose.

The real burden of the true believer is that he must be certain that EVERY part of the PGW theory has been correctly formulated, integrated and works as intended.  No UN ‘consensus scientist’ has claimed to have done that, nor is even capable of such feat.  More importantly, many of the contributing IPCC specialists have registered serious caveats about how their contributions have been used to predict the far future as the GCMs’ simulated ET numbers respond to various public policy prophylactics. 

The greater problem for the lay true believers, like the worthies who write in these pages, is that they don’t have the education, training, experience, or know-how to even correctly assess, let alone denigrate, the qualifications of those who critique the questionable underpinnings of what today is sold to us as Preventable Global Warming.

[Addendum]  Russ Steele, fellow blogger, RR reader, and colleague in the local PGW society, sent me the following measured vs GCM predicted temperature graphic.  It perfectly illustrates the points made in the body of this post.  Many thanks.

In the sequel you will find an edited version of my more saltier contribution to the comment stream of ‘The Left's Climate Scientists on Parade'.  The explication goes into some detail about earth’s temperature (ET) about which I have found profound ignorance among the ranks of true believers in PGW.  Similar expansions will appear about regressing data and the numerical instability of GCMs which I will illustrate by designing and coding up a ‘toy problem’, a technique often used to study more complex problems.  So here’s the edited version of my comment.

For the interested reader. The critical and celebrated parameter in all these global warming discussions is the earth's temperature (ET). Those who have been following the science know that ET can neither be observed nor measured for the simple reason that it does not exist. ET must computed through an algorithm whose inputs consist of very many numbers reflecting hundreds of individual readings of temperature itself or its tightly correlated proxy (e.g. intensity of IR radiation in a given spectral bandwidth, or certain trace chemicals in ice cores). Each reading is vector quantity or a 'tuple' that contains at least the measured temperature/proxy, variance, time, location, and measuring instrument ID.

These measurement vectors are then sanity checked for outliers, perhaps detrended, cleaned up based on local and environmental factors, and have certain 'data holidays' in the record filled appropriately. The scrubbed dataset (not to be confused with Hillary's server) is then input to the 'master ET algorithm' which itself had to be correctly initialized with a number of (subjectively) settable parameters before it can crunch the input dataset and spit out the ET  and its variance for what in estimation theory is called the 'validity instant' which becomes the time tag connected to the estimated ET value. Choosing the validity instant is also a matter of (subjective) judgment for it may exist anywhere within the time window of the dataset, or even outside the time window.  These computed ETs are then assembled into the wiggly lines such as those used to compose the average (red) line in the above figure.

So if you've followed me so far, consider now that there are several competing ET algorithms today in use by various academic and governmental agencies here and abroad. Some have more prominence than others, which is usually determined by external political factors. In any event, what the layman has been taught to accept as a simple no-nonsense measurable like the temperature on his porch thermometer is anything but that. Taking the earth's temperature is a very complex task.

And if you think that is complex and difficult, consider the development of historical ET records from all kinds of inputs like fossilized tree rings to isotope densities in ice cores. You should now understand why people continually get into disagreements about what data to use, how should it be scrubbed, what estimation algorithms should be applied and how, and then how are all those ETs going to be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to the ETs developed from current measurements – e.g. from satellites. And from such contentious and often arbitrary exercises we draw solid conclusions about what synoptic/secular (long term) climate changes we will witness over the coming century as we continue to make butt stupid, draconian, and totally ineffective public policies. Oy geweh!

[19sep15 update] Below is another edition of a telling graphic that compares ET with atmospheric CO2 concentration.  These comparative illustrations of data have been studiously ignored by the PGW promoters because it strongly counters all of their AGW arguments with which they preamble their PGW nostrums for an Agenda21 world.  H/T to Russ Steele for including the link to the source of the figure in one of his comments below.

[23sep15 update]  Today our Union hastily published an Other Voices column – ‘Columnist peddles discredited fossil fuel industry propaganda’ - by no less than the world’s most celebrated and denigrated meteorologist Michael Mann, the father of the famous global warming ‘Hockey Stick’ (q.v).  Dr Mann took Nevada City’s Norm Sauer (on the Union’s Editorial Board) to task on Sauer’s 22sep15 piece – ‘If you control carbon, you control life’ – for citing the findings that “Mann skewed computer codes and used improper data.”

