Louise Gray of the Telegraph reports:
Speaking in Copenhagen on Sunday Tony Blair, the former prime minister, said the world must take action on climate change even if the science is not correct.
What the deuce?
4
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
From: Obamaforever
To: testtubebaby per #89
Quote:
Please tell me, who is the worst enemy in the minds of environmentalists? Bush, China, big oil, JCD, who?
End of quote.
The worst enemy for the environmentalists are the anti-Climate Change Retards like testtubebaby.
Boy! that was easy.
PS I am thinking that someone should have dropped the test tube.
Hey Fido,
Here is what you can find out about Ayn Rand just by looking at her Wikipedia article:
“she rejected libertarianism and the libertarian movement.”
That’s how I remember it too. She wouldn’t join an “ism” that was not of her own devising.
So, I trust you won’t continue to say things a silly as:
“Look in the mirror, sheep… you’re the one slavishly following your savior, Saint Ayn.”
One gets the impression that you learned everything you “know” about Libertarianism from Communists.
The Communists had a good reason to hate Rand and Libertarianism and didn’t make much of a distinction. Of course, they also hated America, Freedom, Life, Thought, Humanity and God.
I believe the scientists over the Russian hackers and teabagging crackpots.
However, even without global warming, our dependency on oil is killing us.
From: Obamaforever
To: Mr. Fusion
Thank you for the comment.
This the last post for me for the night I will make it a good one.
Who is Cherman?
I think Cherman is Dvorak in drag because who would be stupid enough to post such a stupid, inflammatory title.
Good night, Johnny!!!
Well, it doesn’t surprise me.
Mr. Fusion, Bobbo, Obamaforever, Phydeau, and amodedoma,
– there isn’t any list that you can refer to where IPCC climate scientists studied the pros and cons of global warming through anthropogenic climate change. Yet you believe the cons outweigh the pros. How can you make that claim rationally?
– there isn’t one IPCC sanctioned graph (available for public eyes) depicting global temperature changes for the past 5000 years or even 10,000 years. Yet you believe that this temperature we are about to experience has dire consequences, unique in mans history. How can you make that claim rationally?
“A simile would be it doesn’t matter what Jesus preached, it’s what his followers believed he meant.”
Uh, yeah, except for the part where Jesus never explicitly rejected Christianity.
It is not the responsibility of skeptical scientists to prove that dangerous anthropogenic climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that if we do nothing, catastrophic change far outweighing improvements to our quality of life, will ensue. To date, they have utterly failed to do so.
“I believe the scientists over the Russian hackers and teabagging crackpots.”
What scientists?
If there was any science going on at the CRU it was political science.
You are just going to have to agree with me on this one. It is not OK to shape the data to fit the theory. Science is only happening when you change the theory to fit the observation. If you disagree, I can’t have a discussion about science with you.
#96 Here is what you can find out about Ayn Rand just by looking at her Wikipedia article:
“she rejected libertarianism and the libertarian movement.”
Yes, that’s one of the things that make Libertarians particularly pathetic. You worship her even though she spit on you.
One gets the impression that you learned everything you “know” about Libertarianism from Communists.
The Communists had a good reason to hate Rand and Libertarianism and didn’t make much of a distinction. Of course, they also hated America, Freedom, Life, Thought, Humanity and God.
I read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, her earliest short book that I forgot the name of. I read about Nathaniel Branden, criticism of Objectivism, lots of it. And it’s clear that Objectivism/Libertarianism is a direct response to and challenge to the totalitarian Soviet Union. Only problem is, the U.S. never has been and never will be anything like the old Soviet Union, so trying to apply its solutions to the U.S. is like giving antibiotics to someone with a viral infection: It just doesn’t work. Some people are inexplicably intoxicated by Rand when they read her at a young age, and spend their lives imagining they’re fighting against some evil totalitarian government in the U.S. In other words, they’re wacked out. 🙂
#100–Jim==you asked what you consider to be a grouping two questions. Speaking only for myself although Mr Fusion very often posts better fact based/linked replies than I do and I often myself myself in agreement with the other boys:
– there isn’t any list that you can refer to where IPCC climate scientists studied the pros and cons of global warming through anthropogenic climate change. /// I don’t know, but I assume that as the CHARTER of the IPCC is to provide information for the purpose of limiting global warming.
