September 1, 2010Tweet of the Day@AceofSpadesHQ [Discovery Channel Enviro-gunman] Lee Smith thought he'd die due to increasingly lethal weapons technology. *Spot on,* dude!
Posted by John Kranz at 6:13 PM
| Comments (0)
August 25, 2010Trashy Summer ReadingYou have two choices. You can watch Penn & Teller's B******t on recycling and be treated to topless women, cruel torment of innocent and sincere Angelinos. It's a great show and I recommend it highly. Or, if you prefer less profanity (none as I recall), you can read PERC's awesome paper on the myths of recycling. It's 30 pages, but they are double-spaced, full of pictures, and very readable. PERC even goes a little deeper into the cost structure then my favorite libertarian magicians. Both share a concern that the public mission of the trash barge Mobro in 1987 convinced all of America of a shortage of landfill capacity that was not real. This "crisis" was played by the enviro movement to create a decades-long boondoggle of subsidized recycling. The other thing they have in common is their conclusion: "Recycling is B******t!".
Posted by John Kranz at 7:05 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
I lived in Boulder for 20 years so I'm ahead of the curve on "recycling is bullshit" awareness. I'm a militant anti-recycler. Except for aluminum cans, which I once read save the energy equivalent of 8 ounces of gasoline (recycled vs. new metal from bauxite ore.) Posted by: johngalt at August 26, 2010 2:40 PM
But jk thinks:
...which explains the real, free-market value of scrap aluminum that has existed since I was a kid. The 3R fiends love to include stats like that, implying thatthe convesion of soda bottles to insulation is as effective. Posted by: jk at August 26, 2010 3:37 PMMay 28, 2010King Barack the VerboseOn the heels of Charles Krauthammer's King Canute reference, [third comment] Mark Steyn fills us in on the background. In the age of kings, we were taught that kings were human, with human failings. Now, in the age of citizen-presidents, we are taught that government has unlimited powers over "heaven, earth and sea." Unlike Canute and Alfred, the vanity of Big Government knows no bounds. You won't be sorry if you read it all. He even takes a whack at the Euro.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:24 PM
| Comments (0)
May 23, 2010Miserable F-ing Lead-Free Solder!Some years ago I wrote at some length about an EU regulation that was infecting the electronics industry worldwide, causing higher costs, greater ecological damage and more importantly, less reliable electronics. Fast forward to last Friday, where my blogging from a Colorado political event was hamstrung by battery charging difficulties. (I did have an extra battery, I just couldn't charge either of them!) We've been struggling with the charging plug on this laptop for months if not years. This morning I finally concluded that the issue was inside the computer and not the charging adapter. I removed about a million dinky screws and opened roughly half a million teensy snaps to gain access to the main board. The solder joints on the charging socket did appear suspect. Under magnified inspection I deduced that repeated mechanical flexing stress had cold-worked the terminals where they passed through the solder barrels in the PCB. The solder, with the tell-tale dull satin finish of lead-free, had opened up into little funnel shapes around each of the 5 pins on the connector. The electrical connections were reliant upon faith and good fortune (and you probably know how much of both we have around here.) I reflowed all 5 connections with good old tin-lead solder (like our grandpappys used to use) and put the well used laptop back into service. I can't help but wonder how many fewer electronic devices would be clogging our landfills if this idiotic enviro-nonsense had not been foisted upon mankind in the name of keeping hazardous materials out of landfills.
Posted by JohnGalt at 5:00 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
Heh. I think every laptop I've tossed has been that socket breaking or disconnecting. My soldering skills are limited to patch cords and the occasional tube socket. PC boards are replacement parts to this cowboy, Posted by: jk at May 23, 2010 5:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Exactly right. Only the most fortunate laptops end up in the homes of electrical engineers with NASA soldering training. (I guess one might call them the Dalai Lama laptops. Reincarnation anyone?) Posted by: johngalt at May 23, 2010 6:15 PM
But johngalt thinks:
And I also sought to take some of the heat off of you for your nautical language, though I couldn't bring myself to type the complete f-word. Posted by: johngalt at May 24, 2010 8:15 PMApril 26, 2010Life Imitates Penn & TellerAn awesome episode of Penn & Teller's B******t, is the one on recycling. In the intro, the hosts admit that "they kinda believe it" but nevertheless, the purveyors of reason must conclude that recycling "is B******t!" The show is entertaining and informative, of course, but one of the great bits is when they walk serious young LA homeowners through the new system. A man with a clipboard instructs on the proper contents of the eight different color bins. It's hilarious because they cannot get a Californian to complain no matter how bad they make it. Well, in the land of Orwell, they're bringing this skit to life:
Hat-tip: Taranto.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:04 PM
| Comments (2)
But Keith Arnold thinks:
See, I've always suspected that with all the extra bins curbside, the underlying motivation was to make us peasants limit the number of cars we own - after all, they leave us no place to park them, forcing us to eliminate a polluting gas-guzzler. But surprise! The big win in the greeniness category is our cars! This article has persuaded me that I'll be trading in my 2004 model next year for the 2011 - yes, the one with the green, environmentally-friendly 302 that, coincidentally, generates 412 horsepower: Posted by: Keith Arnold at April 26, 2010 7:04 PM
But jk thinks:
Clearly, Keith's love of country and the environment know no bounds. Good for You!!! Posted by: jk at April 26, 2010 7:45 PMApril 22, 2010Quote of the DayWhile President Obama notices what’s happening [environment improving], apparently the folks over at government-run TV (PBS) didn’t get the memo, offering up this week a two-hour American Experience Earth Day documentary on “the inspiring story of the modern environmental movement.” Not much inspiration here; to the contrary, the film is so drearily conventional that it’s about as inspiring as a bad tribute cover band trying to recreate Beatlemania in an Elko, Nevada ballroom. -- Steven F HaywardI used to play in Elko...
Posted by John Kranz at 5:08 PM
| Comments (0)
April 20, 2010Truth in Media (no, REALLY)Just when you thought it wasn't safe to consume any establishment media news product comes this in US News and World Report: Global Warming, Ethanol, DDT and Environmentalism’s Dark Side Those who question global warming alarmists’ claims and policy prescriptions have been compared to holocaust deniers. Yet what are we to call environmentalists whose policies have resulted in the deaths of millions and could exacerbate poverty and hunger? The movie title Not Evil, Just Wrong may be too charitable. Snap! Now that's what I call 'Hope and Change' in the news business. How did this happen? The story was written by Carrie Lukas, VP of Policy and Economics at the Independent Women's Forum (because "All issues are women's issues.") Their mission: The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation's most influential scholars—women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom. OK, sounds good so far. They may have been founded in 1992 but it's hard to believe this has been their mission all along. I think JK'd have linked 'em by now! ;) Better late than never though. UPDATE: Here's the link to the entire US N&WR entry and not just the excerpt on balanced-ed.org. It's an editorial. Oh well, the flicker of hope felt really good for those few minutes. Still check out iwf.org though.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:16 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
In my defense, I have linked to the filmmakers several times. Posted by: jk at April 20, 2010 4:07 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I don't think iwf.org is affiliated with 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' but I could be wrong, not evil too. Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2010 5:23 PMApril 19, 2010Earth Day LoomingBalanced-ed.org is working on leveling the playing field, fighting back against bias in environmental education in public schools. In Pa, they've done interviews with Dom Giordano and Bob Durgan. They're looking for personal stories about it for publication... thing like showing Al Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth & etc. You might recall that British schools have been ordered to run disclaimers when presenting An Inconvenient Truth in the classroom. The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.
Posted by AlexC at 7:26 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
My brother and his sons were telling me about Gore indoctrination at their swanky Boulder County private school. I sent him the link to tell his story. I'll try to refresh my memory and put the story here too. Thanks for the link. It led to some other good stuff. Posted by: johngalt at April 20, 2010 3:15 PM
But johngalt thinks:
OK, here's the story (third hand): The day after screening Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' in class from start to finish my brother sent his son in with a 5-minute Stossel segment "where he had a bunch of people debunking the theory." To her credit the teacher did share part of it with the class, although she didn't see fit to let it run to the end of the "whole" 5 minutes. Do you suppose Stossel changed her mind that fast? Posted by: johngalt at April 21, 2010 3:26 PMMarch 31, 2010Headline of the DayCloudy with a Chance of Global Warming Got to comment: yeah, guys, much better to distribute that power among a million old servers in air-conditioned data centers powered by a variety of sources.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:54 PM
| Comments (0)
March 12, 2010International Club for Meddling with Local GovernmentOne of moderator Amy Oliver's questions at last night's CO-4 GOP debate was about an international organization called the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI. They've changed their name to ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability. Apparently they encourage local governments to impose environmental regulations all over the world. They describe "members" as "the strongest allies of ICLEI by contributing a yearly membership fee, but also by hosting ICLEI offices, financing events or contributing staff time to projects and activities." That would be staff time of the local governments they work for, paid by local tax dollars. The online membership directory is unavailable: "Please accept our apologies. We are presently working to update our membership information pages. This page will be available again shortly." They do, however, list the 1124 local governments these members come from. They include: Arvada, Aspen, Boulder, Breckenridge, Carbondale, Denver, Durango, Ft. Collins, Frisco, Golden, Gunnison County, La Plata County, LAFAYETTE, Loveland, Manitou Springs, San Miguel County, and Westminster in Colorado. Haverford Township, Lower Makefield, Meadville, Montgomery Township, Mt. Lebanon, Narberth, Nether Providence Township, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Radnor, Upper Dublin Township, and West Chester in Pennysylvania. Find your town. Complain to your city council. I DON'T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS, IN THE FORM OF STAFF TIME, SPENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:13 PM
| Comments (0)
February 8, 2010Green Appeal of the Green PoliceIf you already knew I'm an Audi afficianado in addition to being a green-basher you weren't surprised when I called the Green Police on the new ketchup pouch. The ad had me guffawing wildly, yet Grist Magazine's David Roberts argues that "the teabaggy interpretation just doesn't quite fit." The ad is not just another pot shot at greens. It's an appeal to a new and growing demographic that isn't hard-core environmentalist -- and doesn't particularly like hard-core environmentalists -- but that basically wants to do the right thing. Yeah, sure it is. Personally I think that movement peaked prior to 1998. Tea anyone?
