The alarmists are in denial
Politics, posted: 17-NOV-2009 11:33
I see signs of panic from George Monbiot. He admits that his side it losing the race to convince the public about Global Warming, but he is in denial (ironically) that it is about the science.
People are not as thick as his colleagues disparagingly assert ("room temperature IQs" maybe he means in degrees Kelvin?). We can see that the temperatures are flat or going down, even as CO2 levels keep rising. And the hyperbole from the alarmists is harming their own cause.
So he resorts to a straw man argument about old people.
Good grief. He should face facts.
People are not as thick as his colleagues disparagingly assert ("room temperature IQs" maybe he means in degrees Kelvin?). We can see that the temperatures are flat or going down, even as CO2 levels keep rising. And the hyperbole from the alarmists is harming their own cause.
So he resorts to a straw man argument about old people.
Good grief. He should face facts.
Another hockey-stick graph debunking
Politics, posted: 28-SEP-2009 23:19
Steve McIntyre was one of the two statisticians (with Ross McKitrick) who annihilated the Mann hockey stick graph.
Now he has done it again -- this time fisking the Briffa (2000) tree ring graphs that purport to show a "hockey stick" upturn in temperatures in the late 20th century. It turns out that Briffa et al were being highly selective of which trees to include and which to exclude. Couple that with their refusal to release their source data until finally forced to do so by a scientific journal. Now their deception is laid bare.
Full description is at Climate Audit. Intriguing layman explanation at comment #7. (Updated: thanks kiwitrc)
The question is: why would we waste billions on an ETS, when the "science" behind it is so shonky?
Now he has done it again -- this time fisking the Briffa (2000) tree ring graphs that purport to show a "hockey stick" upturn in temperatures in the late 20th century. It turns out that Briffa et al were being highly selective of which trees to include and which to exclude. Couple that with their refusal to release their source data until finally forced to do so by a scientific journal. Now their deception is laid bare.
Full description is at Climate Audit. Intriguing layman explanation at comment #7. (Updated: thanks kiwitrc)
The question is: why would we waste billions on an ETS, when the "science" behind it is so shonky?
"Global Warming" is not about Temperature or CO2
Politics, posted: 4-SEP-2009 21:05
I was invited by Sam in the comments on my previous posting to engage in a debate with him on the scientific aspects of global warming.
While I'm keen to do it, it isn't going to happen, due to other priorities.
Plus, I'm coming to the conclusion that the science is incidental to the issue. For many people who haven't seen through to the motives, they think that it's all about climate models, temperature records and the atmospheric concentration of one or two very minor greenhouse gases (water vapour, which comprises the vast bulk of greenhouse gases, is regarded as "untaxable" -- so it is ignored).
It is an ideological clash between those who want to change us (rather than the climate) and those who believe in freedom, markets, human ingenuity, and technical progress. It is a dispute about us, about people, about human society, about our values, about our habits, about our way of life. Temperature fluctuations are only an instrument, not a real object of interest for those who play that game.
The advocates of global warming alarmism ask for an almost unprecedented expansion of government intrusion, of government intervention into our lives and of government control over us. We are pushed into accepting rules about how to live, what to do, how to behave, what to consume, what to eat, how to travel. It is unacceptable. Radical, human freedom and prosperity endangering measures and policies owing to global warming are not necessary.
These are the words from last month of Václav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic.
That is why the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) is such a bad idea.
While I'm keen to do it, it isn't going to happen, due to other priorities.
Plus, I'm coming to the conclusion that the science is incidental to the issue. For many people who haven't seen through to the motives, they think that it's all about climate models, temperature records and the atmospheric concentration of one or two very minor greenhouse gases (water vapour, which comprises the vast bulk of greenhouse gases, is regarded as "untaxable" -- so it is ignored).
It is an ideological clash between those who want to change us (rather than the climate) and those who believe in freedom, markets, human ingenuity, and technical progress. It is a dispute about us, about people, about human society, about our values, about our habits, about our way of life. Temperature fluctuations are only an instrument, not a real object of interest for those who play that game.
The advocates of global warming alarmism ask for an almost unprecedented expansion of government intrusion, of government intervention into our lives and of government control over us. We are pushed into accepting rules about how to live, what to do, how to behave, what to consume, what to eat, how to travel. It is unacceptable. Radical, human freedom and prosperity endangering measures and policies owing to global warming are not necessary.
These are the words from last month of Václav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic.
That is why the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) is such a bad idea.
Permalink to "Global Warming" is not about Temperature or CO2
| Add a comment
(2 comments)
| Main Index
Climate Change: NZ as a leader? No and Yes!
Politics, posted: 8-AUG-2009 12:29
In the 1980's NZ led the world away from the brink regarding nuclear weapons and atmospheric nuclear testing, against the tide of the "big countries". We can do that again.
"Global warming" is not proven. There are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with the IPCC and UN. Journalists are too lazy to read anything contrary to the official line. (Start with Air Con, if you want a layman's introduction.) As the global temperature continues to decline since 1998, eventually governments will realise that "global warming" is a myth, IPCC computer models are untrustworthy, and ETS is merely an opportunity for large-scale fraud.
With the Czechs, we can lead the world away from the brink of economic ruin caused by greenies.
Suggestion to journalists: find out what specific changes NZ would have to make to reach the Greenpeace target of 40% reduction from 1990. Then ask the public if they're willing to make those changes.
"Global warming" is not proven. There are tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with the IPCC and UN. Journalists are too lazy to read anything contrary to the official line. (Start with Air Con, if you want a layman's introduction.) As the global temperature continues to decline since 1998, eventually governments will realise that "global warming" is a myth, IPCC computer models are untrustworthy, and ETS is merely an opportunity for large-scale fraud.
With the Czechs, we can lead the world away from the brink of economic ruin caused by greenies.
Suggestion to journalists: find out what specific changes NZ would have to make to reach the Greenpeace target of 40% reduction from 1990. Then ask the public if they're willing to make those changes.
Pro-Choice - Really?
Politics, posted: 1-AUG-2009 11:49
So many politically-active people call themselves "Pro-Choice".
What they are generally referring to is the choice for a mother to abort her baby. Or not.
Yet, coincidentally, it is mostly the very same "pro-choice" people who are denying parents the right to choose how to correct their own children.
(Note to potential commenters: if you cannot tell the difference between a smack and a punch, then don't bother commenting. I am tired of arguing with those who distort language on purpose.)
What they are generally referring to is the choice for a mother to abort her baby. Or not.
Yet, coincidentally, it is mostly the very same "pro-choice" people who are denying parents the right to choose how to correct their own children.
(Note to potential commenters: if you cannot tell the difference between a smack and a punch, then don't bother commenting. I am tired of arguing with those who distort language on purpose.)
