<< MEN OF NO APPEARANCE GO INTERNATIONAL ~ MAIN ~ ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR HAS OPINIONS >>
THE BEAUTY OF GLOBAL WARMING
A leftist view on global warming:
The beauty of global warming is it is something that every single person can directly and easily address. We cause it directly as individuals. We can therefore fix it.
We can’t stop invasions or terrorism but we can stop global warming.
To which Currency Lad sensibly replies:
Individual action will have no effect whatsoever on global warming.
Whereas individual action has, in fact, stopped quite a few terrorists; consider the case of shoe bomber Richard Reid, for example. As for controlling the weather ... ever tried stopping rain? Or starting it? Not so simple, my friends. An individual’s efforts to “fix” global warming—or any global (or local) weather phenomenon—is mostly an illustration of said individual’s insane belief that he or she somehow is able to influence events not at all subject to their control.
Let’s say you buy a Prius. Net effect on global climate: zero. Let’s say your entire family moves into a cave and begins living on discarded pizza crusts your children harvest from bins under cover of darkness. Net effect on global climate: zero. Let’s say an entire industrialised nation is taken out of the equation. Net effect? Zero:
Two percent.
That’s how much of the world’s man-made CO2 Canada produces. Most Canadians don’t know that. We are, as the saying goes, the proverbial “drop in the bucket.”
So, now that you know the truth, consider this: What would happen if Canada were never to produce another man-made CO2 molecule ever again?
If every man, woman and child never exhaled again and therefore never produced anymore hated CO2, what would be the effect?
What would happen if all Canadians just disappeared and therefore all that hated machinery and technology that makes survival through a Canadian winter possible, just sat idle? No cars driving around, no need to heat homes or turn on lights. No more plants and factories. What would the effect on the global climate be?
Absolutely nothing at all.
New Zealand produces only 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions; shut that nation down, and you’d witness a reduction in greenhouse emissions of just one-fifth of one percent. Beginning to get an idea now of how impossibly demented is the notion of an individual influencing global warming? (Hypocritical environmental activists are aware of this; that’s why they fly everywhere.) Hilariously, the Kyoto Protocol requires that clean little New Zealand hands over billions to (of all places) Russia for its enviro sins.
We’re living in crazy times. Ponder this the next time an apocalyptic greenoid mentions the “hottest [month, year, whatever] in recorded history”; that “recorded history” (the last 200 years, at best) represents just 0.000004% or so of the planet’s entire 4.6 billion year existence.
UPDATE. Bolt commenter Peter F.:
The poll conducted on Ch7’s website is interesting. 65% of respondents say the current cold snap is a result of Growbull Wormening. I have to agree. 2 days ago it was hot, today is cold and in two days time it will be hot again. I guess you would have to say the climate has changed three times in six days. The end is nigh. The time has approached to select the breeding pairs to survive and begin the new millenium.
“Individual action has, in fact, stopped quite a few terrorists.” - 12 gauge filled with 3/4 oz porcelain anyone?
Aim for the head, its where all the important bits come together…
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 15 at 02:29 PM • permalinkAs for controlling the weather ... ever tried stopping rain?
I haven’t, but wronwright’s tried on several occasions. Ever hear of the Atacama desert? Sure, there’s also the Okefenokee Swamp; that didn’t work so well. But look what the man has to work with! Rovian precipitators with ill-fitting replacement parts made in Taiwan, cloud seeders filled up by some joker with Alpo Goat-chow (that was not me, by the way). He does his best.
Hey, I got sunburned today, if y’all wanna call moi a redneck, you’ve about 48 hours before my pasty white complexion returns…
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2006 11 15 at 02:33 PM • permalinkThe beauty of global warming is it is something that every single person can directly and easily address. We cause it directly as individuals. We can therefore fix it.
OK, I’m going to play devil’s advocate here - isn’t this a wonderful example of demented leftoid thinking that we should encourage? Note he’s talking about individualism - a wonderful disregard for collectivist nonsense. So what if it’s futile - at least this dummy is coming from a terrific place philosophically. And he shows more integrity that the hypocritical turds like Gore who preach asceticism while jetting between their palatial estates.
Futile individual action, at worst, makes the actor look foolish and wastes his time/money. Collectivist action as preached by the rest of the warm-mongers would cost us all, and a lot more than just time and money.
So I say, “Good for you! Save the planet! You’re a hero, Larvaboy!”
He makes it sound like getting rid of Canada is a bad thing. He must not live near it or ever heard of Quebec.
Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2006 11 15 at 03:14 PM • permalinkThe beauty of global warming is that it is a universal stick with which to beat everyone who disagrees with the leftoid lifestyle police. Global warming can be used to bash individuals as well as nations and cultures, people who drive SUVs as well as entire industries. The further beauty of it is that it bashes only those you are safe in bashing—the western industrial powers!