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:16 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Jim Geraghty will have a cup. He tweets: Green Police: Biggest zeitgeist sign since Garry Shandling tried to "Kelo vs. New London" Tony Stark. http://tinyurl.com/yzu5gt6Posted by: jk at February 8, 2010 4:15 PM December 16, 2009CopenhagenI understand kleptocracy: In theory, the money is supposed to help poor countries pay for their transition to a carbon-neutral future. But the developed world has been pouring trillions of dollars into development aid in various forms for decades, with little to show for it. The reasons are well-known: Corruption, political oppression, government control of the economy and the absence of rule of law combine to keep poor countries poor. And those factors also ensure that most aid is squandered or skimmed off the top. Recasting foreign aid as "climate mitigation" won't change any of that. But I don't understand environmental protesters: BBC video showed truncheon-bearing Danish police shoving the crowd backward as protesters gasped and covered their faces to avoid breathing tear gas. Now if the Heritage Foundation, Wall Street Journal, CEI, Exxon, and ThreeSourcers were braving the Danish Truncheons I could dig it. But what do the enviros get from disturbing the global warming conference?
Posted by John Kranz at 12:39 PM
| Comments (4)
But Keith thinks:
jk: since when do they need a reason? Reason implies logic. Logic implies rational persons. QED. Posted by: Keith at December 16, 2009 2:12 PM
But johngalt thinks:
The ex-communists who run the UN and it's subordinate organizations like the IPCC just aren't "Progressive" enough for this lot of "environmental" protestors. They were calling for the Copenhagen Summit to be turned into a "Peoples Assembly" long a goal of World Government advocates. The "environmental activists" at Copenhagen appear to be from the People's Movement on Climate Change. Here is the 5-point plan that the PMCC calls the "Peoples' Protocol on Climate Change:" 1. "...differentiated and equitable" global effort to "stabilize CO2 concentrations at 350ppm and hold global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius." 2. "...reparation of Southern countries and the poor by Northern states..." 3. Reject ... corporations from harming the environment, new and greater opportunities for profit, corporate control over natural resources and technologies. 4. "Struggle for ecologically sustainable, socially just, pro-people, and long-lasting solutions. 5. Strengthen the PMCC. Any questions? Posted by: johngalt at December 17, 2009 12:42 PM
But jk thinks:
No, Comrade. I got it. Posted by: jk at December 17, 2009 1:39 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Let's sing along: The Internationale unites the human race! Posted by: johngalt at December 17, 2009 2:43 PMDecember 3, 2009Quote of the DayLifted from the good folks at Samizdata: "Leute wie Sie standen auf den Mauer-Wachtürmen der roten Sozialisten, Sie überwachten die Wachtürme der braunen Sozialisten. Und, ..., Leute Ihres Schlages werden auf den Wachtürmen der grünen Sozialisten stehen und deren Umerziehungslagern zu klimatologisch korrekten Staatsbürgern."
Posted by John Kranz at 7:01 PM
| Comments (0)
June 28, 2009The Didn't Take LongObama administration politicizing science?
Posted by AlexC at 11:43 AM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
With this and the firing of the Inspectors General, it is almost worth abandoning liberty to see our friends on the left contort themselves. Almost. Posted by: jk at June 28, 2009 11:59 AM
But AlexC thinks:
As I have observed from my liberal co-workers.... Never underestimate the power of willful ignorance. Posted by: AlexC at June 28, 2009 4:37 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
You want to talk about co-workers... Remember that woman who said "He's going to help me pay for gas and my mortgage"? I work near two just like that. The one good thing that came out of Obama's primary victories is that these two actually learned the names of some states they probably hadn't heard of before. As long as whitey gets stuck with the cost, they don't care. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 28, 2009 7:02 PMMay 29, 2009Rational Economic ActorsHat-tip: Don Luskin
Posted by John Kranz at 5:31 PM
| Comments (0)
May 27, 2009Quote of the DayNo, I'm not sucking up and I do not intend to ask blog brother jg for a loan. But this line from his comment is a gem: This plays right in to a discussion of the idea that our nation should be ruled by its laws and not ruled by men - or by wise latina women.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:55 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
I can't take credit but I can't give a full attribution either. I heard a guest on Fox News this morning say this: “The issue at the very heart of this nation’s founding, the reason we fought for independence from Britain, was the idea that we would be a nation ruled by laws and not ruled by men – or ruled by wise Latina women.”Posted by: johngalt at May 27, 2009 7:43 PM April 22, 2009Exploit-the-Earth DayIn 1970 a US Senator created 'Earth Day' to "inspire awareness and appreciation for the earth's environment." But this movement has since metastasized from "appreciating" the earth's environment to deifying it. As a result, any productive human activity can be villified as "pollution." In contrast, Objectivist philosopher and publisher Craig Biddle wrote that the correct moral path is to celebrate "Exploit-the-Earth Day" instead. [email article - Click 'continue reading' for the full text.] Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man. For at least 45,000 years human beings have been exploiting the resources of earth and nature for their survival and prosperity. There is certainly no rational reason to quit now. In celebration of exploiting the earth I have created two original prints and I publish them here now for free public use. There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not. Hat tip: jg's friend, henceforth (and long overdue) to be known as 'brother' Russ. {Hint: Right-click on 'save target as' not 'save picture as' below so that you'll get the high resolution versions.} ________________________________________________________________________ On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day by Craig Biddle
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism. Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live. Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man. The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on. In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil. Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist. It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist? There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not. On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why. ***
Posted by JohnGalt at 9:18 AM
| Comments (2)
But Keith thinks:
In honor of Earth Day, I suppose we should remind everyone of the awesome power of green energy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKcD_aLZ9EI Well, okay, it's more of a bluish-green. Posted by: Keith at April 22, 2009 8:20 PM
But johngalt thinks:
HA! The people waiting with breathless anticipation remind me of the ones on the train in the 'Atlas Shrugged' tunnel scene. Posted by: johngalt at April 23, 2009 12:33 PMDecember 21, 2008BummeryIf you look forward to getting your meal from a dumpster, you're not some form of environmental nobility. You're a frigging bum. You don't get celebrated. You don't feted. You're a stinking bum.
Posted by AlexC at 4:08 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
It should bug you, ac; you have a righteous cause against the Freegans. I have little problem with those who want to do live that way. It doesn't grab me but I'll call it a valid "lifestyle choice." Yet I wholeheartedly (hoof hearted?) agree that those who celebrate them as heroes are the people Karl Popper warned would send up back to the caves. We spent thousands of years developing the affluence that the Freegans can take for granted. Rather than innovate and contribute, these urban hyenas will live off the surplus of those who do.
But T. Greer thinks:
I just think the word is funny. freegan Try and use it in a sentence with a straight face. "To guard against freegans, Whole Foods put up a fence." See? You just cannot do it. I laugh everytime I say the word. ~T. Greer, not a freegan. Hehe. Posted by: T. Greer at December 22, 2008 11:53 AMOctober 1, 2008Die Obamajungen ArbeitetSure they're cute when they're singing. But wait untill they are empowered in a green cause: "This just in from the you-couldn't-make-this-stuff-up-if-you-tried department. A new website designed by npower, a British electric company, is recruiting children using games, badges and cartoons to enlist as "Climate Cops"; their duties are to actively keep records on their parents and neighbors for violations of "energy crimes" against the planet. Children then use the results of their spying to build a "Climate Crime Case File" on the perps, which they then "report back to your family to make sure they don't commit those crimes again (or else)!" The site also warns children that they "may need to keep a watchful eye" to prevent future violations. Did I mention I'm not making this up? It gets worse."
Posted by John Kranz at 4:01 PM
| Comments (1)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Arbeit macht frei. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at October 1, 2008 5:16 PMJuly 3, 2008jk, this one is for youWith all the talk about Pigouvian taxation, I thought I would highlight Bryan Caplan's recent thoughts:
Happy commenting!
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 10:45 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
Thanks, hb, that's a superb piece. I only wish you had excepted more. He makes my argument (sigh) a lot better than I do, Posted by: jk at July 4, 2008 10:51 AM
But jk thinks:
I visited Mike's Economics Blog and he has linked to Caplan's piece as well. Posted by: jk at July 4, 2008 11:12 AMMay 27, 2008Wi-Fi AllergyStop the earth - I want off. Seriously, didn't most people have that same reaction to the 1970's nutjobs who wanted to outlaw drilling for oil in this country because it was "dirty?" Leave the idiots alone and look what it gets you - politicians who say things like "gasoline prices are not based on supply and demand, they're being driven up by reckless speculators and obscene oil company profits" and "we can't drill our way out of this problem" when, in fact, that is the ONLY way to bring gasoline prices down. And it makes us "less dependent on foreign oil" at the same time.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:33 PM
February 18, 2008It's The Secondhand Drowning...This Telegraph blog post has to be read in full, so I have "nicked it:" Bottled Water is Immoral Y'know breathing outputs quite a bit of CO2. These are the people Karl Popper warned us about. They want to send us back to the caves. Hat-tip: Samizdata. Perry DeHavilland says "Very telling, no? People deciding to spend their own money on something 'borders on being morally unacceptable'. Let me what you what is morally unacceptable: that force addicted control freak tax parasites like Phil Woolas have the gall to tell people how to spend their own damn money. 'Immoral'? You do not know the meaning of the word, Woolas."
Posted by John Kranz at 4:05 PM
| Comments (2)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
You know, traditional tap water burns up a lot of energy resulting in C02 ... we should just take big slurps from the Thames, eh? Yeah, they all the populace of London-Town would be visited by a new plague and remove the human blight from the landscape. Veiled intent? Posted by: mdmhvonpa at February 18, 2008 10:13 PM
But jk thinks:
Well, I imagine that enlghtened BBC workers and Guardian writers would get an exemption -- this is in The Telegraph fer cryin' out loud! Posted by: jk at February 19, 2008 3:30 PMDecember 17, 2007Quote of the DaySamizdat Perry DeHavilland points out the popularity of multi-bird roasts, then shares a comment he left on the site to which he links: This year for Christmas we are having one of these wonderful multi-birds and I am very much looking forward to it. However after reading some of the comments here, next year we are going to eat a PETA activist stuffed inside a Greenpeace activist stuffed inside a Animal 'Rights' activist stuffed inside Gordon Brown's voluminous carcass (with a non-'Fair Trade' apple stuffed into his mouth). Merry Christmas, Perry!