The arguments regarding preventable global warming (PGW) from True Believers and Skeptics continue in the same vein.  Each discredits the other on their alleged sponsorships – pro-PGW sponsored by governments promoting Agenda21 goals, and skeptics sponsored by the “fossil fuel industry”.  The government sponsorships are easy to prove, the oil company connections are tenuous at best.

What caught my eye was that while Dr Mann did once again cite consensus science as the strong argument supporting PGW, he avoided the dodgiest part of the pro-PGW ‘science’ most impacting public policies, namely the future as prognosticated by the general circulation models based on extremely spotty knowledge about earth’s climate dynamics and the poor record that GCMs have demonstrated in predicting earth’s temperature (ET).  Nor did Dr Mann address the ‘Datagate’ scandal that surrounds the interpretation of longer term ET calculations like the one plotted above.

Readers may also find it interesting to track the progress of suit and counter-suit between Michael Mann and well-known PGW skeptic and conservative commentator Mark Steyn.

Comments

[Walt]

More info on the NOAA book cooking,
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/noaa-massively-ramps-up-their-temperature-fraud-ahead-of-paris/
Then we have the true believers wanting us sane people jailed.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj

It's the true believers that need to be jailed, since it's them who have perpetrated this massive fraud upon the globe an have cost everyone PLENTY.

[Bonnie McGuire]

Hahaha...Bravo Walt!

[Russ]

A quick note to the Pope on Climate Change from Joe Bastardi, a weather man who get more forecasts right, than wrong.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/37721

Just two charts I would ask the pope to look at.

1.) Human progress: The amount of people, life expectancy and global personal GDP. These “hockey sticks” show that, since the advent of fossil fuels, the human condition has improved immensely.

2.) The factual record of CO2 and temperature in the geological history of the earth.

You will have to go to the link above to see the charts.

[Bonnie McGuire]

I wonder if this is just more to stir the fires of war within America, or if it's the truth. I do think tax payer grant money is definitely a conflict of interest. Those who pay taxes have to also pay to defend themselves from these people in court. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/20/update-leader-of-effort-to-prosecute-skeptics-under-rico-paid-himself-his-wife-1-5-million-from-govt-climate-grants-for-part-time-work/

[George Rebane]

Administrivia - I draw your kind attention to the 23sep15 update above.

[Gregory]

It should be noted that the Associated Press has removed "denier" from their stylebook when it comes to global warming discussions, and the Partisan Purple Putz is shamelessly trying to spin that into a Hooray for his side.

[Jon]

Stupid issue. Who cares what they call it. The reality is unchanged. Its a good week for people concerned about climate change, with the Pope's visit and the news on Hillary's Keystone position, and massive increase in fossil fuel divestiture.

[George Rebane]

re Jon's 1202pm - "Who cares what they call it." Only if you want it known what you are talking about - the whole issue is very complex, and those who are pro or con do not share uniform beliefs (as also witnessed on these pages). Only people for whom a discriminating discussion is difficult would ask what difference does it make to understand precisely what you're talking about.

[Jon]

I'm fine with using "skeptic" or "denier" for each particular group. There are people clearly denying any possibility of human caused warming, so call them what they are, and there are a lot of skeptics- call them what they are as well.

[fish]

Hey George.....I think you're finally starting to get to Steve.

Stevefrisch on September 23, 2015 at 9:35 am

What I find fascinating is that Rebane is defending his position that he called medical doctors insufficiently credentialed by claiming that he is more sufficiently credentialed, and perpetuating the argument that one must be sufficiently credentialed to comment on or understand the science behind climate change.

If you compare what it takes to complete an M.D. vs a PhD in a hard science it's not even close....and be honest....you guys started arguments over discussing the topic without proper credentials.

First, George proves himself to be an illogical ideologically driven partisan on issues broadly ranging from technology, economic development, forest policy, local politics, climate, health care and macro-economics and almost everything in between every day. His statements are regularly characterized by a lack of citation or data to back up his claims and when challenged on his beliefs he regularly states that the critic is either too stupid to understand the point or their sources are biased. I guess I would ask, how many things can George Rebane be an expert on? He is either the smartest guy in the world or a fool. Fool seems much more likely to me, from a solely ‘statistical systems analysis’ point of view.

