Found by Misanthropic Scott.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
And so it continues. The deniers start spouting fabricated bullshit such as “well Mars is warming too” and “it’s natural”.
Mars is not warming. Nor are any of the other planets. CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and is a very controllable ingredient of climate change. The Arctic Icesheet has melted and now contains mostly new, less dense and thus inferior ice. The vast majority of serious scientists understand the science behind and agree with global climate change.
Now, these are all facts. Denied by those who are afraid or have an anti-everything agenda. Yet, facts still. In retort, we get people like Stars and Bars linking to wing nut conspiracy sites and deriding the “Main Stream Media” for not playing the “stupid sheeple” game with him.
The one failure from the wing nuts that truly makes them look stupid is when they don’t know the difference between climate and weather. It really behooves me that people want to be taken seriously when they come out with such obvious idiocy.
#34, Alphie
I question the accuracy of the graph CO2 and temperature…
Almost all of us question your sanity.
Observations have shown a direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures.
If you don’t like these numbers, why not give us some more accurate numbers?
Look, anyone who has done their own research knows man-made global warming is a scam, -to create a new, global Carbon Derivative. they wont even have to change the acronym CDS – Carbon Default Swaps :p
Given that ice can turn to liquid again at -63c under extreme pressure, -and you have extreme pressures via those massive 30 story glaciers, -who is to say that ONLY heat can cause ice glaciers to flow.
Not to mention that we have been in a cooling trend since 2000..
it is already proven NASA withholds and/or alters tons of data in the space program, and that by and large, our science community knows nothing about the creation of anything.
-If only because when new theories or evidence is brought to light about a process that flies in the face of mainstream, they first ridicule, then bury the data, then remove the equivalent of telescope privileges (or worse) from the scientists involved.
Here: it was announced yesterday that India found evidence of water on the moon.
-this on their very first lunar mission!
-you mean to tell me NASA never found any evidence of water on the moon all these years? -i don’t think so.
BTW, HELLO DVORAK! -WATER ON THE MOON YESTERDAY, WHERE IS YOUR POST?
-s
Nuclear waste would be a much smaller and manageable problem if we would reprocess it like were supposed to. Fearmongering about the reprocessing is almost as widespread as the safety of the plants.
Postman why don’t you ask the good folks in Kingston TN about the safety of coal plants? Why don’t you tell me how many American plants have “melted down reducing several industrial cities and several thousand square miles to atomic wasteland”
Problems:
Global pollution… definitely.
Accelerated destruction of our habitat… absolutely.
Unsustainable population growth… certainly.
Climate change… apparent in places.
Human caused global warming… somewhat.
Global warming… (censored by the thought police)
Solution:
Care about your neighbour and the future, as well as yourself.
When there are choices, live as cleanly and less damaging as you can.
Lead by example. Don’t wait for ‘them’, or ‘we’.
#37, soundwash,
Please take your meds.
First, the satellite that found evidence of water, it didn’t actually discover any water, only evidence, used American (read NASA) developed technology. The data was interpreted by American and Indian scientists. And finally, it was only found in the rims of crater which is in total darkness all the time.
The Apollo Moon visits were all done on flat plains in full daylight. Any water would have been vaporized very soon after forming and blown away by the solar wind.
And yes, sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous. NASA is making the announcement this afternoon.
Re: #39, note to self… “Global warming… (censored by the thought police)”
should have said…
Global warming… (censored by the debate police)
Hey poor people, you need to stay poor because these glaciers are melting.
Here’s a video of a guy asking people at the premiere of “The Age of Stupid” if they’ll stop flying, since the movie is about how bad airplanes are.
>The Arctic Icesheet has melted and now contains mostly new, less dense and thus inferior ice.
Henny, the alarmists like to throw around whatever facts they can to make things look worse. Their prediction of inferior ice meaning it is less likely to stay frozen has not happened. Ice increased again in 2009, by 500,000 square kilometers, another 10 percent.
All of the thin ice that was supposedly going to melt away, it didn’t. That was just something they threw out to keep the scaremongering intact.
Next year look for them to talk about lack of three-year ice, and perhaps a dropoff in ice freezing(if you have more ice to being with, you don’t recover as much). Also, they might switch to ice volume now that they have satellite data for it.
Just for the sake of argument, lets assume AGW is all true and accurate. I haven’t seen a single suggested solution that doesn’t damage the general human condition more than AGW would. The so-called required sacrifices are greater than the “problem”.
Toxic A, Re: “I haven’t seen a single suggested solution that doesn’t damage the general human condition”
…what about my solution in post #9?