Posted by John Kranz at 7:30 PM
November 30, 2007CBS is hiring!Are you looking for a job as an environmental reporter? Great news. CBS is hiring. Here is the job description:
I think that speaks for itself.
Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 7:19 PM
October 9, 2007Inconvient Truths
Posted by AlexC at 10:17 AM
August 15, 2007Rooting For Global WarmingCanadians. Really. A "drain hole" in the St. Clair River caused by dredging and other commercial projects is costing Lakes Huron and Michigan a combined 2.5 billion gallons of water each day, according to a Canadian study released Tuesday. Lake St Clair is two feet shallower than it should be. Time for some glacier melt, man.
Posted by AlexC at 12:31 AM
June 28, 2007Growing GlaciersIn case you were wondering, the glacier on Mount St Helens is enbiggening. ... and that with lava beneath it. I blame global warming and man's pernicious influences.
Posted by AlexC at 11:30 AM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Anthropogenic Global Lava Cooling is Real! Posted by: jk at June 28, 2007 12:07 PMMay 22, 20072007 Hurricane SeasonGovernment forecasters warned of a busier-than-normal hurricane season Tuesday. Does anyone remember the forecasts of 2006's first post-Katrina season? I've been reading a number of stories this morning about the upcoming season, and none mention it. Here's one from forecasting guru William Gray. The 2006 forecast calls for: Another busier-than-normal season. Wikipedia shows what really happened. Total storms: 10 Um, kinda below average. But let's base major policy decisions from here on out on weather modeling.
Posted by AlexC at 3:27 PM
April 22, 2007Earth DayToday is Earth Day. It's also Lenin's birthday. Just so you know. ... I imagine it's coincidental.
Posted by AlexC at 8:26 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
It's also the date, in 1915, when Germany introduced poison gas in WWI. These sound to me like three good reasons not to read the news on this date - no tellin' what other gems are in store for future April 22nds. My favorite line from the Earth Day wiki entry was this: "The idea that the date was chosen to celebrate Lenin's centenary still persists in some quarters,[13][14] although Lenin was never noted as an environmentalist." Hmmm. Wonder why so many people still see a connection then. What could it be? (I'd spell it out but really, if you can't figure it out, you probably won't read Threesources.com again anyway.) April 17, 2007I AM Going to Sell Carbon OffsetsI have occasional sport with our homegrown Boulder County granola Marxists, but I realize how sheltered I am from these people.. The link takes you to a NYTimes story about a woman in a gated community South of LA. She is experimenting with a linear, entropy-powered clothes dehydration system: I decide to rig a clothesline as an experiment. My mother died many years ago and the idea of hanging laundry with my own daughter, Isabel, who is 13 and always busy at the computer, is oddly appealing. I’m also hoping to use less energy and to reduce our monthly electric bills which hit the absurdly high level of $1,120 last summer. Tim Blair links to the story as a defense of his own clothesline usage, but the gem is Lileks's comment: Imagine you’re an editor at the New York Times. It’s the apogee of the profession. You’re in a brand-new skyscraper, built at great expense. You’re editing a piece about clotheslines, which are good because they’re nicer to the earth, and you’re all about being good to the earth. (You don’t get on the elevator to go up to your 45th floor office unless there are at least eight others in the car.) I run my A/C foolishly long in the summer (MS patients tend to be very sensitive to heat) and a $200 utility bill is an eyebrow raiser. Who are these people of four-digit monthly power consumption? I don't care but why do they write NYTimes articles begging for us to praise their conservation? A few fluorescents, and she'll get that baby down to $523.50.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:42 PM
| Comments (2)
But AlexC thinks:
We've never had a four digital utility bill but mid-three aren't unheard of. We do combine natural gas and electricity though. Posted by: AlexC at April 17, 2007 8:36 PM
But jk thinks:
Well, you have that sprawling Edwardsesqe mansion. We're just simple folk out here. I got to laughing after this post. For a DAWG skeptic, I have a small "carbon footprint." I telecommute, drive a small car and am so dull I basically go to bed when it's dark. I bought fluorescent bulbs early on because I hate to change bulbs (Q: How many software developers...A:It's a hardware problem!). Other than my rapacious A/C use (for which I have a medical deferment) I am mister freakin' green! December 25, 2006Merry Christmas... in Philadelphia it's 42 and raining. I blame global warming.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling," his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002. Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.
Posted by AlexC at 9:00 PM
December 13, 2006Academic Freedom"Here's more evidence that 'academic freedom' doesn't apply to anyone actually on or near a campus" opens an OpinionJournal Political Diary item by Holman Jenkins, Jr. The chancellor of British Columbia's Thompson Rivers University has become a public enemy after uttering judicious words on global warming on a Canadian Broadcasting breakfast show last week. Chancellor Nancy Greene Raine, previously an Olympic skiing champion and national heroine as Canada's official "female athlete of the century," told listeners: "In science, there's almost never black and white. We don't know what next week's weather is going to be. To say in 50 or 100 years, the temperature is going to do this, is a bit of a stretch for me." The email version curiously features a picture of Vice President Gore. That may be a stretch, but it is not a stretch to point out that soi disant free academic thinkers will tolerate no questioning of their conclusions.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:05 PM
December 8, 2006Light A MatchNot on a plane. Not to cover smell. Do it to save the planet. Russell Seitz writes in OpininJournal Political Diary: The Pollution Solution Or we could just stop the growth of the entire world economy.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:54 PM
December 4, 2006DAWG Bites DAWGMAWikipedia tells us that Claude Allegre is a "French geochemist and politician" and "member of the French Socialist Party." Google news search tells us... nothing. (Well, nearly nothing. There's a letter to the editor of the BYU paper mentioning what I'm about to mention.) The French (tabloid? newsmagazine?) L'Express.fr printed an editorial by Msr. Allegre stating, in part, "So, the question that arises is whether there is climate warming or not? [...] Greenhouse effect plays no significant role in these processes." (English translation here.) Fox News Channel told me, and the Majority members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works corroborates, that Allegre's skepticism is "newfound" and that "one of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic." The Senators write: Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." Allegre concludes: Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious. But the exposure of man’s responsibility as regards global warming allows us to sit idly by (the effect of the measures advocated will be felt only in half a century!). On the other hand, the crusade against extreme theories can be led with tangible results! However, as this is not fashionable, we choose to remain passive. In the meanwhile, the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people! Which is more incredulous: That a long-time DAWG might actually recant, and, become active for a "not fashionable" cause, or that the only source for this news in America is a bunch of Republicans on a senate subcommittee? Wait - don't answer that.
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:17 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Dammit, jg! If you keep supporting this "Obfuscation agenda," the US Senate is going to shut ThreeSources down. "Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena." Writing your own Taranto headline is left as an exercise to the reader. Posted by: jk at December 4, 2006 3:58 PMDAWGMATwo United States Senators have declared not only that the science is settled but also that dissent will not be tolerated. Sens. Olympia Snowe (RINO-ME) and Jay Rockefeller (!RCB-WV) have sent a letter to Exxon Mobil telling them -- as the WSJ ED Page paraphrases, "Start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else." The letter is so over-the-top that we also wonder if Mr. Rockefeller in particular has even read it. (He and Ms. Snowe didn't return our call.) The Senator hails from coal-producing West Virginia, where people know something about carbon emissions. Come to think of it, Mr. Rockefeller owes his own vast wealth to something other then non-carbon energy. But perhaps it's easier to be carbon free when your fortune comes from a trust fund. At issue is Exxon-Mobil’s funding of research which contradicts the beliefs of two members of the world's most deliberative body. The Impudence! When the media, or NCAR, or the Sierra Club try to shut down their opposition, it's one thing. But the Senate, as the editorial points out, wields great coercive power over the firm and its shareholders.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:00 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
It seems that these two senators are threatening to challenge the judiciary for chutzpah. Posted by: johngalt at December 4, 2006 3:53 PMNovember 6, 2006Politics? No. ClimateHoly mackeral.
In 1988, James Hansen, a climatologist, told the US Congress that temperature would rise 0.3C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1C), and that sea level would rise several feet (no, one inch). The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports. This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect. Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people. Read it all.
Posted by AlexC at 7:40 PM
| Comments (4)
But sushil_yadav thinks:
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues. The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature. Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment. Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion. Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps. People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps. Emotion ends. Man becomes machine. A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety. A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety. A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety. FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT. SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS. A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY. A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
http://www.earthnewswire.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=89&page=viewtopic&t=11
But jk thinks:
I cannot improve on what sushil says, I don't think I'll even try. Posted by: jk at November 7, 2006 11:24 AM
But johngalt thinks:
The people you attract by posting cartoons of chocolate bunnies! I followed the vociferous incongruous one's link to earthnewswire and found that he also claims, "Intelligence is a curse" and "Life can never be good." If intelligence is a curse, sushil is clearly blessed. As for that "life sucks" thing, a Heinlein quote comes to mind: "The man who says something cannot be done should not interfere with the man who is doing it."
But jk thinks:
Actually got me with "Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet." Glad to see sushil doing his/her part. Posted by: jk at November 7, 2006 4:25 PMOctober 30, 2006Global WarmingArnold Kling provides a brurtal fisking of Her Majesty’s Treasury's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. The post is funny, but Josh@ The Everyday Economist (inline hat-tip) and I like the close. Responding to the assertion that ignoring the problem will take 5-20% off GDP, and fixing it would only cost 1%, Kling states: One percent of global GDP is a lot--close to one trillion dollars. My guess is that if you think outside the box, you can eliminate global warming for a lot less money. Suppose you told scientists and engineers to come up with a way to monkey around with chemicals and stuff to reduce global average temperature. My guess is that the total cost of that approach, including research and implementation, would be only a few billion bucks, give or take. Did you order Mine Your Own Business Yet?