It's a blog.... he is allowed to be ideologically driven in both the choice of topics and his responses to commenters. That you raise the "ideologically driven" issue while commenting in "Pellines Flabby Catbox of Ignorance" is delightful.

Second, we need to understand that this whole debate over who is sufficiently credentialed to have an opinion on climate change is an intentional strategy to muddy the waters around the issue, confuse the public at large, and freeze action on climate mitigation and adaptation policy. George is deploying a strategy–get people to debate the qualifications of the observer in order to imply that observer A and observer B are equal, or the science is unsettled over the issue they are debating–that has been deployed by climate denial mouthpieces as a result of specifically designed political strategies to manipulate public opinion.

As mentioned before the argument over credentials was started by those believing in Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever Climate Change Inc. is calling it this week when interested amateurs started looking at the issues and finding discrepancies...both in the basic science and how the temperature data was collected. Also please be aware that under the terms set earlier by the "Self Appointed Information Cork of Nevada City" you can't discuss the matter either .......you, yourself being insufficiently credentialed.

Well the science is not unsettled over climate change and no amount of muddying the water will hide it as climate drives extreme weather events, increased severity of drought, increased incidents of large scale wildfire, and perhaps atmospheric river events begin to cost billion of dollars and thousands of lives.

Yeah well get back to us when you actually start to see some of this ....errr....warming....yeah we're calling it warming this week!

But the real issue here is the amazing level ego driven hubris and intellectual arrogance that a guy like George exudes every time he talks about this issue. Anybody with average intelligence can read the science and with a little work understand what is going on. For him to imply that he ‘knows more’ is ridiculous and insulting to people who do the work.

You're projecting again Steve!

And speaking of "ego driven hubris"......you mean just like this past weekend when asked what number of immigrants, in your opinion (something you are never reticent about providing), was the optimum number? You provided yet another 18 paragraph "Frisch Special" and then huffed off like a 10 year old upset about having to do his algebra homework......."This is fucking stupid .......mannnn!

.....and since "nobody who does the work" is here to be offended spare us the "tone policing".

[fish]

Posted by: Jon | 23 September 2015 at 12:02 PM

Stupid issue. Who cares what they call it......

Why Climate Change Inc. cares! Desperately they care! The term denier was to evoke notions of "Holocaust Denial".....and none of the cool, hip, progressive kids want to be associated with that!

The word “denial” – meaning refusal or withholding – entered the English language from Old French hundreds of years ago, but it gained linguistic muscle with A.A. Brill’s translation of the Austrian father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, in the early 20th century.

Denial, or Verneinung in Freud’s German, came to mean refusing to acknowledge a painful or uncomfortable truth, despite overwhelming evidence.

In politics, there was “Holocaust denial,” “moon-landing denial” and “evolution denial” – all flowing from Freud, with its implications not only of untruth but of mental illness.

And now the word’s in the center ring of the global warming fight: “climate denial.”

“Climate change has always been a kind of a framing war,” said George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network in Great Britain and the author of the book “Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.” “If you can get out there and you can get your language inserted into the discourse, it’s your ideas that dominate.”

Marshall and co-author Mark Lynas published the first reference to “climate denier” in the English-language press in a 2003 op-ed they wrote for the left-leaning magazine The New Statesman.

They wanted those words to sting.

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/119132029618/how-the-term-climate-denier-is-purposefully-and

[George Rebane]

fish 130pm - I don't know where Mr Frisch posted all that, but I think the record here shows that he has been vexed by my commentaries for some years now, all the while claiming that they have no standing and should be ignored. Yet somehow, we continue to find him responding and returning.

Re his assessment of what it takes to get a hard science PhD vs a MD, the man is sadly mistaken which itself goes to underline my point. And in the comparison, I would even include the baccalaureate since some pre-med degrees are a joke when it comes to science/math. The difference in the resulting disciplines is very clear - one is highly procedural and the other is maximally creative. The PhD requires one to critically extend the human knowledge base of which there is no guarantee when you enter the program - hence the large number of techie resumes that cite 'PhD(ABD)' stating that all course and test requirements were met except for the dissertation which documents the successful completion of original and often lengthy research, the 'philosophizing' if you hearken to the old language.