Aaah!… I meant post #39.
Re #49, Alfred… “you are being sold a bill of goods by those who hate energy…industry…suv’s…and 3 ply toilet paper.”
… no, they hate greedy, self-serving people who support industries that poison our environment, waste precious resources, and generally don’t give a shit about anyone else.
CO2 is just the poster boy… representative of much bigger more insidious problems. The hidden agenda IMO is… cut out the CO2, and you probably create a more environmentally friendly world.
>cut out the CO2, and you probably create a more environmentally friendly world.
Except wind power opposed by environmentalists if it blocks the view, solar power opposed by environmentalists to preserve the desert, and of course nuclear power everywhere.
So the IPCC is predicting that for a doubling of CO2, the planet will warm 2-4C, with some alarmists predicting higher numbers like 5,6,or 7C
Yet when growing from 270-370ppm, a 40% increase, the growth has been much less than 40% of whatever numbers they are predicting. This along with the lack of warming the last 11 years(not a cooling), suggests that warming will be on the low end of projections, and the worst case estimates are similarly unlikely.
Sea level is not going to rise by 50 feet.
This was never a likely scenario, since it is too cold in Antarctica for global warming to melt ice there. In fact in global warming you will get more ice in Antarctica, as sea water evaporates and snows on the ice sheet.
Sea level rise will be more like 4-10 feet.
#2 – Hugh Ripper,
Alfred1 – [snip] You really are a twat. Really.
1) Twats are soft and warm and fuzzy and moist and wonderful. Don’t insult them.
2) Alfie is specially created in god’s own image … not a very positive statement about god actually … hey god … have you been forgetting your meds for about the last 200,000 years??!!?
Re: MikeN, #51…“Except wind power opposed by environmentalists if it blocks the view, solar power opposed by environmentalists to preserve the desert, and of course nuclear power everywhere.”
So? Who cares what a few crackpots think?
Are you participating in keeping our water and habitat free of man-made poisons, and protecting our food chain… or not? Start there. The rest will follow.
#24 – Jayson,
I think we all should make an effort to reduce carbon emissions and generally contribute to a better environment, but I don’t believe we should be forced into it (as all the global warming propaganda seems to lead to).
Economic incentive is not force. If it were, we would all be saying that we are forced to burn oil because the government subsidizes it though tax breaks, direct corporate welfare, free protection of oil tankers by the U.S. military, protection of oil wells by the military, etc.
So, a carbon tax, which I would prefer to a cap and trade system, would merely be economic incentive to stop burning fossil fuel, not force.
We do not live in a free market society.
Government intervention is the rule, not the exception.
MScott, Although I agree that some (okay, a lot) of people need an incentive to behave with decency, a carbon tax will only punish the poorest of those people. I would be more in favor of a tax of say $30,000 on new passenger vehicles that get less than 30 mpg (with some exceptions)? Or how about a mandatory engine device where cars can’t exceed 110 kph (roughly 65 mph). Trucks already require them here, and the roads are a little safer as well. The reason…
“According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:”
– 3% less efficient at 60 mph
– 8% less efficient at 65 mph
– 17% less efficient at 70 mph
– 23% less efficient at 75 mph
– 28% less efficient at 80 mph
Bah, junk science. I think Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter are all much more qualified to talk about ice calving, glacier retreat, and global climate change than this turkey.
>Who cares what a few crackpots think?
The crackpots have enough influence to prevent solutions from happening. Already Yucca mountain is being blocked, and nuclear power is off the table for Obama’s green energy initiative. Another solar plant is being blocked by an environmentalist group in the California desert. When Nantucket gets its wind power, then I’ll agree its just a few crackpots saying things.
Jim, your tax on low mileage cars hurts the poor as well. Some number will not buy cars, or others will end up with a smaller car than what they wanted, or less powerful, or less safe, or have to pay for a hybrid version.
#56 – JimR,
How about a $1,000 tax per mile per gallon every new car gets below 50 MPG? Maybe a discount above 50 MPG. So, for example, a vehicle that gets 30 MPG would pay $20,000.
#60, MScott, yep, something like that would work. I would phase it in though… 40 mpg the first year.
#59, Mike… if everyone has a small car that maxes out at 65 mph, then safety will be higher for everyone. No one should have to buy a hybrid or electric until they get them perfected. Nothing happens overnight… do it in stages and the poor win. It is a pleasure not having some dickhead trucker breathing down my neck on the 401 anymore. If the twits who now pass me doing 170 kph also have to drive at 110, the highway carnage should drop to near zero.
#40 Mr. Fusion said:
Excuse me?