Posted by John Kranz at 7:32 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
This "Stern Review" thing smacks of the RoHS scam that I wrote about: http://www.threesources.com/archives/003306.html "If it's big enough, and official enough, it must be true." Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2006 3:11 PMMama Must Be So ProudBelgium has named a tax after VP Al Gore! The WSJ Ed Page has the details Earlier this month, Mr. Gore spent a day in Brussels to promote his film on global warming. "Our planet has a fever, and the fever has been getting steadily higher," he said in a speech. "It is in fact a full-scale planetary emergency." Within days, Belgian politicians were rewriting their tax laws to do something about this looming calamity. This is what's fundamentally wrong with government. You say that's Belgium, but I live in Boulder County, which I might start calling "Little Belgium." Such a tax would pass here in an instant. While in the Senate, Sen. Al Gore, Jr. decided that government should design toilets. Now he is encouraging the EU (which needs little encouragement to meddle) that the government should make packaging decisions. The Hayekian idea of innovation from multiple sources being sorted out in the market as abandoned. Let Trent Lott design milk cartons? Ted Kennedy might bring some innovation to Scotch bottles, but I’d still rather trust the market.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:04 PM
| Comments (1)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
The Gore tax ... heh, are not they all? Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 30, 2006 1:19 PMOctober 8, 2006The SunThe Sun, giver of light and of warmth.
Posted by AlexC at 12:23 PM
| Comments (2)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
Soo .... global warming is increasing because we have too little clouds and too much magnitism? I KNEW we should have kept on burning coal! Dammit, Somebody get Ohio on the line and tell them to crank up them steel mills. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 9, 2006 12:32 PM
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
The Sun, giver of light and of warmth. Huh,..and here I thought he was the picth man for Jimmy Dean breakfast sausages! October 6, 2006The Anti-Moore Coming soon to Review Corner: MINE YOUR OWN BUSINESS I remember a time, not so long ago, when the man with the sandwich board warning the world that the end is nigh was a comic figure. He appeared in cartoons and comedy sketch shows as the clownish, nerdish figure that others made jokes about. That is from a director's statement by Phelim McAleer, who has created a documentary about unemployed Romanian coal miner Gheorge Lucian OpinionJournal Political Diary's John Fund describes the film as an anti-Michael Moore look at leftist idealism: In it, Mr. Lucian, the Romanian miner, is seen hop-scotching around the globe confronting environmentalists in the style of Mr. Moore with the real-world consequences of their ideology. You can order the film off the website for $12.95 with PayPal.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:44 PM
September 27, 2006AGWUrsula K. Leguin's Earthsea Trilogy posited that to get power over something, you had to know its true name. Joss Whedon and Tim Minear use that in the climax of Season Four of Angel ("Peace Out"), destroying Jasmine (Gina Torres of Firefly fame) by speaking her true name. Professor Glenn Reynolds gives man made global warming its true name in a TCS column: "anthropogenic global warming." "Do you believe in Global warming?" Why yes, but I'm skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. The MS-Word spellchecker recognizes it. If it's good enough for Bill Gates and Glenn Reynolds, it's okay by me.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:49 PM
September 26, 2006Rams vs. BuffaloesAn intrastate rivalry is deepening. AlexC sends a link to a DenverPost.com story about a CSU professor (well covered on these pages) and an NCAR scientist in Boulder. The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray: "It's a big scam." The article is pretty balanced, enumerating what is and is not disputed. The author leans on consensus and majority as favoring the existence of man made global warming. I repeat that science is not democratic, look more to Karl Popper's epistemology and less toward focus groups. Yet the story is a pretty balanced look at the controversy and worth a read. I just hope Dr. Gray doesn't call Dr. Trenberth "macaca."
Posted by John Kranz at 12:56 PM
| Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:
Hey, careful there. My beloved Buffaloes have nothing to do with NCAR. As for taking sides in this fight I think you know where I'll be. For 16 years I lived just down the hill from NCAR's envied perch at the base of Boulder's Flatirons. Whenever someone mentions "ivory tower" the NCAR building is my mental image. (See thumbnail photo at: http://www.ucar.edu/org/about-us.shtml) Comparing the two men, Bill Gray's degrees are in geography, meteorology, and geophysical sciences. Trenberths are in mathematics and meteorology. One of the biggest criticisms of global warming theorists is that their theories are based upon the "predictions" of their mathematical "climate models." Trenberth appears to fit that mold perfectly. Gray, on the other hand, predicted weather in the air force to begin his career and is a research professor at a land grant (read: agricultral) college at the present. Which would you expect to have a firmer grip on reality? Posted by: johngalt at September 26, 2006 3:34 PM
But jk thinks:
Yes, you're right; my characterization is inaccurate. I should have lumped it into a Boulder-Ft. Collins rivalry. However -- comma -- to get a serious, heartfelt apology from me, I'll need a link to a CU professor's taking a stance against anthropogenic global warming. Posted by: jk at September 27, 2006 7:49 PM
But johngalt thinks:
HA! Fat chance there. But I did actually go to the CU website and searched for "anthropogenic." There was a single hit. From 2004: http://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/3652.html "Some wonder if a long-term increase in carbon dioxide and methane -- greenhouse gases of anthropogenic and natural origin -- are making the clouds more prevalent." So the scientists at CU proposed to build two instruments to study the wandering polar clouds. If a CU faculty member opposed "anthropogenic global warming" it would certainly have a chilling effect upon taxpayer financed research grants. Posted by: johngalt at September 28, 2006 1:18 AMSeptember 21, 2006Easy to be HardI think I can be a climate scientist. It's easy to be always right.
The temperature drop, a small fraction of the total warming seen in the last 48 years, suggests that global warming trends can sometimes take little dips. In the last century, Earth's temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius). Most scientists agree that much of the warming in the past 50 years has been fueled by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. "This research suggests global warming isn't always steady, but happens with occasional 'speed bumps,'" said study co-author Josh Willis, a researcher at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "This cooling is probably natural climate variability. The oceans today are still warmer than they were during the 1980s, and most scientists expect the oceans will eventually continue to warm in response to human-induced climate change." Is global-warming, pardom climate change the only branch of science that has never been wrong? Sheesh. A little introspective, please.
Posted by AlexC at 11:39 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
Perhaps there was a brief heat bump in the global cooling trend. Worrisome. Posted by: jk at September 22, 2006 2:18 PMSeptember 20, 2006Tax Carbon, Not JobsJosh at Everyday Economist has a great riff on global warming. He links to CSU professor Bill Gray's claims that global warming is real but not man-made. Then he links to Don Luskin discussing a speech by VP Gore that suggested "taxing carbon dioxide emissions instead of employees’ pay." We've had varied discussions on these pages, but I want to point out the unseriousness of the opposition. Kyoto is obviously not gong to do anything but further impede the economies of its EU signatories. If anybody wants to take the former VP's idea and imbue it with any seriousness, I'll play along but think we'd all agree that it's a bit problematic at best. An opposing view to Professor Gray makes a curious case: There are uncertainties. It’s not like you change your light bulbs today, you’re going to have better weather tomorrow,” he said. “It’s even better if those actions you’re taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money.-- Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Y'know, sir, if it saved money you wouldn't have to coerce anybody to do it. That 's the thing about proposals which make economic sense. You are asking us to spend more and to forego pleasures to prevent an unproven phenomena. The warmies want to enact the solution first, then prove the problems. That is unserious.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:19 PM
September 14, 2006"Lead-Free" - The International Environmental BoondoggleIn honor of today being the unofficial "L day" I'm posting this item that came to my attention last Monday. In case you wonder what might have happened if the Kyoto Protocol had been adopted and implemented world wide, consider what happened when the EU unilaterally determined that the lead in solder used to produce electronic devices is a "hazardous substance" and mandated its elimination from all products marketed in Europe by the July 1, 2006. On Monday a colleague emailed several of us a list of issues related to lead-free electronics manufacturing that was provided to him by our assembly vendor. Before reading the attachment I had no idea just how disruptive this lead-free process business is. Why would we voluntarily evolve into a process that is less reliable, more expensive, fraught with extra hoops to jump through and, by the way, is WORSE for the environment? This all stems from an EU directive called the "Reduction of Hazardous Substances" directive, or "RoHS" adopted January 27, 2003. Here's what I found when I investigated. From “The ultimate in fatuity” on EU Referendum blog (based in UK): According to the authors, "The study presents extensive data that show that heavy metal concentrations in leachate and landfill gas are generally far below the limits that have been established to protect human health and the environment." And then there are the long-term reliability concerns. Also from the EU Referendum blog: On the basis of this charade, proprietors of firms not obeying this cretinous law can face unlimited fines and imprisonment yet, worryingly, there are still many serious doubts about the reliability and suitability of lead solder substitutes, so much so that military equipment has been exempted. And this isn’t just some mad right-wing anti-environment rant. In the comments on the blog is a reference to this article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quoting a Canadian environmental scientist who doesn’t support lead-free: But not all lead is the same. Lead in paint and gasoline is easily absorbed into human cells. Lead in metallic forms such as solder is not. As for “state mandated deadlines for compliance” are we sure there are, or will be, any? Consider this, also from the news article: No U.S. firm is legally bound to use lead-free solder. Only California has any restrictions on lead, and no federal laws are pending. But not conforming to European standards means giving up a lucrative market, and potentially that of China and Japan. China is expected to announce a restriction policy soon. But since our market is exclusively the U.S. and not even Canada, much less Europe or East Asia, it appears that we should do everything possible to avoid lead-free like the plague. The problem with this strategy is that component manufacturers, forced to comply with RoHS by customers who market products in Europe and eager to avoid the added cost of parallel leaded and lead-free product lines, are gradually discontinuing the leaded components. And so we have a world-wide economic and environmental travesty all because one man, the EU minister of state for energy, Malcolm Wicks, signed the final RoHS document declaring, "I have read the regulatory impact assessment and am satisfied the benefits justify the costs." And angry-left nutjobs worry that we are sliding into a monarchy! Take the disruptions, cost increases and environmental unintended consequences of this and multiply them by ten, or even a hundred, and you'll have an idea of what Kyoto could have wrought. (Click "Continue Reading" to see the list of issues related to lead-free soldering processes.) Company x’s Lead – Free Process Issues
Posted by JohnGalt at 6:46 PM
| Comments (3)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
I'm fighting with the whole R22 vs R410A refrigerant issue right now with regards to getting a new AC unit. A lot of the seasoned HVAC guys want to eat their eyes over this knowing damn well that the replacement is so much less effective that it takes a lot more energy to gain the same benefits. This creates more damage than it avoids. DDT v2.0 Posted by: mdmhvonpa at September 14, 2006 11:19 PM
But jk thinks:
...and I got one of those 1.75 gallon Al Gore Toilets. My contractor begged me not to replace the old contraband 3 gal unit but I wanted colored fixtures. They should put the (then) Senator's picture on a plunger -- it's his fault you have to use it so often. (Andrew Sullivan blazed the trail in bathroom plumbing blogging, I'm just a copycat.) Posted by: jk at September 15, 2006 11:30 AM
But AlexC thinks:
JK, you might want to add a little fiber to your diet. ;) August 30, 2006Saturday Was Climate ChangeYet nobody told Samizdata. Or maybe it's the time difference. In The Church of Global Warming Robert Clayton Dean offers some fun for the skeptics: How can you tell who someone's god is? You look to see whose name they invoke as the cause of all things, good or bad. By that standard, the god of the devout Left is Global Warming; here is the Psalm of Al, from which the faithful constantly quote (King James Version): In the comments, one Perry E. Metzger, offers a thoughtful libertarian view of global warming that brother Silence might enjoy: I'm about as radical a libertarian as one can find, but I'm also educated in the sciences, and so far as I can tell, global warming is not a myth. I'm a bit more skeptical than Metzger, but his words are consistent with the new jk manifesto: believe or don’t, but don't use it to stop modernity. UPDATE: The comments, as usual in the Samizdata post are superb. They run heavily skeptical, but they are bright and informed. UPDATE II: Except for mine, I tried to bring Dr. Popper inito it, as his "Open Society and its Enemies" appears in their logo. But I muffed the html. Harrumph.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:43 PM
| Comments (3)
But rick tennesen thinks:
global warming liberals who smoke...how much do you think the net smoking of people in the world contributes to this phenomenon? they will quickly pass on this as it can only the the fault of big business. Posted by: rick tennesen at August 30, 2006 9:39 PM
But silence dogood thinks:
Good post on Samizdata for sure, good to see the debate reaching a higher level. You mentioned the yellow sphere in the sky and how can we humans have more influence that the sun? Space may be the answer, we're 93 million odd miles closer. Posted by: silence dogood at August 30, 2006 11:24 PM
But jk thinks:
I must quote the famed astrophysicist Eric Idle here: "Orbiting at 19 miles per second, so it's reckoned, the Sun which is the source of all our power." As the Sun is recognized to be the sole source of heat, the proximity argument fails to move me. I once saw a comparison of solar activity to temperature which correlated quite closely. Thanks for the comment, Rick, and welcome to the blogroll. The Keystone Staters continue to dominate... Posted by: jk at August 31, 2006 10:02 AMAugust 26, 2006Warmer... Cooler.... etc.Saturday has apparently degenerated into
"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol." Can we settle on a direction here?
