It is a matter of ethics. If we are talking about the ethical thing to do, certainly the Left should consider the benefits of energy to mankind as well as whatever risks there may be when human’s release CO2 into the atmosphere.
For example, consider an analogous situation: the benefits of UV exposure versus the risk of skin cancer. A recent initiative from a government agency, the CDC, has focused on the idea of of increasing public health by reducing our exposure to the Sun.
Is this a good idea or just an idea that sounds good and makes government feel needed and important? Let’s look at the science: “According to the American Cancer Society, in the U.S. skin cancer deaths make up just 2% of all cancer deaths,” says Tom Weishaar of the Vitamin D Counsel. Weishaar continues, “In this data set**, a heart attack is about 15 times more likely than melanoma. The policy experts who insist that UV should be limited have no evidence showing that limiting UV is beneficial to health in any way other than reducing skin cancer. Meanwhile, here we have a study that shows that even in a population where 90% of the individuals have a light skin color, and even among individuals who have had skin cancer, increased levels of UV exposure are related to better health.”
Dead and dying Europe is destroying the futures of its young. They tried so hard to take America down with them. Europe simply couldn’t forgive Bush for defeating Al Gore and saying “No” to Kyoto. The only thing Europe could do after that was give Gore a Nobel and wait for an Obama (e.g., “new EPA regulations will result in 476,000 to 1,400,000 lost jobs by the end of 2014… 2.5 million jobs will be sacrificed, annual household income could decrease by $1,200, and gasoline and residential electricity prices may increase 50% by 2030… greenhouse gas regulations will cost nearly $7 trillion (2008 dollars) in economic output by 2029.” ~Larry Bell, Forbes, 10-10-13)
Nevertheless, Bush gave America enough time for reason to set in. So now, there are many rational people — outside the official government global warming bureaucracy — who understand that fear of climate change is a creation of the Left to fund and maintain the secular, socialist, socioeconomic movement known as Eurocommunism.
The keepers of the flame of the official government science of Global Circulation Model (GCM) fabrication, still refuse to admit that Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ was quatch. Western academia threw out the scientific method so it no longer mattered that the null hypothesis of AGW theory — the theory that humanity is causing global warming –has never been rejected. The null hypothesis is that all observed global warming can be explained by natural causes.
Government GCMs say otherwise but it is only by comparing model forecasts to what is observed using ground-based and satellite data that the validity GCMs can be determined. That has been done and now we know that GCMs deviate from observed states. Climatists are only convincing in demonstrating their inability to evaluate, correct and develop new parameters to more accurately simulate reality. Climatists of Western academia have become nothing more than official government witchdoctors who continue to use the veil of science to cloak their superstition and ignorance.
The hubris and pretense of Western politicians and school teachers to demand respect for an ability to foretell what the weather will be 30 to 50 years into the future has become a sick joke–e.g., 99% of government climatists give the rest a bad name. The difference between climatists and weatherpersons is that the latter do not pretend to be accurate more than a few days into the future.
Climatists’ GCMs are nothing more than modern-day divining rods. Andi Cockroft described the first digital weather model ever. It was a computer model by Edward Lorenz back when vacuum-tube computers were first introduced to science just fifty years ago. Lorenz used, “a set of a dozen or so differential equations involving such things as temperature, pressure, wind velocity etc.” As Concroft tells the story, Lorenz re-ran his program, “by entering a variable to 3 decimal places,” and to Lorenz’ surprise, “the results were completely at odds with what was achieved earlier.” As it turns out, “re-entering the variable to its full 6 decimal places produced a repeat of the initial results – from this Lorenzo drew the inevitable conclusion that with his dozen or so equations, even a miniscule variation on input is capable of creating massive change in output.”
So, what happened? As Concroft asks, “why such a radically different outcome for such a miniscule difference in input?” They learned that with non-linear equations the final result is so dependent on initial conditions that even slight changes in the beginning results in large changes in the later output—i.e., like a stitching error where after you put a lot of little segments together by the time you get to the end you have nothing close to the ’circle’ that all of the little segments came from.
The conclusion that Lorenz drew, was that given that such small variations can create such massive variation in output, it was impossible to “model” a weather system. (See, “10 Billion Butterfly Sneezes—More chaos than you can shake a stick at,” by Andi Cockroft)
When science is not on your side it’s time to get emotional. That is what we have come to expect from the global warming alarmists who predict an ice-free Arctic or something like the lament of CRU’s Dr. David Viner that in a few short years a winter snowfall will be, “a very rare and exciting event,” and, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” If that doesn’t work, it is time to get nebulous–e.g., researcher Camilo Mora who took time out from predicting, Ecological and societal disruptions by modern climate change, declared that, “Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past.”
The big problem that, Ye Olde AGW Spécialiste d’Alarme have now is that AGW has become so politicized it is as easier to believe, “Aliens Cause Global Warming.” Everything we’ve seen coming from climate science so far only tells us that Western schoolteachers are at best, unconscious incompetents. “Whenever science is enlisted in some other cause—religious, political, or racialist—the result is always that the scientists themselves become fanatics.” ~Phillip Johnson
The mathematics of McShane and Wyner isn’t the chalkboard squeak heard ’round the world because it yet again debunks the pseudoscience of Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ but because M&M found absolutely no warming ‘signal’ whatsoever in Mann’s proxy data. That, of course, shot Al Gore’s ‘consensus’ all to hell and shows also that AGW theory is essentially, ‘science’ without mathematics: sort of like heat without the sun — a bullet without a gun. Add to that the latest last ditch scientific conjecture. Kevin Trenberth is father to the idea that humanity’s heat is there and hiding from our detection in the deepest ocean. Despite a pause in global warming going on two decades — that according to some may last until 2030 (The stadium wave) — AGW alarmists have extended Trenberthian logic to the edge of the cliff–e.g., What pause in warming? We just can’t see humanity’s heat in the surface temperature data amidst all that natural variability.
