Global warming is usually Stefan's beat, but this article is worth a read because it does so much to spell out the rational case for skeptics. Not necessarily of the notion that the Earth has recently experienced a period of warming, but skepticism of the notion that man is to blame, it's all because of carbon dioxide, and the only rational course is too hamstring the economy through onerous public policies to address that narrow paradigm.
To summarize the article, relying in significant part on information not disputed by the liberally acclaimed IPCC:
1) The earth hasn't actually been warming in the aggregate in the last decade, as opposed to the disastrous, nearly unstoppable rate of global warming described by alarmists (see Gore, Al).
2) Since global warming has not continued even as carbon dioxide has risen over the same decade, the logical conclusion is that global warming is more complex than the simplistic "carbon dioxide emissions = the devil" formulation current in vogue among environmental activists.
3) The earth and its functioning systems, such as the climate, are significantly more complex than we originally thought.
You want better environmental policy? Fine.
Make the world a greener place and improve conservation? Great.
Put the brakes on our economy and insist other countries not so inclined such as India and China do likewise, all for the holy grail of reduced carbon emissions? No thanks.
And to prove the point all this has implications locally, note that even the far left Sierra Club has qualms about Sound Transit's latest proposal because the greeny left are afraid of too much space for cars at Park & Rides. You know, that crazy place suburbanites go to actually access the mass transit programs the Sierra Club likes.
Hi. Extremism called. It would like its good name back.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 22, 2008 02:05 PM | Email ThisOh yes Eric, you nailed it. That is exactly what all these idiot democrats want to do. Hamstring the economy by pursuing policies that encourage the use of fuel sources that don't come states that finance Al Qaeda, and offering economic incentives for companies that can cheaply reduce the amount of pollution they create. Socialists.
Posted by: Noble on March 22, 2008 02:22 PMThe insidious part is how it essentially erased the Medieval Warm period. Declaring it to be a 'local phenomena' for just northern Europe, it was weighted out of the analysis. But even the Eurocentric direct records (as opposed to tree-proxies, which also follow precipitation trends) show that the MWP was ridiculously powerful. Circumnavigating Greenland, farming on Greenland, heatwaves in Ukraine, and data from Morocco - if the MWP was a 'local' phenomena, it was local to a sizable chunk of the Northern Hemisphere. But it also led to drought in some areas, and monsoon-like conditions in others. Which would strongly affect the precipitation-sensitive tree-ring studies.
If one examines the estimates of temperatures that were made prior to the Global Warming Bandwagon started touring, the 'stick' part of The Hockeystick looks more like a slinky. And the phrase "unprecedented warming!" shows up as truly ludicrous.
Ask a historian if the MWP was localized to just northern Europe.
Posted by: Al on March 22, 2008 02:41 PMI mean, really. If you think liberals are right on just about everything else, rattle off a few of their policies that benefit Americans, our economy, our culture, or our values?
What we need is a comprehensive list of all these liberal policies that you think are right. then we'll see if we can find a single one to agree on.
Posted by: Reality on March 22, 2008 04:16 PMBut now it turns out that the tree ring analysis of the 4800 year old pines is much more an indicator of water or lack thereof and not temperature. And, many of the selected sites for these trees were in drought prone high desert regions. So, of course Mann wanted to point our that this was disastrous evidence of temperature rise, and all really shows is that these trees didn't have water at times. Check out Watts Up With That for more info.
The window is closing on Al Gore and the eco-nuts. With a flat or downturn in temperature this decade, it won't take much more of the sun being calm, and other large earth-related feedback mechanisms suppressing temperature, before the average Joe stops listening to Al Gore altogether.
Once again, the Marxists overplayed their hand with the dire and laughable predictions of a 20 foot sea level rise, that now, even the overzealous and UN-like IPCC has revised back to 2 feet over decades. These people are just plain stupid. Their obvious goal is economic control, and self-enrichment through carbon trading scams. But unfortunately, the sun and earth are not cooperating.
Go take a look at the latest Sun Spot data as well. Zilch. The sun is relatively calm, after many years of rising activity. Envrion-nut sun watchers said, don't worry, the spots will be back in December 2007. They didn't show. Then they said, don't worry, March 2008, and they are still not showing. It's all a pack of either outright lies, or a very limited understanding of how Global Temperature really works. Climate can be shown to be well correlated to sun spot activity. And we've seen a decline in sun spots over the last decade or so, and a temperature decline as well. Only fools would neglect the sun as a far more controlling source of climate than anything on such a tiny scale as man's activities on earth. Much of earth is totally uninhabited by humans, yet the sun shines over the whole earth every day. Duh.