Posted by AlexC at 2:50 PM
| Comments (6)
But johngalt thinks:
But it's clear there is "no debate amongst serious scientists" that global warming is real and poses a threat to Earth. Posted by: johngalt at August 27, 2006 12:10 PM
But silence dogood thinks:
So with published articles running thousands to one supporting versus refuting global warming you figure it's about a draw? I know I am alone around here, but to review the facts, there are multiple independent sources of data showing warming of the earth and lower atmosphere, lab tests that show the IR absorbing capability of CO2, and fairly simple chemical equations showing CO2 as a byproduct of combustion. Can we completely and irrefutably connect the dots? No. Will we ever? Perhaps not, when your "system" is basically the entire world we live in with all of the variables that suggests. Valid discussion still exists on the topic, but the amount of BS hoisted out there by the "refuters" borders on the ridiculous. To be clear, recent and current models do predict actual measurements we are seeing, the global cooling JK often refers to from the '70's was a very short lived prediction at the very beginning of the study of climate change, and water vapor is part of all of these studies, in fact there are wavelengths of IR that pass through water vapor but are absorbed by CO2 so while the concentration of these gases relate to each other, their affects can still be additive. So while I agree with JK that more research is needed I disagree with the notion that no policy decision should be made at this time. I don't see it as a leap of faith to accept the theory that we have the capability to upset the balance of nature, small scale evidence of that is all around. The points of discussion should be more about what the opportunities are for greener energy, for economic as well as environmental reasons. Even taking the most cynical attitude that this global warming is a liberal myth and nothing more than environmental marketing, good marketing is a proven money maker and investing some of our energy dollars away from oil and gas exploration and toward "greener" sources seems like a very good bet. Posted by: silence dogood at August 28, 2006 2:51 PM
But jk thinks:
You just wanted to comment 'cause we have your favorite password today. The reasons that you describe support Global Warming as a theory. I just think it ignores two small things: the amount of plant life on this planet and that hot, round thingy in the sky. These variables make computer modeling difficult at best. I've seen zero studies where predictions matched future data but many results where they shoehorned exigencies to fit theory. That is one step above "making stuff up." In the post below, I point to serous flaws in the theory vs. data sphere, by two people who believe in man-made global warming. To defer to Dr. Popper again, science is not a democracy. You probably had 1000-to-one scientists believing Aristotelian dynamics. But they didn't settle it by election, Signori Galileo apocryphally dropped some stones off a tower. No, it would not hurt to invest some money in other technologies; private firms likely should. But that is NOT what the climate change lobby is calling for. A large contingent are anti-moderns who want to impede progress and punish prosperity. When they will come out and admit the Kyoto treaty is one of the stupidest ideas of all time and seek -- like the folks in my post below -- some realistic solutions based on science and not politics, I might just surprise you and climb aboard.
But silence dogood thinks:
Guess I better get another one in before my favorite password expires! Point taken concerning Mr. Galileo, but if I had quoted a UP article from the Russian Academy of Sciences would you have rushed to support me? My point was that you can find hundreds of papers that make the opposite case and yet this is the one you cling to. So, you know greenhouse gases exist, it is this effect of our atmosphere that keeps us from looking like Mars. You know that the primary two are water vapor and CO2 and it is easy to measure the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Further it is proven that CO2 absorbs IR and we see evidence of warming from melting ice and shrinking glaciers. From here however you are not willing to even entertain the concept that we could be changing our environment as a whole? Maybe the dots aren't all connected, but there sure are a lot of dots. I can't speak for this climate change lobby but I do know that there is lots of discussion of alternative energy. This is not no energy, but alternate sources and systems. I think you demonize too much the whole topic based upon the shoutings of a few fringe elements. Posted by: silence dogood at August 29, 2006 12:29 AM
But jk thinks:
Go Blue Devils! Back to Popper. A thousand articles supporting a theory are not as important as one refuting it. Thousands supported Aristotelian, then Newtonian mechanics, the final word was Mr. Einstein's Special Relativity in 1905. I'm not saying the Russian paper is somehow dispositive of Global Warming. To be fair, this is Alex's post and JohnGalt's comment. I will say that it reinforces my opinion in the post below that we do not know enough to affect policy. I might demonize the environmental movement -- they give me a lot of material. I'm cool with alternative energy sources and continued research. overturn Raich v Gonzales and let the hemp people power our cities. But the Sierra Club and other K Street environmental groups want us to all live in Manhattan densities and return everything else to the wild. There is a huge anti-modernity base in that movement. Were it expunged, I would probably sign up.
But johngalt thinks:
My intent was to transparently bait Silence on this post. He's been absent far too long 'round here. But my comment is valid: Silence has said before that there is "no debate amongst serious scientists" that man-made global warming is real, and he apparently continues to do so. JK and Karl Popper's excellent points about science and democracy address the veracity of the theory. My point regarded the claim that the debate was settled at all, without regard for whether that "consensus" is (or was) wrong. I'll certainly give a little credit to the scientific wherewithall of the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory. After all, it's not the "astrological" observatory. Posted by: johngalt at August 29, 2006 2:59 PMGlobal CoolingBlog brother AlexC sends me a link to a Q and O blog post on global warming. Written by Dale Franks (neither a Q nor and O), the post captures my position very well. Silence and I have talked past each other on these pages about whether global warming exists. While I remain skeptical, I am going to change my pattern. The point is not to argue against its existence, the point is to argue that we don't know enough to make policy decisions. Franks nails this: The Argo data on ocean cooling over the past few years merely highlights that problem. Over the past few years, about 20% of the warming of the past 50 years has simply disappeared. Apparently, it just radiated away back into space, since we can't seem to find any of that heat down here. Franks, as it happens, does indeed believe in global warming and he believes that it is to some extent man-made. I'm skeptical of both those assertions but agree with Franks that until we can codify and quantify what is happening and what causes it, we cannot "fix" it. If we are causing global warming by using so much battery power, those damn hybrid drivers will have to answer up. I'm a big fan (I know I've bored you before) on the epistemology of Dr. Karl Popper. I don't know how much he created and how much he documented, but he defines the procedures where scientific theory progresses to acceptance or is discarded. The first step is predictive power. Einstein’s Special Relativity made several predictions that were not testable at the time of its creation. Over time, experiments have been done, and they all support the predictions of Special Relativity. Ergo, it is commonly accepted (though Popper points out theories can only be disproven, never really proven). The original global warming theorists made predictions based on computer modeling. It would start at the poles, reduce the length of the cold season in the cold climes, and proceed at a steady rate. Facts have not supported this prediction at all. warming has started at higher elevations, warmer climes, and has not been steady: CSU climate scientists point out two years of ocean cooling. This is a very important observational study of changes in climate system heat content. While the models predict a general montonic increase in ocean heat content (e.g. see (Figure 1) ), the new observations in Lyman et al 2006 show an important decrease. The explanation of this temporal change in the radiative imbalance of the Earth’s climate system is a challenge to the climate science community. It does indicate that we know less about natural- and human-climate forcings and feedbacks than concluded in the IPCC Reports. More research. We are all in agreement.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:05 AM
August 4, 2006One for The Other SideI've posted before about MIT Professors, Bjorn Lamborg, and other scientists who are concerned that outrageous Global Warming claims are unfounded. It's only right that I offer a "fair and balanced" link to a Reuters Story about a new convert. "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air." This from 700 Club Atmospheric Physicist Pat Robertson. Okay, I'm convinced. Hat-tip: Taranto
Posted by John Kranz at 4:37 PM
July 28, 2006Stop Discussing, You're Confusing PeopleIf you include frequent commenters, we have a pretty broad spectrum of views on climate change, though we certainly lean skeptic. I'm all for continued research, just don't let the 535 Atmospheric Physicists in the District of Columbia decide. Here's TCS with a report on two Congressional hearings. Only Wegman [Edward J. of George Mason University] and his colleagues found -- as did a National Academy of Science's panel previously -- that Mann's statistics were fundamentally flawed. They were prone -- as two Canadians, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, found in an ad hoc statistical investigation -- to create hockey stick shaped graphs. Shhhh! Stop discussing the issues, you're confusing people...