At last, total, cheap, moral superiority is at hand! Isn’t global warming beautiful?
Posted by cobalt blue on 2006 11 15 at 03:18 PM • permalink# paco -
As for controlling the weather ... ever tried stopping rain?
I haven’t, but wronwright’s tried on several occasions. Ever hear of the Atacama desert? Sure, there’s also the Okefenokee Swamp; that didn’t work so well. But look what the man has to work with! Rovian precipitators with ill-fitting replacement parts made in Taiwan, cloud seeders filled up by some joker with Alpo Goat-chow (that was not me, by the way). He does his best.
(groans)
I was sort of hoping this post sort of went by without any mentioning of the Japanese weather machine. Look, the operators manual is in Jap pictograms or whatever they’re called. It’s hard, real hard, to find the right button to push. Especially the OFF button.
Real hard.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 11 15 at 03:40 PM • permalink“We cause it directly as individuals. We can therefore fix it.”
I fixed my part years ago.
So bugger off.
Posted by John Fembup on 2006 11 15 at 04:11 PM • permalink“Beauty”? What’s this butthead thinking? “Thank God there’s something wrong! Now we can keep busy!”
That’s a weird thing about these guys: They’re forever in need of excuses for panic and/or outrage, to the point where they’ll make stuff up (e.g. burning uranium babies) on a slow day. They need the drama.
No wonder Mencken thought they were antisocial morons.
Posted by Don't Bogart that Midget, Comrade! on 2006 11 15 at 04:31 PM • permalinkI dunno. The capitalist in me smells money. Lots and lots of money to be made from flailing chicken littles. All I need to do is design a non-electrical passive CO2 transfer unit, convince every left tilting green weenie nitwit that they’ll die without one, and BINGO. Crazy Bob’s CO2 Removal Unit™ * (home, commercial and industrial models available - $99.99, $999.00 and $999,999.00 respectively). Only YOU can reverse Gorbal Warmening, get YOURS today! Woo Hoo!
*Paco, note the ™
You mean that the Peoples’ Amazing Carbon Obliterator that I bought in Chinatown on the weekend isn’t really from Paco Enterprises? Crap! Well, at least I got a Rollexx watch out of my trip.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 11 15 at 04:40 PM • permalinkPS re. #13
LOL, DaveS. I forgot about that: And humans make the bad kind of CO2 too.Posted by andycanuck on 2006 11 15 at 04:42 PM • permalinkWait just a minute!
Who’s “Bonnie” and who’s “Clyde”?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/15/061115172820.dbfqjqfw.html
Emeritus Professor Someone weighs into the debate in the most patronising manner, lecturing to us. I do not know his qualification. I note he lives in a bubble in dear old Maleny.
Posted by boxofmatches on 2006 11 15 at 05:09 PM • permalinkWe can’t stop invasions or terrorism…
We can and will. It would be easier though, if we rounded up this craven piece of darwinian failure and all his fellow travelers, line them up along our front and cut their throats.
That would benifit us by:
1. Showing that we’re pretty serious about things now;
2. Shedding ourselves of the cultural rot that will only benifit our enemy by allowing it to remain alive.I love the one about Australia being a big per capita emitter. Cattle and buffalo are big per capita emitters of methane. As are wronwright’s swamps. Volcanos are big emitters of all sorts of lethally poisonous gases.
Message to tinfoil hat brigades: for you, life is a bitch, and then you die. The rest of us are getting on with it, and enjoying the ride.The beauty of global warming is that you can point to any negative change in the weather and say, “That was caused by global warming.” You can also point to any positive change in the weather and say, “That was caused by our heroic individual efforts to live zero-carbon lives.”
You can even use the same weather change to claim both, like telling picnickers the rain was caused by global warming, while telling farmers who needed the rain that there wouldn’t have been any were it not for the environmentalists’ brave struggle to fight global warming.
Indeed, global warming creates superheroes, true legends in their own minds.
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 11 15 at 05:44 PM • permalinkNew Zealand produces only 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions; shut that nation down, and ......
we’d have a bloody chance of winning back the Bledisloe Cup. Lets do it!
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 11 15 at 05:55 PM • permalink“New Zealand produces only 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions”
Is that including Mordor?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 11 15 at 05:59 PM • permalinkAnd how about this chant at the next rally:
Heck no, heck no, we don’t want your vol-ca-noes!
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 11 15 at 06:15 PM • permalink#25 blogstrop -
I love the one about Australia being a big per capita emitter. Cattle and buffalo are big per capita emitters of methane. As are wronwright’s swamps. Volcanos are big emitters of all sorts of lethally poisonous gases.