But nowhere have I stated that one needs a PhD to understand or even contribute to climate science. (That is one of the ongoing fabrications which characterize Mr Frisch's commentaries.) However, I do maintain that clinical MDs are NOT scientists in either their training or practice. There are, however, MDs who specialize in research, but most of them then pull down a corresponding PhD in the process, thereby declaring to the world that they are indeed accredited scientists.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 23 September 2015 at 01:58 PM

As mentioned in my critique.....he posts his most vitriolic comments in a friendlier venue....I'm sure you can guess where.

[George Rebane]

fish 227pm - Ah yes, the venue where readers equate 'system analyst' with 'systems scientist' - a learned forum indeed.

[Gregory]

I'd even suggest that George's Systems Engineering background is a hindrance to the debate, as it tends to obscure the simplicity of the problem at its core... is there, or is there not, a positive feedback mechanism buried in the climate system that multiplies added heat by a factor of two or more. Physicists have largely narrowed the climate's response to a doubling of CO2 to a range of about 1.0 to 1.5 degrees C. The world's "climate scientists"(tm) started with CO2 sensitivity in a range of 1.5C to 4.5C (in 1979) all the way down to 1.5C to 4.5C now. Steven Frisch, would you please defend the lack of any progress by mainstream climate science in 36 years?

It took about a hundred years to increase CO2 by a factor of 1/3; starting at about 300ppm, it's now about 400ppm. The first doubling will be reached at 600ppm; and, as that's a logarithmic function, to double again will take a bump all the way to 1200ppm.

The problem discussing the physical sciences with those who have never bothered to learn the basic vocabulary is akin to debating the quality of translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls into Latin with folks who have never learned to read or write in Hebrew or Latin. I went to a college that, at the time, offered majors in mathematics, chemistry, physics and engineering. Everyone graduating, including a guy I knew who majored in Independent Studies, Dance, essentially fulfilled the lower division requirements for every other major. The reason for that "common core" was to make sure they all had the basic vocabulary for understanding what everyone else is doing, both while in school but also for the decades after.

Steven Frisch has the basic vocabulary to play politics and policy wonk. To date, he's not shown any signs of having the vocabulary or the temperament to discuss the climate without descending into insults and name calling. Pelline has the basic vocabulary to argue.

Bill Newsom is/was a fine oncologist, and I'd talk airplanes or climate with him anytime, but no, he isn't a physical scientist and there was nothing in the letter he signed that indicated he was aware of the issues or ever took more physics than Anna Haynes did, which was never.

[Gregory]

George, I can think of only one "pre-med" degree that isn't deficient in math, physics or chemistry: UC Berkeley has a degree program in chemical biology which is a hard core chemistry degree from their acclaimed College of Chemistry that adds in a large dollop of biology... only they take a big GPA hit because they take chemistry, physics and math with the chemistry, physics and math students. I fully expect the same sort of program is available at a number of colleges and universities, I know about Cal's because my kid dropped out of chemical biology and into chemistry (or chemical physics) when he found he hated how biologists did what they called science.

[fish]

stevefrisch says:

September 24, 2015 at 9:01 am

I have been reflecting on the new AP standards since they were announce and have come to the conclusion, like the un-named initial comment, that they are entirely too kind.

Before I get to why the standards are too kind, I think it is unlikely that very many journalists are going to replace the one word ‘denier’ with the phrase ‘those who reject mainstream climate science.’ It is too long, unwieldy and profligate in its use of words for journalists to replace one word, whether it be ‘skeptic’ or ‘denier.’

But the larger problem is that they seem to be changing the standard because climate deniers are offended by the implied reference to holocaust denial.

Not offended at all. It’s important to understand why the term was selected and then reinforced through repeated use.

The word ‘denier’ did not come into common usage to describe a mindset as a descriptor of those who deny the existence of the holocaust, it was used by Sigmund Freud to describe a psychological condition and defense mechanism commonly used by drug addicts [which Freud knew a thing or two about] and terminal cancer patients who refuse treatment to avoid acknowledging the depth of their addiction or the terminal nature of their illness.