Yet you believe the cons outweigh the pros. How can you make that claim rationally? /// I have never made that claim, but will now as I do think/guess that it is true. The issue easily apparent is ocean seal level rise and the FACT that Billions of people/cities/infrastructure are within the zone of sea rise. If we could pick up our civilization and move it uphill 30 feet then the direct massive economic/social impact of sea rise could be avoided. But we can’t do that and I guess the failure will be catastrophic meaning BIG CHANGES will be needed. I also think that BEFORE GW gets us, ocean acidification will cause world wide hunger before the ocean rise gets us. Both caused by the same thing==co2 and the cure the same==less co2. My “claim” may be wrong, but it is rational. Whats not rational is claiming that trillions of tons of co2 can be pumped into the atmosphere but nothing will change as a result of it ESPECIALLY as ocean rise has been steady and constant over the last 100 years.
– there isn’t one IPCC sanctioned graph (available for public eyes) depicting global temperature changes for the past 5000 years or even 10,000 years. Yet you believe that this temperature we are about to experience has dire consequences, unique in mans history. How can you make that claim rationally? //// Answered above.
“And it’s clear that Objectivism/Libertarianism is a direct response to and challenge to the totalitarian Soviet Union.”
Right. I can imagine some (your?) old communist professor teaching that. And wanting you to hate them both for that reason. But if you were being educated rather than indoctrinated you might have been allowed to know that libertarianism is much older than either Objectivism or Soviet communism.
Libertarianism was not patched together just to attack your political philosophy.
I would define libertarianism as “The Golden Rule applied to politics”. I think it is safe to say that the Golden Rule was meant to be applied universally. I await your rebuttal.
So anyway, Libertarianism is at least that old.
And at least that wise.
There is no leg work to do. The items don’t exist and you are acting irrational in making a decision without them. Simple. No need for 6 paragraphs of excuses.
It would seem that at some point in time there will be a crossover so that those who believe in AGW will start to be referred to as the “deniers”.
I hope it never snows again. I hate that shit.
#111
Historically desertification occurs in cold periods rather than hot, apparently we are in a cooling phase right now so thats to be expected.
As for how to fix ‘global warming.’ Why not just get everyone on the planet to open their fridge doors for half an hour. Problem solved
“There are two dangers with global temps rising just three degrees. The rising coastal water levels is the one everyone talks about.
The second will be the increased desertification….”
Imagine that! Just 3 degrees away from the annihilation of all life on the planet!
Let’s make a little wager shall we?
I suggest that more people have died this decade as a result of government action than have done so due to “climate troubles”.
I’ll bet you that this will remain true for the rest of this century no matter what happens to the CO2 levels.
You in?
The conservatives won’t believe global warming exists until their leaders tell them so.
They’re followers. Science be damned.
Sad but true: when it comes to science, they trust Glenn Beck and Sara Palin more than, let’s say, Carl Sagan.
So, until Rush’s Limbaugh’s Bocca mansion is underwater, they’re going to oppose everything.
Some time ago the Nobel prize went to some mathematicians for inventing the Stock Derivatives formula, that got the world into this current economic meltdown. Last year, Al Gore got one for making speeches about stopping a climate meltdown, that he never tried to do anything about when he was US vice president. And now Obama get the “peace prize” for continuing a war, rather than ending it. And one wonders why the Nobel is increasingly perceived as a political sham?
Take action! Burn all the witches! No evidence that they’ve got anything to do with the climate either. But just to be on the safe side, BURN EM!
I hope it’s becoming obvious that these former heads of State, are just tools of some multi-nation conglomerate(s) that have a hidden agenda for having them speak out about the environment. Especially, when these “heads” never dared to breathe a word when they actually had any power to do something about it.
Al Gore was in office, when they killed and scraped the earlier Electric Car designs, in the US.
So the earth might be warming up slightly. And fresh water might replenish the polluted oceans. And frozen wastelands might become useful for growing crops, the world needs. Assuming that Walmarts don’t take them over, first. So how is this a bad thing? I’m missing the negative. Oh gosh, some tribesmen up in some near arid foothills, might have to move to where there’s water, cause their mountain’s ice melted. Well, that just too bad. We didn’t cry about displacing the native Americans (too much). And the Spanish didn’t cry about slaughtering the native south Americans (at all). And nobody cried about all the farmers displaced by the Korean and Vietnam wars. And the Jews certainly aren’t crying about having displacing the Palestinians from their land.
But suddenly a few tiny tribes get their river water threatened. And everything has come to am end?! Hey, things change! So stop making martyrs over natural environmental shifts. They’ve got legs. They can walk to where the next source of water is. After all, their ancestors probably didn’t spring into being, right where they are now.
Some time ago, there was all this talk about the earth’s magnetic poles flipping. And how that might effect us all. More than just screwing up all the compasses, I’m sure. But it still hasn’t happened. And there isn’t even any evidence that it might be starting. Like the earth’s polarity weakening or the poles moving about more. So with that doomsday threat on hiatus, they came up with climate change, to scare us into submission of some kind.