They’re. Not. My. Swamps.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 11 15 at 06:17 PM • permalinkBy this logic i will commence a life of crime. Because if i start gunning down innocent bystanders it will only have a marginal to zero effect on the global murder rate.
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 15 at 06:22 PM • permalinkThe beauty of global warming is it is something that every single person can directly and easily address. We cause it directly as individuals. We can therefore fix it.
So…. If the other guy acts as an individual: problem fixed! The rest of us can carry on?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 11 15 at 06:22 PM • permalinkActually the perfect execution of Kyoto by the entire human race would reduce the amount of C02 by about .035% - less than the variability in these gases across the planet.
It’s really just a money making scam with the added fillup of sticking it to the US.
Any you are wrong, any human can get it to rain.
Just wash your car.
Texas Bob has the right idea, let’s milk these dickheads!. Moore and Gore have proven that staggering amounts of filthy lucre can be made from telling leftards what they want to hear. My new film will be titled ” Pole Shift-we’re all f*cked”.
Posted by Daniel San on 2006 11 15 at 06:31 PM • permalinkTwo percent ... the proverbial “drop in the bucket.”
More like the coffee cup full in the bucket. Even New Zealand (which has been proposed as a State of Australia for various sporting purposes) at 0.2% is a dessert spoon in the bucket (10ml in 5L).
Smaller nations emissions are mainly an equity issue - Why should Americans and Chinese limit their emissions if New Zealanders emit ten times as much per capita, without restraint (I’m not saying they do, just that their emissions per capita would be used as an argument). That’s one of the arguments used by John Howard against Kyoto - why should we be restrained while poor nations aren’t.
Actually knocking Canada out, saving 2%, would reduce the urgency of the problem, delaying the worst effects by about a year (from memory of emissions growth rates)
Glombal warmenizing as the believers construe it can only be solved by total, synchronous, centrally planned, universal, did I say total action. WHat it really appeals to is the not always latent totalitarianism of the lefty soul.
The Bleevers want Kyoto to be like a global politburo, laying down the law and churning out five year plans, for every country on the Planet (TM). Which is why they go totally insane when anyone dares to just… not sign up.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 11 15 at 06:59 PM • permalinkSortelli
I don’t really intend to start a new life as a homicidal maniac but simply agree with one of your finest exports’ comments at the News Corp shareholder meeting yesterday
“We think it’s up to private industry to set an example and not go running to the government for help. I don’t believe all the science about climate change is necessarily right. But I’ve heard enough about it to think maybe there’s a 10 or 20 per cent chance that it’s right and we owe it to the planet to take the insurance that they may just be right.”
Seems reasonable to me.
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 15 at 07:12 PM • permalink“...the next time an apocalyptic greenoid mentions the “hottest [month, year, whatever] in recorded history””
Yes according to real recorded history the results are terrifying.
New York Average Temperature from the Albany Weather Centre:
1822 - 49.2
2005 - 49.2The results in the link should speak for themselves, unless of course you are involved in a faith based socialist eschatological worldview. If only the report to the IPCC used mercury based readings from the last 186 years. I suppose it was easier to totally ignore accurate historical data and use tree ring readings for the same period. Damned inconvenient mercury.
Like Tim often says, you can’t make this stuff up.
If you are measuring 10,000 locations 365 days a year for 200 years - then statistically you will regularly register record highs and lows somewhere or other.
Bingo. Thanks to the media need for headlines, it’s record this, record that, but no mention of the 99.999% of measured events that are completely uneventful. Just like there’s no mention of the umpteen thousand aircraft that don’t crash each year or the millions of children and white middle-class women who don’t get kidnapped, or the thousands of popular artists and actors who don’t launch into stupid lefty diatribes in public. (Okay, that last one may strain credulity.)
Anyway, sensible people realize that the news are just the most exciting/interesting/turgid/stupid (take your pick) .001% of what’s going on in the world. Others (well, leftoids) regard every minor factoid they hear as another step toward the end of the world.
It wouldn’t be nearly as bad though if the same people weren’t also frequently afflicted with a serious Messiah complex. There are few things worse in the world than people who don’t understand the problem (or indeed whether there even is one) but still consider themselves personally responsible for getting the solution implemented, especially when it’s going to be done on the backs of everyone else.
Seems reasonable to me.
Well, sure, the statement only included “we owe it to the planet ...”. Sounds perfectly dispassionate and reasonable to me. Just like that whole ‘I don’t know if the theories are right and I don’t even consider it all that likely that they might be right, but by gawd, let’s do something anyway’ thing.