As used by Freud, and as used by journalists, the word ‘denier’ means nothing more than a person who refuses to accept the existence, truth, or validity of something. It is a neutral term. The word itself does not establish whether the thing being denied actually exists, it identifies the subject as denying its existence.

What those who do not believe climate change exists, or that portions of the problem are human caused, are really rejecting, is that almost every time in human history the word ‘denier’ has been associated in popular language usage with rejecting the existence of something, science and logic prove them wrong.

If climate deniers are uncomfortable with being associated with holocaust deniers, vaccine deniers, moon landing deniers, 911 deniers, round earth deniers, they must deal with the fact that they are on equally shaky ground as the deniers who came before them.

The left has always attempted to equate resistance to its goals as mental illness.

Steve I realize that this is of existential import to you but even you have to realize that the science is just shoddy.

Let’s apply Sigmund Freud and his use of the term ‘denier’ in drug addiction to our modern climate deniers.

The first stage of ‘denial’ is to deny the very existence of the thing that is being identified. This is a simple denial of fact, and we see that in the climate debate every day, as climate deniers look at the preponderance of the facts and cherry pick only the ones that support their belief.

The second stage of denial to Freud was denial of responsibility. We see that every day as well as climate deniers alternately blame some other source for the problem [solar activity, volcanism, natural cycles, etc]; minimize the impact [climate change may be happening but it is less harmful than stated]; justify the impact [it is our economy or our environment]; or regress to name calling, conspiracy theories or ulterior motivation.

The third Freudian stage of is denial of impact: the denier avoids thinking about or understanding the harms of his or her own behavior and its impact on him/herself or others, thus absolving themselves of guilt or responsibility by downplaying consequences and prevent him/her from developing remorse or empathy for others. [more CO2 will lead to enhanced plant growth and less people will go hungry].
The fourth stage is denial of cycle, or avoiding looking at decisions leading up to an impact or considering the decisions that led up to an impact, thus repeating the cycle until death occurs. We see that as the hubristic view that we may know that there is a problem [pollution] but we have no choice but to continue polluting because the perceived benefits of the pollution are so great that we cannot avoid them. [I see this every day as the ridiculous view that because carbon emissions have reduced poverty we have no choice but to continue emitting, never considering the fact that we can reduce poverty and reduce emissions at the same time, which is actually kind of the Pope’s point].

The fifth stage is denial of awareness, which we see as the insistence that there may be a preponderance of evidence but the ‘denier’ simply refuses to see it. [the source of data is flawed, or has ulterior motives, or is seeking grants, or are not really scientists, or I am smarter than them so why should I listen–in short the George Rebane syndrome.]
The final stage is ‘denial of denial’; we see that every day on the blogs wen illogical pontificators stamp their feet like children and say, “I am not a denier.”
In Freud’s world this phenomenon is expressed in the shorthand “DARVO.”

DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of deniers: Deny the abuse, then attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby reversing victim and offender. We see this every day when climate deniers claim to be some sort of discriminated against victimized group.

To say that these people are not ‘climate deniers’ and that the term is inaccurate is a mistake by the AP, and I seriously doubt people are going to adopt ‘new language’ to gloss over the real source of the problem, a group within our society that is so addicted to the profit and comfort of bearing no responsibility for their actions that they engage in some sort of Orwellian fantasy to rationalize their behavior.

You are every bit as ridiculous as Ben Emery we he feigns attempts at psychoanalysis.

A tiny fraction of the US population considers Climate Change an existential threat. It currently ranks near the bottom of of their “worries”.

When we roll into the next financial crisis that number will likely drop to just you!

Nevertheless I fully expect that you will, much like the "Weeping Prophet" Jeremiah, maintain the faith through the dark days!

Godspeed Steve Frisch!

[Todd Juvinall]

Global Warming is the Godless secularists religion. Modified Gaia. I think the true believers should be rounded up and placed in internment camps (they only represent 1% anyway). All their possessions and money to be turned over to me for distribution to the poor of America and the poor of Syria and Iraq. That would make sure these zealots like Frisch never again gain a place in the making of rules.