Facts are facts: oceans are cooling. GLOBAL WARMING HAS STOPPED!
It isn’t just logical, it’s Physics. “What does the science say about the temperature of the oceans – which, after all, constitute about 70% of the Earth’s surface? The oceans store approximately 80% of all the energy in the Earth’s climate, so ocean temperatures are a key indicator for global warming,” and, “If ocean cooling does occur, it DOES mean global warming as stopped during that time period.” ~Roger Pielke, Sr.
“The predicted temperature in 2100 by the IPC is simply an extension of the warming trend between 1975 and 2000… As a result, the IPCC prediction during the first decade of the present century has already failed.” ~Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Perversely, global warming alarmists of the Left continue to use their uniquely human gifts of being able to imagine events and simulate their consequences merely to ride the backs of productive like leeches. We understand that nominally, when it comes to global warming, it’s the Sun, stupid. We know that nature happens! We cannot ignore that those in the UN-IPCC are total liars.
Western academia is nucking futs. Rather than being chastened by having been caught red-handed promoting pseudoscience and anti-Americanism, Penn State’s continued defense of Michael Mann and his ‘hockey stick’ is proof that Western academia remains contemptuous of the public, aloof to reason and absent the most basic of all Judeo-Christian ethics: sincerity and honesty. Their panglossian view that there will always be lifetime employment in ivory towers for charlatans in academia must be broken for good.
Christopher Booker (The Telegraph) has labeled, “Climate change scientists,” as “just another pressure group.” If the IPCC was a cartel and not a political entity supported by Left wing governments, charges would be brought based on the IPCC’s ‘Santorizing’ of the underlying research to run a scam on the public.
“In years to come,” Booker says, “this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of ‘science’ can be used to promote a particular belief system… All this would not be so serious if the IPCC had not been so successfully sold to the world as an objective scientific body rather than as just a political pressure group.”
In the late 1950s and 1960s, a longstanding inclination among some members of the upper class was about to become a national issue. This inclination was to redefine achievements in science and technology as either evil actions threatening to nature or as futile attempts to reduce human suffering that was said to be the result of overpopulation. This tendency, partly articulated as a worldview in the writings of Thomas Malthus, takes what might be reasonable concerns over issues such as air and water quality and embeds them in an ideology deeply hostile to economic progress and the majority of human beings… The overall thrust was still clear: the U.S. and the world should move in the direction of ending population growth, and protection of the environment should be given an importance equal to or greater than that of improving the standard of living… Economic growth and technology were portrayed as problems…” ~Dr. Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency (1994)
“Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations. Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting this technology.” ~Robinson AB, Robinson NE, Soon, W. Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. JAPS (2007) 12, 79-90.
“In effect,” according the Robinsons and Soon, “an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century – an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feed back effects that determine the Earth’s temperature and climate. Since 1940, hydrocarbon use has risen 6-fold. Yet, this rise has had no effect on the temperature trends, which have continued their cycle of recovery from the Little Ice Age in close correlation with increasing solar activity.” Even so, we’re not stuck with using hydrocarbons for energy. The Robinsons and Soon article gives an example of how our society could provide abundant energy using 50 nuclear installations at a cost of $1 trillion that would repay the construction costs “in just a few years,” based on a $60 per barrel cost of oil.
And yet, the Left believes personal ambition, industriousness, initiative, having a dream and working to make it come true — i.e., the creation of wealth in a free enterprise system that benefits free men and women and in turn all of society — should be discouraged and repressed for the public good.
Question from the Audience (See, Rosenkranz Foundation Debate, Program: “Global warming is not a crisis”) — And I am curious, if you believe that CO2 is actually the, the—the particular problem is actually the issue, the degree to which you are willing to, to become like France, where instead of having 20% of their power from nuclear, they have 86%.
BRENDA EKWURZEL — When there was a natural ice age before and when we were coming out of that ice age there weren‘t millions of people, 80% of our population living on the coasts with their high-dollar homes or, maybe fragile homes, not such high-dollar homes. There are many people living in Bangladesh that are squeezed between sea-level rise and the melting of the, the Himalayas and flooding from the land side. And so, we are talking about the fragility of humans adapting to this rapid change, as well as, when— In the past, sea-level rise, you could have, for example, wetlands marching up onto land, and moving inland and adapting and dunes moving inland, right now we have all our infrastructure in its place, and you can see, Miami is stranded out there, Atlantic City is stranded out there, we spend many of— millions of dollars dredging, and, and keeping these unsustainable systems that are not able to adapt naturally anymore because we‘re in the way. And we also are gonna suffer, if we don‘t, uh, make action.
BRIAN LEHRER — Philip Stott, you get 20 seconds to respond—
PHILIP STOTT — Yeah, it was a, I think a brilliant question that, because the earth is as tough as an old boot. If there is any fragility it‘s in us and that‘s what we‘re concerned about, the earth will survive whether we‘re here or not or whether there‘s global warming or not—