PW
It’s the consequences of the climate-change nutters actually being right that is why we should ‘do something anyway’.
Every year i insure my house against it sliding into the sea or burning down. Not because i believe it will, but because the consequences of me being wrong are too great.
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 15 at 07:29 PM • permalinkI read just a few years ago at junkscience.com that 95-98% of the planet’s CO2 is natural and not manmade. We can’t control that either.
Over 90% of ALL CO2 is produced by - volcanoes.
I’ve been following this debate for a couple of years, I have heard claims like this but never seen them verified. I think they’re exaggerated. Volcanoes surely spew CO2 and other fun gases into the atmosphere, and nobody knows just how much, but I think 90% is an overestimate. 20 or 30% seems more reasonable.
Of course, since Co2 is a trace gas, it doesn’t have THAT much influence over the “greenhouse effect” (doubling the concentration adds something like 0.4 degrees maximum on average) and human attempts to limit it are going to achieve diddly-squat. But that’s another issue.
The “ozone hole”, on the other hand, is only over the south pole, where there just happens to be a volcano spewing massive amounts of Chlorine and Florine into the atmosphere. Funny how most CFCs were produced and used in the northern hemisphere, yet the “ozone hole” is over the south pole, isn’t it?
Every year i insure my house against it sliding into the sea or burning down. Not because i believe it will, but because the consequences of me being wrong are too great.
So you’re in favour of taking out an insurance policy that is more expensive than your house? Because that’s what all the “we’ve got to do something” cries amount to.
Nicholas - no, but an annual check-up would be a good idea.
PW - Balancing the cost against the consequences is obviously vital. There’s clearly no point in possibly helping the environment if it plunges the world into depression. That was the point of the Stern report. However, his report was alarmist nonsense.
I also believe that we should be looking for non-fossil fuel sources as it will reduce the influence of the Middle East on the world.
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 15 at 08:00 PM • permalinkI’m not so sure it’s clever to publicly dismiss the ‘individual action’ ideal derisively. We should be emphasising[i/] the importance of voluntary, individual action regarding this issue especially. If the perpetually concerned want to spin their wheels over climate change, fine. Let baby have his candy - so long as we don’t have to eat it, too.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 11 15 at 08:15 PM • permalink#40 davidp:
Why should Americans and Chinese limit their emissions if New Zealanders emit ten times as much per capita, without restraint
Why does per capita matter? If NZ’s population was 10x bigger, with the same emissions, would the atmosphere be any better off?
If countries must be ranked, it seems more meaniningful to rate them per square mile, not per person. Of course Australia would look pretty good on this scale. Given the desire for self loathing, I guess we’ll be sticking to per capita.
Brace yourselves Americans. The Al Gore machine announced on Sunrise this morning, that he was so impressed with their “Cool the Globe” campaign that he is going to tell all his friends in US morning TV about it.
Why am I not surprised his friends work in morning TV.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 15 at 08:42 PM • permalinkpommygranate: A check-up is unlikely to catch cancer in its early ages. For that I’d need something like an x-ray or an MRI or cat-scan.
Unfortunately we don’t have any similar method of analyzing the climate. We don’t even know what the climate was like in the past to any degree of certainty, let alone what it will do in future and why. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been massively higher than it is now and nothing horrible happened, as far as we can tell. Life survived.
So, how do we diagnose the planet and decide there’s a problem? Empirical measurements of climate sensitivity to CO2 (and other gases) projected into the future don’t show anything scary. Maybe some mild warming, nothing worse than humans have already gone through in the last few thousand years (and probably a lot less unhealthy than the “little ice age” they experienced in Europe). So why the panic?
Every year i insure my house against it sliding into the sea or burning down. Not because i believe it will, but because the consequences of me being wrong are too great.
#50, pommygranate, you aren’t likely to bankrupt yourself paying for house insurance, either. Kyoto, on the other hand, can do some serious economic damage if adhered to the letter. I’m not seeing a benefit to “doing something” on the less-than-fifty-fifty chance that something else might happen otherwise. Just seems like a sucker’s bet to me.
I think there is a point or two being missed here. CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 280 to 380 ppm over the last 50 years. That is not controversial, nor is the idea that human emissions are substantially responsible. Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are not trivial.
What we should be sceptical about is the connection between this and climate.
The mystery about CO2 is actually quite different. About half of the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, and all of the emissions of methane, are disappearing, and we don’t know where.
One of the major problems of the computer models that predict catastrophe is that they assume that all new emissions will stay in the atmosphere for a long time. This is not happening in the real world.
The answer to reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions is really quite simple.
All we need to do is build a great big pump, which can suck in all of the atmosphere, and filter it through an absorbent material like soda lime, so that all excess CO2 is absorbed and removed from the atmosphere.