[George Rebane]

fish 955am - I don't think anyone on these pages has gone on record denying that climate is changing. But it definitely still looks like Mr Frisch does not understand (or is willing to admit?) the components of preventable global warming with regard to its science, technology, or reactive public policy. To him its all one undifferentiated phenomenon the proper address of which requires new economic and behavioral restrictions of unknown (and unknowable) but most likely draconian impact. For the world's Left "climate change" is a perfect storm the opportunities from which must not be wasted - Agenda21 über alles!

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 24 September 2015 at 10:21 AM

I find it endlessly entertaining that while the rest of the world industrializes he thinks that yoking the US will have any beneficial effect.

[Steven Frisch]

While you guys were sitting on your porches drinking beer and listening to another version of dueling banjoes something important got done...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/world/asia/xi-jinping-china-president-obama-summit.html?_r=0

[George Rebane]

StevenF 918pm - As with the Iranian deal, the only thing that "got done" again was Obama, and unfortunately the country of which he is president.

[Steven Frisch]

Posted by: George Rebane | 24 September 2015 at 09:26 PM

You call that a 'serious' comment? The reality is Cap and Trade is working in California, China is adopting it based on the California model, and your rational that the US should do nothing because no one else is doing anything is now moot.

[Jon]

Trump was correct on one thing. We do have a lot of stupid people in government, specifically Congress. China beat America again, this time with the foresight of implementing a Cap and Trade system. Thank you James Imhofe and Company. Losers.

[Jon]

George, you seem to imply the pending Chinese announcement is somehow bad for America ("got done"). How in the world is a Chinese Cap and Trade system bad for America? LOL. It seems like its only a bad thing in your mind because Obama was the President who worked with China to get this done.

[George Rebane]

Some liberal readers here view China through single issue lenses - currently cap and trade - instead of the history of China's aggression against us and its neighbors, and its geo-strategic aim for world hegemon as the ascendant nation. China will do nothing to hurt its ability to generate wealth to expand its military and create more jobs for its inland masses. Lots of good stuff on this is written in outlets of which the grassroots progressives seem to miss from their sources.

[Jon]

China's history of aggression is real. But if indeed China is implanting some controls on its carbon emissions, how again is this bad for the world and for the US? Is it related to military or other types of aggressive behaviors and intentions? Fail to see the downside to China's announcement. None.

[fish]

Posted by: Jon | 24 September 2015 at 11:25 PM

YAY! Presdint Ward Heeler has another item for his legacy.......and ultimately isn't that the most important thing?

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutters-coal-plants-china-and-japan-are-building-them/

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/02/23/comment-new-coal-power-plants-china-carbon-bubble-waiting-burst/

You'll like the last one, it at least tries to make your argument and is is from a source considered most holy. Even they acknowledge that China plans to continue operating carbon emitting power stations for the foreseeable future. The percentage is changing because they are also adding solar etc. but the CO2 will continue to be belched by your new "partners".

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 24 September 2015 at 09:18 PM

HAH......and you call us rubes!

Thanks Steve the coffee tastes even better after a morning belly laugh!

[George Rebane]

As with the current disastrous Iran deal, in which we let them have $100B+ for complying with blatantly weak strictures on the nuclear weapons program which they self-inspect and report, we should confirm that China actually reduces its pollution emissions before we do anything more in the program of our already having reduced our emissions.

The Left again misunderstands the points of negotiation and what is criticized about this agreement. No one is against China reducing its pollutants, but their promise to do so is not a sufficient reason for us to go ahead and further harm our economy before we get verification. And the point is not 'cap and trade' or any other such bamboozle, but the measurables on the amounts of pollutants emitted.

[fish]

Posted by: George Rebane | 25 September 2015 at 07:57 AM

I imagine that back in October 1938 the Steve Frisch of that day said of Chamberlains proclamation......"It shows that LEADERSHIP matters by modeling new behavior. "....yeah, that Mr. Hitler....we've got him right where we want him now!

How long before Chinese Cap and Trade allotments become the newest way for their leadership to continue the looting? Six months....a year?

Rubes indeed!