Where did you get that dribble from?
They confirmed water “practical everywhere” on the surface.
On top of that, it’s
“renewing” itself daily.
The amount of water molecules increase during the lunar night, decrease during the lunar day, then begin again to increase during the lunar night.
The real kicker for them was that it
did not completely dissipate even at
the peak of the moons 250+ degree “noon”
Heck, for you, a little knowledge is
useless. -you could not even parrot the news correctly.
Did you even bother to listen or read
the whole release? what i wrote above was released on the Indian, U.K. and a few other European sites news sites on 23rd.
I have no problem being flamed, however the least you could do is
be a worthy opponent. You effectively reduced yourself to flame bait.
I dunno, maybe your the one who need the meds.. *shrug*
-s
#50 > cut out the CO2, and you probably create a more environmentally friendly world.
Cut out the CO2 and everything dies. CO2 is a requirement for life on this planet. Just like sunlight, oxygen and water. I bet the governments around the world would like to tax these as well but I don’t think most of us would fall for it.
This is all just a scam to create a new tax base. The old models for taxing the populace is under strain from globalization.
If governments tries to raise tax on income or wealth it just makes jobs and capital flee to other countries effectively lowering tax revenues.
We all need to breath and we all need to generate heat and spend energy. That results in CO2 emissions so we will be subject to taxing. It’s like the ever popular property tax.
I don’t like these new tax models where we tax stuff that is considered bad in order to reduce bad behavior. This has become increasingly popular here in Sweden. It used to be that we taxed income, profits and consumption. That meant that for politicians to get more money to play with (that’s what they want, right?) they had to make sure their community prospered. That is if they wanted to avoid raising taxes which might make them loose elections.
Now the size of public economy is becoming increasingly dependent on pollution with new taxes on emissions, fuel, road use and other creative so called environment taxes.
What effect will this have on incentives for our politicians is something that truly worries me. I am very skeptical towards the idea of taxing undesired lifestyles. It leads in the wrong direction and distract us from the real issues of how to create more prosperity for more people.
#44, Mike N
Henny, the alarmists like to throw around whatever facts they can to make things look worse. Their prediction of inferior ice meaning it is less likely to stay frozen has not happened. Ice increased again in 2009, by 500,000 square kilometers, another 10 percent.
First year ice is inferior. Your not understanding that is merely a testament to your comprehension level. First year ice, being less dense is more inclined to fracture and break into flows. And yes, that does allow more mobility and more melting.
Older ice is stronger and will remain. By not breaking up (as easily or as much) it will continue to reflect sunlight.
The ice sheet grew because it had decreased during the summer melt. That makes it more a seasonal cover than a permanent ice sheet. In years past, it was a permanent sheet.
#63 – Hastur,
Cut out the CO2 and everything dies.
No shit!! But, no one is talking about removing all CO2 from the atmosphere. We’re talking about reducing our own contribution through burning of fossil fuels. Wake up!!
As for tax disincentives, they work well. Not only that, many of the taxed items actually do have real costs associated with them. Smoking cigarettes, for example, increases health care bills. In a civilized country like Sweden, such costs are borne by the taxpayer base. Why not tax the cigarettes themselves so that the people who choose to smoke absorb that cost?
Similarly, the pollution from burning fossil fuels kills about 5 million people per year world wide. That is a real cost. The cost of the lost farmland is a real cost. Etc.
So, why not tax the item that causes the cost?
It seems to make perfect sense to me.
#56 – Unnacceptable. That’s a horrifying reduction in lifestyle. Your solutions in #39 are ok as long as none of them reduce the size and power of cars, reduce house size, reduce amount of property, reduce urban sprawl. etc.
Living close to each other and using mass transit, etc. is worse than any possible effect of Global Warming.
# 65 Misanthropic Scott
You are assuming that the money collected by the tax actually goes towards covering the costs caused. If that was the case I would not be so concerned. What happens now is that all these taxes just go directly into the general budget.
The money collected in road taxes in Sweden exceeds the money spent on building and repairing roads.
Then we have the tax on taxes. We have 25% VAT. That is added after the the taxes when we for example buy fuel or tobacco.
It’s just a bunch of people shuffling numbers around a spreadsheet asking what tax is the most politically correct to raise and how much it will bring in.
I’m all for the idea of activities carrying their own costs. I’ve become a fan of public television for that reason, but then I know that the licence fee is going directly to the production of radio or TV. That is NOT the case with these so called environmental taxes. I don’t even think there is any calculation of the costs caused by the activity’s being taxed either, just an estimate of how much will be acceptable by the public and markets.