Problem solved.
I don’t know why everyone is making such a fuss about this…..
The beauty of global warming is it is something that every single person can directly and easily address. We cause it directly as individuals. We can therefore fix it.
wronwright! Go kick that Sun’s ass! That’s an order, mister!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 11 15 at 09:16 PM • permalink#59 Phil - Yeah I saw that too. I thought of posting a comment but just could not bring myself to it. And to think this man ran for the US presidency - at leasts I now know why I have intuitively avoided watching/listening to him. But at least his interview was only for a few minutes…
What can a sane person say? The whole world’s mad except thee and me and even thee’s a little queer. [Old expression from north of England].
I’m beginning to wonder if the human race actually needs some religious sustance and this stuff is merely replacing the organised religions that were available for everyone.
I think I should start my own religion.
Slightly OT: isn’t it funny to watch reality intruding on romantic greenie thinking?
Rare swallow is easy to swallow
Birdwatchers rushed excitedly to see a swallow that hasn’t been seen in Britain for 20 years - then got a nasty surprise when eaten by a hawk in front of their eyes.btw, pommygranate, the concept you’re talking about is called the ‘precautionary principle’. It’s a load of bs. Read up on it.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 15 at 09:25 PM • permalinkHouse insurance is also voluntary- are you proposing that everyone insure their dwelling, irrespective of its value, location and threat/risk exposure?
Mind you, I was a believer in wormening yesterday, it was hotter’n buggery, then a stormcell came whooping through dumping hail and tearing up the place with tornado touchdowns- bloody hell, it was like a waterpark version of the apocolypse, never seen anything like it. Hang on, it was like this every year around this time, but it might be getting worse.
It’s now wintery outside today, so I’m a sceptic again. Change my mind like the weather, me.
BTW- I had a foretaste of life under the Green Gruppenfuhrers last night, when my main line fuse blew (again, after Energex refused to replace it until it had popped for a designated quota); squatting in the dark listening to Phatty on Radio National* on a battery radio makes Abu Ghraib seem like a scout camp. The council thought it would be wizzo to do some road resurfacing as well, starting at 10PM outside our place; every window open to allow the dismal breeze to waft in, accompanied by drunken roadworkers playing Barnsie at high volume at yelling gibberish at each other, to the rythmic accompaniment of a vibrating roller with a reversing alarm like an air-raid siren. No wonder they disarmed us.
*My previous views on the Phat Phucks pompous self-rightousness was based on his illiterate and often plagiarised scrawls; bloody hell, en voice he’s more smug than a tenyearold who just cornholed the cat without being detected. What a flatulent twat.
#51 Nicholas
The “ozone hole”, on the other hand, is only over the south pole, where there just happens to be a volcano spewing massive amounts of Chlorine and Florine into the atmosphere. Funny how most CFCs were produced and used in the northern hemisphere, yet the “ozone hole” is over the south pole, isn’t it?
There is also a smaller ozone hole/“dimple” over the north pole. It’s smaller mainly because the ozone depletion mechanism happens at very low temperatures in sun-lit ice clouds. Those conditions are routine in the antarctic spring, less common elsewhere. There is also less dramatic 3-6%ozone depletion over middle latitudes, which is the main reason for the Montreal ProtocolFrom Wikipedia:
The detailed mechanism by which the polar ozone holes form is different from that for the mid-latitude thinning, but the proximate cause of both trends is believed to be catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic chlorine and bromine.
... the only other large-scale depletion is a smaller ozone “dimple” observed during the Arctic spring over the North Pole. Ozone at middle latitudes has declined, but by a much smaller extent (about 4–5% decrease).
I doubt if the chlorine and fluorine emitted by Mt Erebus is in a chemical form that lets it reach high enough to influence ozone depeletion. CFC’s are amazingly inert surviving to reach the stratosphere. That’s why HCFC’s are allowed under the Montreal Protocol but CFC’s aren’t.
The great acolytes of Kyoto in the EU issued carbon credits as the basis for the carbon trading scheme which was going to reduce CO2 emissions to their 1990 target levels.
So what did these true believers do. They issued more credits than the actual emissions currently taking place in the EU by a considerable margin. As a consequence, the market in carbon credits collapsed. It was like inflating the currency.
How do these goons expect to be taken seriously when they cannot even adhere to the basic principles of what they are evangelising when it is in their control to do so?
My 11yo son came home from school yesterday and asked me what is global warming and do cars cause it. I asked him who was instructing him on climate change, the answere was we get books at school. This is a private school, I am paying for this.
I was able to put him right by explaining there are greater forces at play , the greatest one being the influence of the sun on earths climate.
