Just in case you needed yet another example of why the United States should defund and extricate themselves from the United Nations here’s a good one: Karen Christiana Figueres Olsen, the UN Climate Chief and daughter of the former Costa Rican president José Figueres Ferrer, has given us the answer to global climate change…Communism!
Yes, folks — communism! Apparently, no one has schooled Wee Chrissy on the climactic disasters that were the Soviet Union, most Eastern European countries, North Korea, or, hey! modern China. Go for a morning walk in Shanghai…bring a face mask and some oxygen. Oh, wait…she does know what an utter disaster China’s ecological situation is, but they’re “doing it right” for fighting climate change! Here ya go; feel the stupid!
They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at. They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.
Add to the raping and destruction of their environment the 94 million communism was directly responsible for murdering in the 20th Century, and it’s difficult to follow this twit’s argument (but they have 15 % of their energy from renewable sources!) unless you placed for village idiot.
Here’s some delightful news and decent commentary from Pierre L. Gosselin. It’s a long post, so I’m just highlighting a few bits:
From the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ): “The rescue of the planet gets cancelled. The climate advisory council to the government played high stakes poker. And lost. They failed at tricking their way past democracy.” They are referring specifically to the failure of the notoriously alarmist German Advisory Council on Global Change or WBGU to “put global society on the fast-track to “sustainability” and an almost carbon-free society by 2050. In it the council even called for policies to water down democracy. One journalist once summarized: “The WBGU is in favor of democracy, but only so long as the people make the right decisions.“
Even one of the WBGU’s own enviro-nuts is critical of the “movement”: “He and other scientists feel many climate advisors have abused their role for years: Scientists acted like politicians who applied pressure and exercised power, and did not act like scientists who show solution paths.”
Advocacy…that’s not science. It’s something worse when the goal is not “saving the planet” but forcing people to do your bidding, we call that tyranny.
…have a look at this graph showing storm activity over the last 62 years:
So, no…”global climate change” is not making the midwest any more (or less) prone to violent storms. You’re just hearing ore sensationalized crap (thanks, Weather Channel!) about them thanks to a higher population density (more people injured, more property damage.)
The New York Times — hardly a bastion of conservative, anti-environmental politics — has a nice piece on the “unprecedented” ice melt in Greenland…the one that environmental “scientists” would have us think is going to lead to a real-life Waterworld, complete with the horrors of Kevin Coster acting.
Except, oops!, “the last wide surface melt was in 1889, recorded in separate ice cores at the Greenland ice-sheet summit and in the northwestern part of the vast frozen expanse — and has happened roughly every 150 years over a long stretch of centuries, as recorded deeper in the ice.” Hmm…could this be one of the reasons the Vikings called Grenland Greenland? They had working farm colonies for several centuries, then had to abandon the massive island because of the rapid change in climate toward the icy.
I guess the climate change back then was due to the massive use of diesel powered longboats. Damned Vikings breaking the planet!
…and has been since Roman times. The latest tree ring study — which environuts laud when it backs their claims (watch for their backpedaling on the usefulness of tree rings as evidence) — shows the planet has been steadily cooling over 2000 years.
It was warmer in Roman and Medieval times — something any historian worth their salt could have told you based off of ships’ logs, the initial colonization of Greenland (when it was green), and the ability to grow temperate weather crops in places like Scotland during the Medieval Warming Period. No flooding islands. No massive inundation of coastlines (they were pretty damned close to looking like they do today.) Point of fact, agriculture flourished, populations increased due to better diets, health, and the ability to trade with markets near and far.
Is there climate change? Yes, and it’s normal! The only reason for the enviropanic now is that it is tied to a political goal — the restoration of state over individual and the creation of a new aristocracy to lord over it.
Scientists at CERN are still locked into chasing the Higg’s boson, rather than admitting current popular theories of the universe might be crap, but they are making themselves useful on the climate change debate (and no, the debate is not over and evidence is not in, Mr. Gore.)
The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.
This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.
Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.