[Todd Juvinall]

Cap and trade is actually a very communist redistribution strategy adopted by California politicians. The Chinese are just too slow on the uptake. There are 800 million poor slobs there with another 200 to 300 million that have a horse. So the Cap will be the ownership of a horse and the trade there will be the manure.

[George Rebane]

If the government for some reason deemed the manufacture of shoes to be detrimental to society ('the common good') and wanted to limit such activity, it could force people to wear self-reporting pedometers and tax on the number of steps they take. Since walking is important and some people need to walk more than others, the government can limit the overall amount of walking and shoe leather wear by specifying a limit on the total steps per day/month/year allowed a jurisdiction.

However, recognizing the differential need for steps, the 'enlightened' government puts in place a cap and trade program so that step allotments can be bought and sold. The gruberized masses are also told how such a cap and trade program creates new jobs and improves the economy. (New jobs? Well yes, for example shoes now have to be made with built-in wireless pedometers to prevent cheating. That costs more, but it's for the common good.)

And then many are amazed to discover that half of their neighbors actually believe in the promised benefits from the new realm of regulations again provided by our all-wise government. Happy dancing in the streets.

[Steven Frisch]

Let me see if I have this correct, for years critics of taking action on climate change at the state and national level [like many here] have said that one reason the US should not take action is that if we do and others don't we will be at a competitive disadvantage. So now China (and I might add in advance of the Paris COP meeting many others like Brazil, India, the EU and the US) are taking stronger action, and you still disavow the effort.

Nothing will ever be good enough for you guys.

If ever there was proof that your opposition is not logic based and is based solely on ideology this is it.

[Jon]

Steve, my thoughts exactly. WTF does the far right want?

[Todd Juvinall]

Steven Frisch | 25 September 2015 at 09:21 AM

Say what? On the contrary, China is going to institute a really good communist solution and Steve Frisch is all for it. For a person like Frisch who loves any biased polling to enhance his positions, he fails to acknowledge the polls showing "global warming" is last on the list of concerns of the people. Why is that? Maybe the people have finally said "hey, we see the hoax now"! Yet Frisch still pushes the hoax along with other politicians in total disregard to the silliness they try to shove down the throats of the "people". After-all, Frisch and his politician masters know best.

Just like the Chinese, and any other kind of anti-freedom government. Frisch is all about the government controlling people. Right down to taxing the carbon atoms in your body! Remember you are just a "carbon footprint" to them. So, yes Frisch, we who love freedom will fight you communists and anti freedom politicians until the last breath. Imagine a world run by a Frisch! OMG, if you like him you are a total fool. But we see his undying love for the Chinese communists and their anti-freedom agenda.

And you taxpayers paid for Frisch to travel to China so he would come back as their fawning representative for "global warming". You just can't make this stuff up.

[Gregory]

"Let me see if I have this correct"

Of course you don't, Steve. They're taking (present tense) stronger action?

It isn't "far right" to note that China has declared to the Obama administration that they'll Cap and Trade... in 2017 sometime after Obama has left office, when China is expected to be in a major contraction that has already begun to slash their CO2 emissions. It also might help to wean China consumers from their implicit and explicit energy subsidies that have made Chinese air nearly unbreathable as much energy is wasted.

[Jon]

What would you guys do about China? Talk is cheap. How would you alter their aggression and their former aversion to joining the world on Climate Change action? Lets hear some proposals.

[Gregory]

The big Climate Rally for the Pope's visit was held, and it was estimated as many as 200,000 might attend. A few hundred actually did.

Reminds me of the 20 mostly old lefties that showed up for the big climate rally in downtown Nevada City last Sunday. After their "parade" down Broad Street (they walked on the sidewalks and on the street while not interfering with the CO2 belching traffic) they lined up along the north side of the Broad St. bridge, then moving to the south side so as to not have to stare into the Sun which is the source of all that heat they were demonstrating against.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/25/for-pope-franciss-d-c-visit-environmental-rally-of-up-to-200k-planned/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/09/24/3705248/climate-justice-rally-pope-francis/

[Todd Juvinall]

The last hope for communism is in "climate change" Steve Frisch, the wannabe "commissar" of the hoax.

[George Rebane]

Adminstrivia - I draw your kind attention to the 25sep15 update to 'Muslims in Government'.