Posted by John Kranz at 11:36 AM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
Mort Kondracke, on "The Beltway Boys" (Et tu, FOXNews?), said "This is the warmest first six months in the US since they've kept records, beating 2005." Fred Barnes: "So?" Every time any weather record is broken, global warming is proven.
But johngalt thinks:
Global Warming is expected to end on Wednesday, with forecast high temperature in the upper 70's... in JULY! Prepare for the coming ice age. Hey... I'm theer-ee-ul! Posted by: johngalt at July 31, 2006 1:12 PM
But jk thinks:
When we conflate weather and climate, we're being willful and ignorant. But it's okay when they do it. I haven't quite figured that out. I have been waiting and watching for ManBearPig for months. That is sooo funny. "Kids, I don't want you hanging around with that ex-Vice-President any more." Wednesday, however, will be August. Posted by: jk at July 31, 2006 3:17 PMJuly 22, 2006Carbonized CashRedstate points to a ludicrous idea from "do-gooders."
All I can imagine is an economy where the government gives people these credits. Controlling "capital" as it were. Sounds like a recipe for a disaster.
Posted by AlexC at 2:32 PM
| Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:
And to think that Silence chastised us for suggesting that exhaling might be made illegal. Under this proposed plan (only in Britain for now, thank NED) a little girl could only blow on dandelions if she had enough government coupons. Posted by: johngalt at July 23, 2006 12:52 AM
But jk thinks:
My inner economist likes the idea of cap-and-trade to control pollutants. Its a good way to control something if you've decided it warrants government control. I had posted about Martin Feldstein’s similar plan for gas credits (http://www.threesources.com/archives/002899.html). We will be forced to decide whether we want to use state coercion to control CO2. Forces of anti-modernity will use global warming to try and return us to penis-sheaths and Gilligan's Island technology. I'll add a local report. It's hot around here. In July. Freaky...
But Silence Dogood thinks:
I was really chastising the commercial for appearing to claim that without fossil fuels we would all become starving people grinding corn with a stick. Alternative energy can and does provide us with the same creature comforts we have now, that is precisely the point. I am not sure where the vast 'anti-modernity" crowd is, JK can you point me in their direction? Are they the anti-matter of the vast right wing conspiracy? By the way, I missed chastising JK also for his comment a bit ago that he could use short term stats to show global warming, say from December to June. Best of luck with that - think southern hemisphere. Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 24, 2006 12:51 AM
But jk thinks:
Silence, if I can pick the time period I can certainly pick the hemisphere. I like your idea, though. I'll do a two part study, the North, then the South. I concede that there is much to debate on the global warming question. In a way that's my point, that it is unsettled. I will not for a second, however, accept that there is not a large, well funded, and vocal alliance that is dedicated to opposing modernity. I'd accuse mainstream groups like The Sierra Club or Wildlife Refuge. Even if you disagree with that, can you say the "new economics foundation" does not fit my description? http://www.threesources.com/archives/003133.html or scroll down to July 20. July 14, 2006Climate ConClimate consensus? A report commissioned by the House Energy Committee, due to be released today, refutes the "hockey stick" as being a small slice of available data. The WSJ Ed Page calls it WSJ.com - Hockey Stick Hokum (Paid link, sorry!) It is routine these days to read in newspapers or hear -- almost anywhere the subject of climate change comes up -- that the 1990s were the "warmest decade in a millennium" and that 1998 was the warmest year in the last 1,000. The charge is that they airbrushed away hotter periods in the Middle Ages and focus on just part of the curve. I could show temperatures from December to July and show good warming trend as well.
Inconvenient.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:35 AM
July 8, 2006Fires: Bush's Fault!"I see this as one of the first big indicators of climate change impacts in the continental United States," said study coauthor Thomas Swetnam, director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “Lots of people think climate change and the ecological responses are 50 to 100 years away. But it's not 50 to 100 years away—it's happening now in forest ecosystems through fire."I guess the science is settled. The Director of Tree Ring Research and all says so in the Journal Science, picked up by Yahoo! News I suggest the increased population in forested areas and the devotion of academics and greens to wilderness preservation spiked in the late 1980s as well. I further suggest that the list of articles on this week's online version of the journal Science is telling:
Posted by John Kranz at 1:43 PM
July 5, 2006Bush's Fault!Insty links to some interesting weather news: No Tornadoes Confirmed In Nebraska-Kansas Area This Year LINCOLN, Neb. -- Meteorologists at the National Weather Service office in Hastings are feeling lucky this year. This might be a good trend, Sugarchuck tells me moving to McCook, NE is a good idea. Weather is one thing that gave me pause. Don't tell everybody, but the Front Range of Colorado has a perfect climate. A few hot weeks in the summer, a few cold weeks in the winter, all four seasons, and 300+ days of sun. I'm never in a rush to give that up. Damn President, didn't sign Kyoto.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:12 PM
June 26, 2006Global Warming ConsensusGlobal Warming advocates like to claim that "the science is settled" and that "there is a consensus in the scientific community" which believes in man-made climate change. To disagree engenders quizzical looks and assumptions that you must be a creationist and a flat-earther as well. The TCS scientists and columnists are faulted for the substantive funding they receive from petroleum companies. Perhaps that's legitimate, but I do not understand why the converse isn't true: government scientists have an equal or greater stake in perpetuating research. So, my new buddy is the Alfred P. Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I don't think anybody ever accused MIT of hiring professors who don't know their science because they're right-wingers. I have quoted Richard Lindzen before, but today he writes in the WSJ Ed page about this consensus which is not a consensus. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim -- in his defense -- that scientists "don't know… They just don't know."
Posted by John Kranz at 10:39 AM
June 6, 2006Climate ChangeTCS has a good article about climate change. (Not something Gore would want to read; he wants reality to follow his bidding...that comes from his education...influenced by John Dewey...influenced by Immanuel Kant, who said 'reality is a social construct.') Snowfall here in the Northeast and across much of the Hemisphere relate to decadal scale cycles in the Atlantic and Arctic. Two atmospheric oscillations which generally operate in tandem -- the North Atlantic and Arctic Oscillations -- have significant control over the weather pattern including storm tracks and temperatures in both Europe and the eastern United States. As George Taylor summarized on this site in his story "Arctic Sea Ice -- Is It Disappearing?""A number of researchers have suggested that inflows of Atlantic water into the Arctic profoundly affect temperatures and sea ice trends in the latter ocean. Polyakov, et al (2004) are among these. The first sentence of their paper states 'Exchanges between the Arctic and North Atlantic Ocean have a profound influence on the circulation and thermodynamics of each basin.' The authors attributed most of the variability to multidecadal variations on time scales of 50-80 years, with warm periods in the 1930s-40s and in recent decades, and cool periods in the 1960s-70s and early in the twentieth century. These are associated with changes in ice extent and thickness (as well as air and sea temperature and ocean salinity). The most likely causative factor involves changes in atmospheric circulation, including but not limited to the Arctic Oscillation" The whole article is worth reading. It has some good graphics to help grasp the NAO/AO phenomenon.