What!?! The massive thermonuclear ball in the sky has more to do with climate change than my Ford 500? The planet’s changes in climate might have a natural, rather than a man-made, cause? How will we vilify companies and force people to buy green products from politically connected companies?
All flippancy aside, it’s nice to see that scientists are moving away from playing climate politics and getting back to science, which is supposed to be skeptical of theories that are not showing reasonable proof. (From what I recall, scientific method seeks to disprove, rather than prove theories; theories are supposed to be assumed somehow compromised…like say needing 90% of the universe to be “dark matter and energy”, “magical” material that can’t be found or accounted for, to make the current cosmological physics models work.)
He was always an idiot, being an avowed socialist. Bu this comparison of climate change skeptics to Nazi appeasers..? Does he really think that’s going to change minds to his position, especially in the wake of the Climategate scandal at East Anglia CRU (where most of the “data” for the IPCC comes from, when it’s not from a hiking magazine or a student essay based on anecdotal evidence), in the wake of NOAA being exposed for faulty placement of climate measurement devices (and the decommissioning of stations in places not in a North American urban environment, in the wake of NASA’s polar satellites showing ice returning in the Arctic and record growth in Antarctica, and in the wake of James Hansen’s faulty/fraudulent models (take your pick.)
Here’s an idea, instead of attempting to caress data to fit a theory, fit a theory to the data…like natural cyclical variations. Of course, that means there’s no crisis catastrophe requiring massive investment shakedowns of industrial nations to fund “science” and fund schemes like carbon trading “take action” to protect the planet.
In PajamasMedia there’s a piece on how Climategate is a massive story in Europe, in India…pretty much everywhere but the United States. But I think a story it uncovers is much bigger — the desire of the American elitists to ape European culture.
This is no surprise. The Progressives of the late 19th Century schooled in Europe (you know, the place where — as Eddie Izzard put it — “the culture comes from…”), and brought back a love of all things European to our benighted country: big government, class warfare, ideas of eugenic purity, etc… Throughout the 20th Century, Progressives have damned American culture, popular culture, as “low”, even though our movies, music, books, video games, inventions, our very government system, are popular and copied around the world.
Europeans have been decrying global warming/cooling/climate change since the Cold War money dried up int he early 1990s. Scientists, hoping to cash in on the IPCC scare tactics fabricated data, hid their findings, and wrote reports based on little but anecdotal evidence and theories based on shaky science. The Europeans jumped on because it fits their Progressive ideas of Man as pest. Their environmentalism combined the trends of anti-capitalist envy, with a post-Christian millenarian apocalypse when our original sin was either capitalism and greed, or on the extreme end, civilization itself. Euro-environmentalism is high-concept: it combines old-school original sin with Science! to give us a modern parable that is familiar, yet enticing to those who despise their own existence.
American Progressives ate this up in the 1990s. It gave them a new reason to hate their culture and their country, and continue loving Europe and their “high culture.” With the collapse of communism, there was no way way to be trend by opposing crash American values. How can you be cool and admit that maybe Reagan was right…America isn’t such a bad place? Enter environmentalism: same punchline, but without all that nasty Stalinism baggage — and you can continue to care about poor countries and pretend you’re doing something just by using paper bags at the TrendyMart. It’s cheaper than going to an Amnesty International concert!
Europe is well advanced of us in the collapse of their economy and their society because of their welfare statism. France and Germany are realizing that their desire to control the continent through the European Union is about to cost them beaucoup bucks as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland…oh, pretty much everybody not France and Germany fail. Even the two big boys are in serious trouble, with unemployment and growth rates perennially worse than the US. Their multicultural experiments have left their people with nothing to believe in, and Muslim immigrants offering militancy and a hip new religion as an alternative. Europe is waking up to the disastrous combination of spending, cultural emptiness (which might explain the popularity of our cultural capital), and an aging, greedy population.
Lagging behind, we’re only starting to toy with these ideas. Our would-be elites refuse to let go of their belief in a climatological scenario that proves–with, like, science — that they were right all along: our low-rent country and it’s materialistic culture are destroying the world. It’s too lovely a trope for them to not cling to.