He appeared to be a bit skeptical of what he was reading at school.Hmmm it seems that lately Andrew Bolt has been picking up a bit on this website - today he even provides a link. Is it the Age where Tim is going to set up shop then? Will they share an office? Will they pull global warming pranks on Terry Lane such as:
Making sure any work funded flights are cancelled so he can use more Gaia friendly means ie walk.
The old salt water filled bucket on the door frame trick to remind him of the effect of rising sea levels.
And my personal favourite - locking a homeless polar bear in his office that has been displaced by the melting of the ice caps.
Fun times ahead.
#71, the disappearance of methane is quite simple, really: we white people (OK, the people who had rifles) killed all the buffalo. Get rid of Minneapolis, Chicago, all the mid western cities and people, plant buffalo, and voila! Methane! and globularwarmening will stabilize. It’s all about karmic balance, man.
Here’s a better example than the house insurance one:
Scientists acknowledge that there’s a chance that alien life exists somewhere in the universe. If aliens exist, there is a possibility that they may be hostile to other forms of life. There’s also a possibility that the aliens have far better technology (and thus space travel and weaponry) than us. All these probabilities are pretty much unquantifiable but the conclusion is that it is possible that earth could be invaded by aliens at any time.
If we apply leftwing logic and the precautionary principle, we should: form a global earth defence agency with authoritarian powers, divert 75% of world GDP to fund R&D on a giant laser and the warp drive spaceship, draft all people between the ages of 18 and 35 into the space marines, ration and stockpile food and all other essentials, move all cities underground in case of bombardment from orbit and teach schoolchildren how to survive the inevitable invasion at the expense of maths or science.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 15 at 10:11 PM • permalinkUpdate on New Zealand’s contribution to Global Warming: Net effect on the condition of Helen Clarke’s teeth: Zero. Ain’t consistency boodiful?
Posted by Do not beat around the Dubya on 2006 11 15 at 10:17 PM • permalinkOn reflection, if we applied leftwing logic, we’d divert 75% of our GDP to a corrupt UN agency which would be tasked with building a giant banner that could be visible from space which said “we welcome our new alien overlords”.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 15 at 10:18 PM • permalink#43 Rob Blair,
I haven’t read past your post since leaving work about four hours ago (but will soon). So if someone else has mentioned the statistical certainty to which you refer that new “records” of normally distributed events are inevitable, sorry.
I like Brignell’s site Numberwatch where he has this short essay It’s a Record!. Lots of other good stuff there, too.
ArtVandelay
btw, pommygranate, the concept you’re talking about is called the ‘precautionary principle’. It’s a load of bs. Read up on it
Nope. It’s called the common sense principle.
If i can voluntarily take actions that will cut CO2 emissions, then i will. I am not for one minute proposing that action should be taken that will plunge us into recession nor am i in favour of collective, coercive action.
As zscore points out CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were static from 1850-1970. They then took off and have increased from 280ppm to 360ppm in the last 30 odd yrs. This period has coincided with a huge increase in industrialisation. Also during this 30yr period, global temperatures started to move higher having likewise been constant for over a hundred years.
It may be one big coincidence but it just might not be.
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 15 at 11:19 PM • permalinkIt’s worse than that. This may be considered useful.
Water vapor causes 95% of the greenhouse effect. All the other greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, others—add up to 5%. A little less than three-quarters (72%) of that is due to carbon dioxide. So CO2 contributes 72% of 5%, or 3.6% of the total greenhouse effect.
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are about 2.3% of the non-water vapor greenhouse gases, so 2.3% of 5% or 0.115% (yes, just over one tenth of one percent) of total Globall warmening.
So if we stuffed whole countries in sealed glass bottles to completely eliminate their CO2 contributions, we would get:
New Zealand (0.2% of anthropogenic CO2) = 0.00023% reduction
Canada (2% of anthropogenic CO2) = 0.0023% reduction
USA (28% of anthropogenic CO2) = 0.0322% reduction—which means that the error bars in the statistics used to determine the values in the first place are a hundred times larger than the calculated contribution of the largest current “offender”.
Hey, give ‘em a break. If it weren’t for lying, lefties would be entirely mute.
Regards,
Ric#43 Rob Blair
Of course. But the average change in temperature over the past 30yrs is about 0.6C (and this is adjusted for population growth and urbanisation - ie the actual change is even higher).
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 15 at 11:26 PM • permalinkHow much methane are all those sheep in New Zealand contributing to the increase? Around half?