Posted by Cyrano at 10:53 AM
June 5, 2006Who's Stupid?Jonathan Chait at TNR thinks he has discovered a new intellectual low: the Competitive Enterprise Institute and its anti-global warming ads. Chait's column, titled On carbon dioxide, conservatives take Americans for fools first establishes his street cred as a lip-curled cynic: I had always thought that nobody had a lower opinion than I as to the analytical capacities of the American public. Then I discovered the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Over here! Jonathan! The bald guy in the blue shorts! Yes, I believe it! I think one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Global Warming debate has been the difference between pollution and products of combustion. Perfect hydrocarbon combustion produces CO2 and water. If carbon dioxide had a nice, non-threatening name, like "water" there would be less capacity to whip up furor about it. Imperfect combustion releases carbon monoxide (CO) and particulates, and Nitrous oxide and nitrous dioxide. Newer, cleaner engines have reduced these impressively and the smog statistics show the effects. The pernicious thing about reducing CO2 is that you cannot have combustion. And, Mr. Chait, it is a natural compound, and plants do indeed "breathe" it. The difference between curbing CO and CO2 emissions is a world apart and when somebody comes along to educate people on this, they are called names by TNR and have their motives questioned. ON THE OTHER HAND, the former Vice President of the US, and a man who was nearly President, has released a whopper of a movie that is packed with the most outlandish over-predictions, bolstered predominantly by untruths. Chait does not mention "An Inconvenient Truth." But he finds time to write a column about a think tank that is using petro-chemical dollars to present their side of the story, which happens to be factual. The concept is so unpersuasive, even on its own terms, I can't believe that Americans are stupid enough to fall for it. People may be dumb, but if they were that dumb, the world would be a different place. There would be thousands of technicians on call to help us operate our flush toilets. Emergency rooms would be filled with people who attempted to clean out their earwax with steak knives Well, Mr. Chait, I guess we agree that somebody is stupid. UPDATE: Watch the ads here
Posted by John Kranz at 1:30 PM
| Comments (7)
But jk thinks:
I read the section you mentioned twice when I read the article, the prison terms for little girls convicted of dandecide are Chait's words, not the commercial's. Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine" took the accepted-as-over-the-top Willie Horton ad, and added graphics to make it worse. Chait does the same here. I added links so that you can see the ad. I challenge you to find one thing in it that is factually incorrect or even overblown. You're tired of overblown rhetoric and welcome rational debate, put 'er there buddy! It is the "warmies" that over-hype and use doomsday scenarios that are unfounded. The rhetoric is 100 times more overblown on the other side. No, that's overblown. It is only 83.4 times more overblown. I really shouldn't exaggerate. Posted by: jk at June 5, 2006 5:38 PM
But jk thinks:
And I didn't mean to dodge direct questions. I would not counter the existence of man-made smog. CO and NOx are clearly poison in all but small quantities, without a trained dentist's supervision. Although they occur naturally, adding more to the atmosphere seems an easier sell as a no-no. Back 'round to my point. I like this commercial for pointing out the difference. And it gets bonus points for pointing out the lifestyle advantages of using energy for wealth creation. Posted by: jk at June 5, 2006 6:19 PM
But jk thinks:
And the word I was looking for is "dandeleocide." My mistake. Posted by: jk at June 5, 2006 7:39 PM
But silence dogood thinks:
No problem JK, the whole premise of the ad is not factual. There is a current attempt to label CO2 as a greenhouse gas, which factually it is. There is no attempt to label it a pollutant, the ad does not point out the difference, it mixes the two completely. So what is factual in the ad? We do exhale CO2 (no mention of the all important quantities) plants do absorb CO2 (breathing it would require a respiratory system, but I'll give them that one), and the burning of fossil fuels for energy has developed civilization to how we know it today. Overblown rhetoric? How about the image of the gaunt woman grinding grain with a stick? Kinda ignores a few centuries of civilization don't you think? Even completely removing the use of fossil fuels would still leave us a long way from that, but images of a farmer plowing a field with a horse or a water wheel grinding grain doesn't pack quite the punch of a malnourished woman with a stick. The words are not stated, but the implication is clear that controlling CO2 emissions is going to cause you to take time away from writing code to grind your corn meal with a stick to make your dinner. Ditto for the implication that something as natural as CO2 could not possibly be bad for you. It is not so much what you say, as how you say it, or for complicated scientific topics like this how you mix pieces of real science with a bunch of so called common sense mumbo jumbo. How dare we allow the mixing of toxic, explosively unstable metals with poisonous chemicals (table salt). Dandelions are lawn terrorists and combatants and should be locked away indefinitely, and we should contemplate building walls around our lawns to control their movement. Posted by: silence dogood at June 6, 2006 10:21 AM
But jk thinks:
I strongly disagree that people are not moving to label an regulate CO2 as a pollutant. If not directly, they throw it in a basket with its unfriendly cousins. The point of the ad is to pull it out and look objectively at what it is. Are you proposing the rock as the technological advance to the stick? Because most of the ones which come to my mind use energy. Yes it's a long way from here to there, but the Institute makes an important point that using less energy is going to cost us. (Don't knock the stick -- my wife's preparations for Y2K were to buy an old fashioned coffee grinder and some bottled water. We have a wood stove and figured we could live without everything else. The grinder has a place of honor now as the bullet we dodged.) In the end it baffles me that we see this so differently. They don't say we're going back to the stick, they show the benefits of innovation. VP Gore, conversely, says that the trade center memorial will be underwater. I think we're comparing poetic license to polemic. Posted by: jk at June 6, 2006 1:34 PM
But silence dogood thinks:
No, I think we will have to disagree on this one. On the cataclysmic scale it is tough to beat total global destruction, or at least massive flooding, but to imply that with limited CO2 emissions we are headed for African subsistence is a bit of a whopper as well. I also extremely dislike the slippery slope argument that CO2 will soon be a full fledged pollutant. If we take the slippery slope concept to its conclusion, we should never decide anything for fear that our politicians will misuse the information. Everything uses energy JK, at least anything that does work over time. I was simply thinking that stock footage of Amish folk in this country would be a much closer approximation than an image obviously from an impoverished African nation. Coffee grinder and bottled water, I love it. Conservative you may be, but that is very bohemian. Posted by: silence dogood at June 7, 2006 2:39 PMJune 1, 2006Hype for Me, Not for TheeJosh at The Everyday Economist nails our former VP without even bringing up the ManBearPig. VP Gore says: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” Ummmm, okay, but TEE points out: Now I want you to insert “Iraq” into the parentheses and re-read his statement. Now isn't that what Gore and many Democrats have accused President Bush of doing? So why then does Gore think its okay in this case? ManBearPig. It's real!
Posted by John Kranz at 12:39 PM
| Comments (1)
But Cyrano thinks:
Amen. It's another example which goes to show that Gore's thinking and ideas are based on feeling and what he wants to be true -- not on fact. His ideas are NOT objective, based on what reality and reason say. Accordingly, Gore "takes" himself outside of reality, and therefore outside of moral, practical consideration. (But he obviously grants some recognition to reality, else he could not survive...and he would be certifiably insane, which he is not -- he is simply irrational and immoral.) Posted by: Cyrano at June 1, 2006 7:02 PMMay 27, 2006The Coming Global Catastrophe
That is the message of a new documentary about the 2000 Democratic Party standard-bearer that has been produced and narrated by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and is being released in selected cities today. The documentary, entitled “An Incoherent Truth,” collects moments from some of Mr. Gore’s most mind-numbing speeches to make a persuasive case that a Gore presidency would set off a doomsday scenario of global tedium.
Posted by AlexC at 3:09 PM
Ozone Hole
The puzzle: In the lower stratosphere (between 10 and 18 km) ozone has recovered even better than changes in CFCs alone would predict. Something else must be affecting the trend at these lower altitudes. The "something else" could be atmospheric wind patterns. "Winds carry ozone from the equator where it is made to higher latitudes where it is destroyed. Changing wind patterns affect the balance of ozone and could be boosting the recovery below 18 km," says Newchurch. This explanation seems to offer the best fit to the computer model of Yang et al. The jury is still out, however; other sources of natural or manmade variability may yet prove to be the cause of the lower-stratosphere's bonus ozone. Whatever the explanation, if the trend continues, the global ozone layer should be restored to 1980 levels sometime between 2030 and 2070. By then even the Antarctic ozone hole might close--for good. One thing that is exasperating with environmental and ecological scientists is that when things are going "wrong," there is only one reason. Man. Specifically industrialized man and CFC's. But when things improve? There's head scratching. It makes me wonder if the former should also include some head scratching.
Posted by AlexC at 12:37 PM
May 26, 2006Truth is Inconvenient to Al GoreTech Central Station has some good articles rebutting fallacious claims in Gore's deceivumentary. “Questions for Al Gore” by Dr. Roy Spencer, 25 May 2006 Dear Mr. Gore: Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.
Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opens around the country this week. In the film Gore pulls together evidence from every corner of the globe to convince us that climate change is happening fast, we are to blame, and if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined. However, as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths:
Posted by Cyrano at 10:27 PM
There Oughta Be A Law......against the sun.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact. (tip to Bit Heads
Posted by AlexC at 11:14 AM
May 25, 2006CEI Has the Right Position, But the Wrong ArgumentThe Competitive Enterprise Institute made some commercials in response to Al Gore's movie coming out soon. The commercials are here and here. I am not impressed. They strike me as weak and ineffectual. They suffer from the outlook of a lot of modern advertisements: slick and full of cute pictues, but having no substance. Showing me a picture of children getting into a car does bring out some paternal "instincts," yes, and showing me trains does make me think of adventure -- but don't do that, then say carbon dioxide is part of life, and expect me to take it as an argument. Where is the raw hard data? Where is the objectivity? Where is discussion of the fact that more carbon dioxide makes more plant growth possible? Where is the hard, passionate, rational connection of technology and fossil fuels to human life and a good standard of living? It ain't there. The people at CEI should have consulted with the people at the Ayn Rand Institute, if they wanted a really compelling commercial.
Posted by Cyrano at 1:13 AM
| Comments (2)
But AlexC thinks:
I understand that at a movie screening in Philadelphia recently, the former Vice President was chauffered in two vehicles. A Lincoln Town-Car AND a Prius. Guess which one went to the airport and train station, and which one went to the theatre. Sadly, there were no sightings of ManBearPigs Posted by: AlexC at May 25, 2006 1:48 AM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
Stolen Data: Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America’s population has increased by 42%, the country’s inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%. But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%. When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress: • The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004. • The Pacific Research Institute’s Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that “U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000.” • While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they “have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years,” according to the institute. • Also according to the institute, “bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs.” Environmentally speaking, America has had a very good third of a century; the economy has grown and pollutants and their impacts upon society are substantially down. Posted by: mdmhvonpa at May 25, 2006 10:03 AMMay 23, 2006Here We Go Again...As if we didn't have enough irrationality out now in the form of "Hoot," Al Gore has a movie (supporting the environmentalist witch doctors) coming out this summer, entitled "An Inconvenient Truth." Is that supposed to mean that the truth is inconvenient for him, as it is for every pragmatist who ever lived? Read some John Dewey, a founder of the philosophy of Pragmatism, and you will see what I mean. Dewey believed that if an idea worked for a long time, it had to be wrong -- reality always changed, by his metaphysics, so an idea could not be true for long. He was really annoyed at Aristotle's logic, saying 'it had worked for so long, it, damn it, had to be wrong!! Grrrrrr!!! (with much gnashing of teeth, growling, barking, and howling at the moon).' He also believed, being a disciple of Immanuel Kant, that truth was a social product. Anyway...more to come on real Truth...though it will be inconvenient for the likes of Al Gore... P.S. John Dewey is the single biggest influence on modern education, and the hero of most all educators...so is it any wonder modern American education is in such a sorry state???
Posted by Cyrano at 11:54 PM
A Hero in the Battle for Human LifeThere are some organizations dedicated to human life on earth -- not destroying it, as ALF seeks to do. (I need to dig out a sheet of paper I have with quotes from the heads and from spokespeople of some of these "animal rights" organizations, so you can see their wholesale hatred for human life. I mean, it should be apparent enough already, but thoughts and ideas together speak louder than either alone.) One such organization is Pro-Test, an organization founded in Britain by a 16-year old, to support animal testing. The boy who founded Pro-Test was Laurie Pycroft. He wrote a blog describing the experience he had, which motivated him to found the organization -- i.e., to stand up for human life qua human, qua rational animal. Here is the beginning:
Now there is a heroic character. We should be reading about someone like him -- not trash like Sheehan or McKinney. Pycroft acually has something to say.