It’s getting to the point that reporting this is simply funny: the bad science, the inadequate measuring network, the claims based on anecdotal evidence by activists, and the rank politicization of the whole issue (it’s about the money, folks…) Again, The Telegraph is reporting the IPCC report is based on nothing more than hot air.
First we find out the glaciers in the Himalayas aren’t melting at the rate we were told. That prediction was taken from an opinion piece of a graduate student and wasn’t even based on actual data. Now the African crop disaster is being debunked. Instead of losing more crops (they threw out 50% as the number…oh! Scary!), the Algerian government is saying their production is on track to double in the next decade.
As a historian, I’ve found the global warming/climate change issue ridiculous (and I mean something to ridicule.) The climate changes over time, and has been since before the industrial era. The period in which the classical civilizations grew up was one of the warmest we know of (and even this is sheer speculation, since they weren’t recording temperatures.) The warmth created more moisture and more favorable conditions for agriculture (more wet, more heat, and more CO2=more plants! or weren’t you paying attention in middle school science class?)
The Medieval Warming Period allowed for agricultural explosions as far north as Scotland, where there were functional vineyards. The Vikings found a spectacularly rich land they called Greenland and they settled it for farms. Within two centuries, the colony was a failure when a big honking sheet of ice came racing down on them (proving climate change happens fast and naturally…or did you thing the Viking longboats were diesel-powered? Or was is coal? Oh, wait…it was wind.)
Climatologists (aka “weather men”) have been using a number of clever methods to try and derive temperature trends, from ice and soil core samples, to tree rings…all are interesting in their methodology, but ultimately — as with anything we don’t have actual hard evidence for — we’re guessing. We don’t know what the natural climate for the Earth is, because that climate is a chaotic and supremely complex system that is always in flux. Even the infamous East Anglia CRU is admitting that the 20th Century warming period may not be “unprecedented.”
A much better idea of how misguided the panic regarding climate change is can best be illustrated here:
The IPCC chart is a joke. Any medieval or naval historian worth his/her salt could tell you this. Rather than using the “anomaly” chart, which presupposes a normalcy to climate, the second chart simply tracks changes off of the recorded norms (once again…this data is suspect beyond the 1700s. Most of the accurate[ish] weather data beyond that is going to be from naval logs.)
What you could have here is a 400-600 year long cycle that could be the consequence of oceanic currents, solar cycles, or any number of things. Note that the 1200s were “much warmer”, using IPCC hysterics lingo, and the coastlines of the world had not changed that dramatically. Holland didn’t sink. Venice didn’t sink. (For those about to throw up their hand and scream about Vanuatu and Urutu, and the other Pacific islands that are sinking, I’d point out these sandbanks are on subduction zones — places where the tectonic plate is pulled under another one. and Venice is sinking faster because they set up artesian wells around the lagoon and pulled all the water out of the water table, causing the ground to sink.)
In short, warming is not necessarily bad, and the “fear industry” that is hyping it does so to siphon money from working folks to pad the wallets of companies and governments (and non-governmental agencies, especially.) We’re all being played.
That doesn’t mean I’m advocating polluting the world. I don’t think you should dump antifreeze down the storm drains. I agree that cleaner energy would be a good thing, but I also know that solving poverty through the expansion of free trade, technology, and (real) education is more likely to do good than worrying about your carbon footprint. And if you want wealth, if you want to live a cleaner life, one of the best ways is to be a cheap bastard…I was using the flourescent bulbs years before they were hip…because they were cheaper. i keep my house at 64F max (using less power) and turn off lights in rooms I’m not in…because it’s cheaper. I ride a motorcycle and burn less gas… because it’s cheaper.
Thrift allows you to keep more of your money — wait, let’s use the popular Marxist rhetoric — it allows you to control more of the fruits of your labor. It gives you more flexibility in an accident or disaster, it allows you to go on a trip, get an education, educate your kids. Thrift has a smaller footprint on resources and the environment. It also builds character, self-reliance, and a sense of worth.
Be Cheap. And ignore these people trying to play you.