If they hadn’t a history of doing this before, I might have been persuaded to believe the doomsdayers now. But I’ve heard their rants so many times before. That it’s not even funny anymore. Things change. But whenever it threatens to upset some wealthy bastards’ apple cart. It becomes a world catastrophe, that the rest of us must try and prevent. Of course they dare not word it that way. It becomes a disaster we all share, if their billions are saved in the process.
Why the hell aren’t these multi-billionaires sacrificing every cent they have? Are they still planning to be alive and rich, if the world gets flooded over? It doesn’t look like very many of them take this as serious as they hope the rest of us will. Why doesn’t Al Gore sacrifice all his millions for his cause, and take up living in a log cabin? He doesn’t have to remain a oil stock rich multi-millionaire, just to be comfortable. Be brave and join the shrinking middle class. Ya big coward.
JimR
Frankly I don’t see the need for me to convince you of anything. Never has mankind’s survival depended on a more precarious balance. Sure we’ve faced climate change before, but never with a population of 7 billion, never with so many cities with over a million. The last time we faced climate change populations were much smaller and more distributed. Food always came from nearby farms cause they couldn’t transport very much or very far without spoiling. The way we have things set up now, it’s like a house of cards. A small breeze and the whole thing comes tumbling down. Nobody’s asking you for a thing. OK, so I’m totally convinced that something nasty this way cometh, because of things I feel. Who the hell cares whose fault it is! I don’t care if the government prepares or not, save for the compassion I feel towards others. I’m not anxious to see people dying in the streets or the breakdown of our civilization. Keep your little pile of crap, don’t let the government tax you unnecessarily over this fairy tale stuff. You’re a winner because you don’t let anybody take from you what’s yours. A fine example of what’s wrong with the world today – from my point of view of course. Surely you think likewise of me and isn’t this what the universe is really all about, testing values? Time will tell. I wish you luck in the pursuit and defense of your material well being and lifestyle.
Makes sense, if the politics is leading the science. They might issue papers saying that the world is doomed unless we reduce emissions by 90%, and the planet will warm by 10 degrees otherwise. This science will be used to push for drastic reductions. Then when the final deal calls for a 50% cut, those same scientists will say that this is something that must pass or the planet is doomed, even though before they were saying anything less than an 80% cut is horrible.
In the end, you have scientists pushing plans that don’t work according to their own science.
You can see this principle in action at RealClimate.
And remember kids, it is not science unless it was done by white skinned Europeans after the 16th century.
Cursor_
#105, If you got your definition of Libertarianism from reading Rand, you are off in the bushes.
#112, The items don’t exist and you are acting irrational in making a decision without them.
Prove they don’t exist.
Your lack of education is showing. It is impossible to prove a negative.
If you would step up and answer the question you posed to me, it would go a long way toward proving your sincerity in conversations such as this. Did you lie to your wife on your wedding day?
#121, Poles shifting[…]But it still hasn’t happened
Actually, it happens on an ongoing basis. Every six months new aeronautical charts come out and the Magnetic North Pole shifts a bit each time. It moves about 20 miles a year.
BTW . . . Happy Bill of Rights Day!
#57 — Each of the pseudo-sciences you cite were fringe theories supported by a minority — not majority — of experts in those various fields. The fact that those outliers are now high profile (because they’re interesting to us now) does not make them equivalent to the peer-reviewed global consensus on global warming. It’s pretty astonishing that anybody would not understand that difference.
#57 … and of course, none of your examples even pretends to address the situation the Deniers are now proposing: A deliberate global scientific conspiracy.
Which global conspiracy were the bloodletters involved in, again…?
#128 The first sentence of your Libertarian statement of principles on that link, emphasis mine:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
“The cult of the omnipotent state”??? See, that’s what I mean… you guys are still battling the Soviet Union, just like Saint Ayn. Sorry to break it to you, but the Soviet Union is gone. The omnipotent state is gone. And here’s another news flash: The U.S. has never had anything remotely like an “omnipotent state”. In fact our “state” is remarkably impotent, hijacked by the big corporations and bent to their will.
But it sure must feel good to think you’re battling against some mythical “omnipotent state”. You go ahead and keep doing that, if it makes you happy.
Meanwhile, out here in reality, we’re debating which tasks are best handled by the free market and which are better handled by the government. Don’t let us distract you.
Omnipotent state… I’m still chuckling. 🙂
Of course, as long as our government is held captive by the big corporations, it will be difficult for it to do the things it should do to promote the general welfare, etc. So our challenge is to take our government back from the big corporations.
So in a sense I agree with the Libertarians… the government is doing some nasty things to us, but not because it’s some “omnipotent state”. The problem is not tyrannical government control (like the old Soviet Union), it’s good old fashioned American greed and bribery.