Posted by Cyrano at 10:05 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
"One man with courage makes a majority." Draft Pierre!If we cannot get Secretary Rice to run in 2008 (and I'm not conceding that we can't -- a patriot will be there when her country needs her), let's draft Pierre "Pete" Du Pont. He was governor of Delaware, Congressman, presidential candidate in 1996, and is a weekly contributor to the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. He's a thinker, a supply-sider, an American exceptionalist, and should be tapped again for a GOP run in 2008. (About Pete). Today he delivers some truth and sense about global warming in his Outside the Box column. Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%. He then enumerates all the environmental factors that have improved in the last thirty years, and remembers the fears that led the pages back then. If it all sounds familiar, think back to the 1970s. After the first Earth Day the New York Times predicted "intolerable deterioration and possible extinction" for the human race as the result of pollution. Harvard biologist George Wald predicted that unless we took immediate action "civilization will end within 15 to 30 years," and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people--including 65 million American--would perish from famine in the 1980s. Yeah, I did own a leisure suit and a few loud print rayon shirts to wear underneath. The music was terrible. Maybe that's why my best memories of the 70s are the catastrophic predictions.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:34 PM
| Comments (1)
But TrekMedic251 thinks:
I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into this by saying he's a bad choice because of his name. The DuPont family tree has dropped quite a few nuts over the years and the opposition will play that to the hilt. Posted by: TrekMedic251 at May 23, 2006 7:37 PMHurricane Science vs. The Witch DoctorsDr. Patrick Michaels discusses the fact that "global warming" is not the cause of an increase in the number of strong hurricanes in the article "Global Warming Not Featured in New Hurricane Study." We will be hearing a lot of such nonsense, blaming Republicans and Bush and capitalism for the increase in the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the near future. Well, we have been hearing some already. Course, the Muslims "know" that it is Allah sending the hurricanes to punish the "evil, decadent" America, the "Great Satan." And Pat Robertson knows it is "God" sending the hurricanes to punish modern Soddom and Gomoras, since modern American cities allow the "evil" of homosexuality!! Oh my God!!! Holy Cow!!! Such witch doctors' immoral spoutings aside, Dr. Michaels discusses some real facts about hurricanes. He says: Over the last few decades, hurricane climate experts have largely eschewed linkages between global warming and increases in the number or strength of hurricanes. That is, until late last summer, when a series of highly publicized papers claimed otherwise. The papers pointed out that sea-surface temperatures (SSTs), the essential fuel of hurricanes, have been increasing in the primary hurricane-development regions pretty much globally since 1970 (the start of global satellite hurricane track and intensity records). Over that time, hurricane intensities have also been on the rise. And since global warming causes SSTs to rise, that must be the cause of the recent spate of strong hurricanes. Dr. Michaels provides some very good graphics to show trends in hurricanes. In his "Figure 2", he shows "The number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes observed in the Western Pacific (top) and North Atlantic (bottom) oceans since 1945. The counts in recent decades are not so much different than the counts in the 50s and 60s." In his "Figure 3," he shows the "Time series of the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Again, notice a big trend since 1970, but nothing unusual in the long term (source: Knight et al., 2005)." The whole article is worth reading, and passing on to friends and relatives.
Posted by Cyrano at 12:53 AM
May 3, 2006Low Ozone & Smog, YawnThat wicked George Bush is taking all the smog and ozone out of the atmosphere! How long are we just gonna sit back and take it? Seriously, why do the enviros run from good news. I understand that they have to show alarm to justify spending, but wouldn't showing victories help as well? Say we have accomplished this, now we should address this. I don't know. But TCS has some news you won't see in the New York Times. Ozone smog levels have plummeted during the last three years. Between 2003 and 2005, the fraction of the nation's ozone monitors violating the federal 8-hour ozone standard plunged from 43 percent down to a record-low 18 percent.[1] The last three years were the three lowest-ozone years on record.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:27 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Hey, this is precisely the opposite story I read in an article from the Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald that ran just before "Earth Day." I followed the link. I read the entire article. TCS and the DRH both cite the same source: The American Lung Association's "State of the Air Report." But while the small-town Colorado newspaper swallowed the stuff whole and then regurgitated it to unsuspecting readers, TCS declared it "nonsense on stilts." Loveland paper: "But ozone pollution has reached dangerous levels in the region, causing the county to receive a grade of “F” for ozone pollution in the American Lung Association’s 2005 State of the Air report." TCS: "ALA's claim of high ozone levels today is thus based on a spike in ozone that occurred four years ago, back in the summer of 2002." Thanks for the "rest of the story" JK. Loveland article: http://www.lovelandfyi.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=4868 Posted by: johngalt at May 3, 2006 3:11 PM
But johngalt thinks:
And another thing! (Thanks Dennis) You asked, rhetorically perhaps, why the enviros don't say, "We have accomplished this, now we should address this." Try replacing the first "this" with "racial equality through affirmative action." Now you know why even good news is still cause for alarm amongst class warriors. Posted by: johngalt at May 3, 2006 3:19 PMApril 28, 2006Climate Change
Posted by AlexC at 11:30 AM
April 17, 2006Short Toyota?I love my Toyota and suspect the company is in good shape to increase shareholder assets. But I am convinced that hybrid cars have "jumped the shark." I was in a drive through yesterday behind a Toyota Prius and couldn't stop think of the South Park "Pious." Between South Park, and Popular Mechanics, I wondered if sales mightn't slump. Now the right wing thugs at The New York Times Editorial Page have taken some whacks. For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they are also an inelegant engineering solution — the use of two energy sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard. You read it first on ThreeSources, kids, the hybrid craze is over.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:46 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
And here: http://www.threesources.com/archives/002577.html And here: http://www.threesources.com/archives/002068.html And here: http://www.threesources.com/archives/001601.html And here: http://www.berkeleysquarejazz.com/blog/archives/000562.html Posted by: johngalt at April 18, 2006 3:19 PMApril 15, 2006Crushing of Dissent, III had posted a (paid) link to the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT's guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Professor Lindzen is skeptical on global warming projections. Without claiming it is fallacious, he pours cold water and humidity on some of the more outrageous claims. The real focus of the article is the opprobrium heaped on scientists who do not preach the Gospel of man made climate change. In Gore (14:7) -- I mean Vanity Fair Magazine -- it is called a "threat graver than terrorism," by VP Al Gore, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, and the noted atmospheric scientists Julia Roberts and George Clooney. Nick Shultz, writing Vanity Scare in TCS, notes that the professional reputation of a noted, 94 year old scientist is slandered in the article because his views do not match Hollywood's. The article in Vanity Fair is part of a so-called "Green issue" that includes a call to arms from Al Gore and friendly profiles on climate change alarmists such as NASA's Jim Hansen, Ed Begley Jr., Bette Midler, Ed Norton and many others. Since global warming is a "threat graver than terrorism," the magazine tells readers on its cover, it's cool to want to fight global warming. "Green is the new black," Vanity Fair tells us. This article is free, and I have pasted the entire text of the other article in my post below.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:15 AM
April 12, 2006Crushing of Dissent!The Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT writes a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, called "Climate of Fear." He questions several global warming orthodoxies, among them, global warming's being the cause of the hurricanes: If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less -- hardly a case for more storminess with global warming. More interesting was his description of the contempt shown to scientists who refuse to play along. But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. UPDATE: I have Climate of Fear There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes? The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science -- whether for AIDS, or space, or climate -- where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions. But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis. To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming. If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less -- hardly a case for more storminess with global warming. So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested -- a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences -- as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union -- formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation. All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists -- a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry. Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions. And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming -- not whether it would actually happen. Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers. Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Posted by John Kranz at 8:17 PM
| Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:
Silence asked some time back for evidence supporting my claim of "an equal number of scientists who dispute global warming theory as support it." I couldn't remember the source of that impression and didn't have time to seek it out. This letter from just one such scientist goes a long way towards explaining why the MSM doesn't tell us about those scientists either. Posted by: johngalt at April 13, 2006 11:03 AM
But Silence Dogood thinks:
I could not read the whole editorial, being a freeloader not a paying customer, so maybe I am talking out of school here, but he seems to be questioning some of the claims of global warming, not dismissing the concept itself. The hurricane thing is bunk, even the National Weather service guys debunked that. How much scientist are pressured to accept certain findings I don't know, but there must be more than a few wealthy corporations who would fund contrary research, cough, Exxon, cough. Posted by: Silence Dogood at April 15, 2006 12:24 AM
But jk thinks:
Silence, I have since added the complete text, click "Continue reading..." Also see "crushing of Dissent, II" April 15 with another example. You're aware of my respect for your positions, but I have to jibe you. Your reaction to an article about discrediting scientists who take a heterodox position on global warming is to discredit a large group of scientists as being bought off by Exxon. So, all wise good and true scientists believe in Global Warming, although their funding is dependent upon it. (The hurricane meme is repeated everyday and I suspect beloved by more than half the country.) The opposition are all evil wicked diabolical-laugh scientists on the payroll of multi-national corporations. ?
But Silence Dogood thinks:
No, no, you misunderstand me. My Exxon point was that the free market can fund research as well. If the concern is that government funded scientists around the world are being pressured to only present one side of the story than those corporations who feel under attack from this research can and do fund scientific research as well. Funding will always somewhat bias results, often no matter how hard the funders and the fundees try to avoid it. Scientific research will eventually uncover the truth as personal egos come into play as well and the top researchers want to be right more than anything else. Biases just take a while to sift out sometimes. Posted by: Silence Dogood at April 15, 2006 1:09 PM
But jk thinks:
Fair enough. Much as I like to whack government about, I'm not sure they're to blame for this. Rather, I see a large mass of environmentalist scientists, regulation happy politicos, anti-modernity folks, and Hollywood activists that have declared a monopoly on their side of the theory. Posted by: jk at April 15, 2006 1:51 PMApril 7, 2006Global Warming
Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface. Other studies show that increased water vapour in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists suggest both trends may push temperatures higher than believed. But they say there is an urgent need for further research, particularly at sea. More research means more money. That's what this whole thing is about.
Posted by AlexC at 4:42 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
The answer is obviously a hybrid car that expels a lot of smoke. If you love the environment, you'll buy one. Posted by: jk at April 7, 2006 5:03 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Just the right amount of smug in the air would be beneficial too. If only we could count on George Clooney and his Hollywierd pals to control their smug outbursts, a general smugginess over the US could be safely maintained. Alas, general smugness will precipitate "I'm more smug" reactions from them. Posted by: johngalt at April 8, 2006 10:38 AM |