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 11 15 at 11:34 PM • permalink#88, if, as you say, industralisation may have increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere which in turn may have caused global warming, where’s the common sense in voluntarily reducing your own CO2 emissions? It will make absolutely no difference to overall emissions and wont have any impact on so-called global warming.
btw, I think you’ll find that temperatures have stabilised over the last 5-6 years. Does this mean Kyoto worked?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 15 at 11:36 PM • permalinkdavidp : If CFCs are responsible for the ozone hole, it would be easy to test. There are radioactive isotopes of Chlorine (and I think Florine). “Tracer” CFCs could be manufactured and released at ground level. High altitude balloons/aircraft can detect whether those molecules ever make it high enough to affect the ozone layer.
Similarly tracer Cl/Fl could be released at Mt. Erebus to see if it makes it up there.
Why hasn’t anybody done these experiments to determine the truth, rather than just guessing?
BTW CFCs are made naturally too, e.g. in bush fires.
pommygranate, I have no idea what you mean by “this is adjusted for population growth and urbanisation” (unless you’re trying to claim that the adjustment is somehow the the ‘heat island’ effect of cities on temperature gauges that were formerly in rural areas), but even if a regression analysis (let alone a full modeling of some sort) showed a straight line relationship between the rise in average temp and increased CO2, it still wouldn’t show a causal relationship because you can’t do that with those stats.
In addition, by leaving out the effect of water vapor and increased solar output and clouds and, well you name it and it’s been left out, the .6 degree increase is swamped by any reasonable error term.
In other words, the models only work because they ignore enough causal variables to allow the CO2 to look it was having an effect.
That’s a crappy way to decide to buy insurance. For instance, I don’t buy insurance on my house to cover it sliding into the ocean, probably because I’m about 2000 miles from any ocean. I bet I could build a model that left out that little fact and show a very small chance that my house may, indeed, slide into the ocean. Should I buy the insurance based on that model?
And if so, could I interest you in purchasing a large steel structure in Brooklyn?
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2006 11 15 at 11:44 PM • permalink“A ‘volcanic ozone hole’ is likely to occur over the Arctic within the next 30 years,” said Azadeh Tabazadeh, lead author of the paper and a scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
If a volcano could cause an ozone hole over the North Pole, why can’t the volcano we KNOW exists and is active cause it over the south pole?
</i> hope that works.
#95, I don’t know, but I reckon we should throw a few virgins into it just in case.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 15 at 11:49 PM • permalink#92 Yes, Art, I read at the BBC and I think that I linked to it somewhere here at Tim’s, I’ve forgotten via which UK university (but definitely not Oxbridge), that the world’s average temperature has dropped a fraction (IIRC, 0.05%) over the past 10 years.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 11 15 at 11:56 PM • permalinkWell, from the horses mouth:
People who find themselves inertly prone before the science can ignore the inforamtion storm and simply take action. This thing is only going to be fixed by action in the end. Nobody needs to prove anything scientifically to help us with this.
We can ignore the facts. Nobody needs scientific proof. We must take action.
Global Whoremeistering is just an excuse for
political action, for its own sake. Demonstrations are social party gatherings where like-simple-minded can have sex, drink, chant and take photos of each other.The only problem with all this of course is that science becomes an extension of politics. This leads people to lose faith in scientists and science and more prone to politicised bullshit that passes more and more for science.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 16 at 12:20 AM • permalink#94
A NASA report on the urban heat island effect.
it still wouldn’t show a causal relationship
I know. I’m not arguing that it does.
.6 degree increase is swamped by any reasonable error term.
Not true. Even the arch-skeptic himself Bjorn Lomborg does not believe this. As he said,
Global warming is real and caused by CO2
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 16 at 12:23 AM • permalink#21 Andycanuck, try this question on some unsuspecting moraliser (or Montrealer if you prefer):
“Which is better for you: natural vitamin E or artificial vitamin E”
The answe rof course is they are identical, being the chemical we call “vitamin E”.
This is not to be confused with the Vegimite/MArmite debate. Marmite is clearly better.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 16 at 12:30 AM • permalink#23 Ignoring the first paragraph of lies, we fidn this truth:
Questions remain about the extent of this human-induced warming
Exactly. Even _IF_ your hypothesis was correct, the magnitude of the effect is so small as to be unimportant.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 16 at 12:33 AM • permalink#23 Don’t forget, emeritus means retired, not super-brained.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 16 at 12:35 AM • permalinkHelp, I am surrounded by Italics. They are coming for me. Run Run No stay and fight, be BOLD.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 16 at 12:36 AM • permalink#36 Less than the variability in our measurements of said gas.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 16 at 12:39 AM • permalink#60 Sounds liek a job for PACO Construction Enterprizes
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 16 at 12:47 AM • permalink#95 The so-called ozone hole has been there since measurements began in the ‘50s. It varies with the seasons. It is probably always there; an effect of the amgnetic field and charged particles.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 11 16 at 12:51 AM • permalink” Mundus Vult Decepi “, the world wishes to be decieved. I like Latin.