And the average Joe, isn't going to open his wallet and let it get emptied out, and let his kids be indoctrinated with Al Gore's climate Marxism, all for a bunch of BS.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 22, 2008 04:53 PMHe will if there's a gun to his head. [And that 'gun' is spelled 'government legislation'] :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 22, 2008 05:02 PMWhat progress was made to altering course or correcting any of these policy errors during the past eight years, particularly when the "conservative" party held both the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress?
Any change?
Any at all?
Just like a good Marxist. Since persuasion won't work, you've gotta use force to get your ideology implemented.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 22, 2008 07:16 PM"The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert adangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
"Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations mustwean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in orderto prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dryup sources of water worldwide.
"Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warmingand other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates andremoves carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany , are delivering asimple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down tonear zero to keep temperatures from rising further."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html?nav=emailpage
Take a while to think about how many chemical processes, large and small, that sustain our industrial civilization that involve CO2 as a byproduct. From making steel to baking bread to transportation of virtually any kind to the production of electricity to the very breath we exhale the list would be numbered in the tens of thousands easily. CO2 is an unavoidable product of human existence. To insist that man-made CO2 be must be eliminated is to insist that man also be eliminated. These scientists cannot be ignorant of this fact.
Don't imagine the politicians will save us. McCain still wants to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% and Obama and Clinton want toreduce it by 80%. This is still a long drawn out death.
Posted by: Bill K. on March 22, 2008 09:51 PMComplain about the moonbats all you want boys, but you need 'em now more than ever...especially in this state!
Posted by: Blake on March 22, 2008 10:14 PMBefore I write anything, I should identify myself as a Green (Not Green Party!) and member of the Sierra Club--although I'm much further down whatever axis they are traveling down in re 520 than they are.
I was surprised and somewhat annoyed by the comment in #6 that appeared to blame ethanol solely on greens and democrats. I personally believe those groups do bear a huge amount of blame for ethanol--the env. groups for in most cases blessing it, NPR for taking lots of cash from Archer Daniels Midland and then only spitting out puff pieces on it, and of course the Democrats for wanting to win the farm states so badly they'd put it in their tea.
But have I been missing something? Republicans and conservatives have either jumped on board with ethanol or if they oppose it, they're voices have been so quiet as to be totally inaudible. And of course I do remember the great "conservative" W. jumping proudly onto the bandwagon.
Partisanship is fun, but it's not the path to the truth.
Thanks all,
new left conservative #1
There have been many posts and comments on Ethanol over the past year or two. Do a Google search with site set to SoundPolitics.com Most conservatives are negative on Ethanol. It's obviously another fraud.
Ethanol is driving up food and energy prices, and there's no way it could do more than replace a tiny percentage of our total oil use due to the large amount of arable land needed to grow the corn. Sure, there are probably a few conservative farmers and ethanol company owners that are getting rich off feeding this scam to green fools, but those people are largely just opportunists.
Real conservatives and/ or libertarians would never advocate for a solution that is not market based. If ethanol had to spend a day on the open market without it's financial and ideological subsidy, it would gone. It's only through fools that this energy fraud persists.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 22, 2008 11:22 PMHowever, the assessment of who supports ethanol isn't accurate. Many of the Conservatives on Soundpolitics may be innocent, but there are not near enough conservative heroes in the ethanol debate and a huge number of right wing Republican villains.
I googles Ethanol vote breakdown and found this right away from Media Matters:
( The Section below was cut and pasted In:)
As the Los Angeles Times noted in a June 16, 2005, article (subscription only) about a Senate vote to mandate increased use of ethanol by 2012, "The provision adopted by the Senate on Wednesday was eagerly sought by Democratic and Republican farm-state lawmakers, underscoring that energy policy that includes ethanol mandates is often driven by regional politics rather than party affiliation." The article quoted Sen. John Thune -- a Republican from South Dakota, which has the United States' fourth-greatest ethanol production capacity -- saying, "The Senate is poised to make ethanol a cornerstone of America's energy policy." The opposition was bipartisan as well. Sen. Charles Schumer -- a Democrat from New York, who opposed the provision -- said, "There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol -- other than the political might of the ethanol lobby." In addition, the article noted that Sen. Barbara Boxer -- a Democrat from California -- also voted against the mandate.
A breakdown of the June 14, 2005, Senate vote on ethanol illustrates Bumiller's mischaracterization of the political divide on government support for ethanol. A review of votes by state shows that in fact Republican senators from agricultural states, such as Jeff Sessions (AL), Richard C Shelby (AL), Wayne Allard (CO), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Charles Grassley (IA), Richard Lugar (IN), Sam Brownback (KS), Pat Roberts (KS), Jim Talent (MO), Chuck Hagel (NE), George Voinovich (OH), and John Thune (SD), as well as Democratic senators Evan Bayh (IN), Tom Harkin (IA), Ben Nelson (NE), Kent Conrad (ND), Byron L. Dorgan (ND), Tim Johnson (SD) and Blanche Lincoln (AR) all voted for the measure. Senators in both parties -- mostly from coastal states -- opposed, including Democrats Christopher Dodd (CT), Joseph I. Lieberman (CT), and Joseph R. Biden (DE), and Republicans Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Judd Gregg (NH), John E. Sununu (NH), Gordon Smith (OR), and Lincoln Chafee (RI).
This past week, Bush took a renewable energy tour to promote his latest energy policy proposals. Among his proposals is a plan to fund research to enhance ethanol-based fuels -- which are reported to burn cleaner than fossil fuels -- to render them more cost-effective by 2012. The "mixed signals" occurred, however, when, shortly before Bush's visit, the White House reallocated $5 million to the renewable energy lab to restore jobs lost due to budget cuts.
From the February 22 edition of The New York Times
end of cut and pasted part.
Thanks all, new left conservative #1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on March 23, 2008 03:21 PM"It is an election year!
Posted by: HW on March 23, 2008 08:11 PMBy the same token, I have yet to find a single shred of bad information in Paul Krugman's "No Mullah Left Behind" column from a couple years ago. (Even though I don't like Krugman much)
Short version: our addiction to oil foments dictatorships and funds terrorism.
If conservatives and patriots REALLY wanted to cut the head off of the beast, they would get behind efforts to reduce US energy consumption and the importation of foreign oil.
A 100% foreign concept for most right wingers, unfortunately (unfortunate for ALL Americans)
I agree, if you look at Republican politicians, it's very often hard to tell them from the Democrats. Politics has become a career, and a poor one, for mostly the lame. Thus we see the same, self aggrandizing, pompous asses brining home the pork for their districts regardless of party. True conservatives are not necessarily Republicans. Those who seek government should be those who do it after they have mae successful careers in private industry, and then only out of a deep sense of service to their country. That's the way it was for George Washington, our namesake. Today we get desperate Marxists like Darcy Burner, just looking for a way to get in on the congressional scam.
But the Democrats are usually even worse than Republicans, because in addition to all of the same corruption, they also hold ideological views that guarantee bankruptcy and failure in the country.
Don't worry though, it won't be long before many wake up to the fraud's being perpetrated on the American people, and the shutdown of the Ethanol and Global Warming industries.
First, conservatives do not claim ownership of the Republican Party. In fact, the politicians representing the Republican Party in DC are less and less conservative these days, caving to the same spending behavior and personal career enhancement agenda as the overwhelming majority of Democrats.
But more importantly, most informed folks know about the cloture rule in the Senate. Without 60 votes, nothing can even be moved to the floor for a vote, and as long as obstructionists like Harry Reid were leading the minority, the administration had to buy support from the Democrats for any critical initiatives they wanted, and were forced to abandon anything that Reid and his allies opposed, such as real Social Security and Medicare reform, tax reform, energy reform, etc. Fighting the War on Terror and defending American lives came at the cost of all the other significant Bush initiatives to reform this government. Without a 60 vote majority, you see, Bush had to buy the support of a sufficient number of Democrats, as well as many liberal Republicans, to get anything.
From Social Security and Medicare, to drilling in Anwar and Energy policy, the Bush administration did not have the support from the left to drive reforms. Without any support from the media, Bush couldn't even appeal to the American people for the necessary support. Yes, even with strong majorities in both the House and Senate, that pesky cloture rule in the Senate meant that Harry Reid and his Democrat obstructionists could stop anything and everything they wished. For Reid and the Democrats, reform will always take a backseat to selfish opportunism. They prove it nearly every day.
Bush had to deal to even get his judicial nominees votes in the Senate. And if you don't understand the connection between those votes and spending, you still don't get it.
Once in the minority, Republicans had little else to do but defend against the Democrats' singular focus on politicking and launching investigation after investigation, in between votes on surrendering in Iraq. As we all know, they have done less than any Congress and they have the lowest approval rating in history. That is the consequence of electing people who are only "against" everything. Once in power, if you can't accomplish something, people notice.
So I stand by my challenge. Tell us what liberals stand "for". What is the "change" liberals support from the most liberal voting member of the United States Senate, or the presidential wannabe from Arkansas? I can only imagine if an "honest" list was ever published, as liberals would lose the moderates overnight. And that is why no one knows what Obama or Hillary would do if elected.
Some of us demand more than "hope" and "change" rhetoric.
Posted by: Reality on March 24, 2008 09:12 AMexcellent and spot on, most never see the politics of it all!
Posted by: HW on March 24, 2008 10:43 AM