Posted by Daniel San on 2006 11 16 at 01:34 AM • permalink#90 - Pommygranate. Pommygranate.
(a) I was not challenging any average rise, just pointing out that all those “record high’s” the msm keep headlining are not significant.
(b) I am afraid the “adjusted for population growth” etc sentence is terminally confused. Yo should drag it outside and shoot it to put it out of its misery.
#111 Rob Blair Rob Blair
“adjusted for the urban heat island effect”
better?
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 16 at 02:16 AM • permalink#96- Now where the heck are we gonna find virgins?
Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 11 16 at 02:18 AM • permalink#113 - Well, Jesus wasn’t born in Australia, because they couldn’t find 3 wise men or any virgins.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 16 at 02:25 AM • permalinkIf we apply leftwing logic and the precautionary principle, we should: form a global earth defence agency with authoritarian powers, divert 75% of world GDP to fund R&D on a giant laser and the warp drive spaceship, draft all people between the ages of 18 and 35 into the space marines, ration and stockpile food and all other essentials, move all cities underground in case of bombardment from orbit and teach schoolchildren how to survive the inevitable invasion at the expense of maths or science.
Sounds like a plan, Art. Can you work up a cost estimate by next Monday?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 11 16 at 02:28 AM • permalink#115, LOL! JeffS, I’ve got the boys down at the Lancet working on it as we speak!
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 16 at 03:09 AM • permalinkI think I am probably aligned a little wee bit with pommygranite on the insurance thing. Its not really the precautionary principle, rather a hedge tactic.
The problem arises, however, when trying to work out what is the appropriate level of premium, and the balance between the insurance action (for want of a better name) and self insurance (ie adaptation strategies or do nothing).
The timeframes are so extended that I suspect that ‘do nothing’ at this stage is probably better, atm. With more evidence that it is actually a problem (even with temperature rises, there is no model that can show catastropihic problems - super storms are speculative statements used as a rhetorical device to urge action).
And any insurance would have to involve absolutely everyone, or it won’t make any difference. This is the real reason Kyoto is a joke.
The PM’s approach is actually the best strategy, and he has been well advised. Even if you are a 100% died in the wool skeptic, politically it doesn’t matter, as the argument is lost on the religously inclined. Best to manage the process with as little damage to the economy as possible, and in any caase, its a form of pollution and this externality should be addressed in some form or another.
I suspect that pommygranite is not too far from what the PM is suggesting.Any time on your hands in brissy when you visit, PG?
And any insurance would have to involve absolutely everyone, or it won’t make any difference.
Exactly. Self-destructing the Western countries’ industrial base by making production there prohibitively expensive would only lead to countries such as China being able to expand their production sector in turn. Bet that would really be good for the environment, eh.
Is Currency Lad still blogging? The latest entry i get is Aug 14th.
Posted by Texas Ranger on 2006 11 16 at 06:40 AM • permalinkSo record low temperatures are now considered evidence of “global warming” or rather “climate change”. This is why the NumberWatcher calls the latter the “Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose” version of the former - see his list of things caused by global warming and the ten facts about global warming that they don’t want you to know.
A Popperian might think that the apparently “incessant stream of confirmations” was an embarrassment to the theory in its claims to scientific authority, but it seems that climate scientists have no such qualms.
I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still “un-analyzed” and crying aloud for treatment.
The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which “verified” the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their “clinical observations.” As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, Although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. “Because of my thousandfold experience,” he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: “And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.”
Thank You Tank You Thank You for posting some common sense- The Kyoto treaty has had the REVERSE desired effects and has caused more harm than good- As I mentioned in my other comment- global warming is a HUGE cash cow for corrupt governments using extortion to shake down businesses for money.null
Entropy
Plan to commence drinking with the (disgracefully separated) BA at start of play on Sat. Plan to drink through the afternoon session (as will most likely be too painful to watch) and wake up Sun morning blissfully unaware of the prior day’s play.
Am always in the Gold Coast though as red-neck in-laws live in Burleigh.
Posted by pommygranate on 2006 11 16 at 06:45 PM • permalinkYou’re dead right there bloghead, individual action will have no effect whatsoever on global warming or anything else. So why do you bother?
Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 11 16 at 07:30 PM • permalinkIt’s good to see you fearlessly posting comments on old threads Miranda!
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 11 16 at 10:13 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I read just a few years ago at junkscience.com that 95-98% of the planet’s CO2 is natural and not manmade. We can’t control that either.