Global Warming

[Inspector]

Edited by GB: To clarify, the "cost-overrun support" kicks in if a project to build a nuclear plant is delayed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulators. So, it is a bizarre case of the government offering subsidies to pay for the potential cost of regulation! It never occurred to Congress to just repeal the regulations, thereby saving all of us from having to pay for the subsidies.

This is essential to what I was getting at: Even if the burden on nuclear energy by the government is ten times whatever tax break or subsidy they decide to throw at it, and even if that burden is proportionally larger than that of any other industry, the very fact that there is any kind of tax break or subsidy will allow ignorant and dishonest leftists to claim that "Big XXX" is "subsidized."

In fact, speak of the devil:

I really think that the goverment subsidy/regulation tangle is the single most salient point about this whole mess. As long as subsidies are given to big oil, no "green" technologies can compete.

The price of oil will increase because it is a limited resource. The price of solar/wind/geothermal/etc will decrease as technology gets better. Do the math. Why is anyone worried?

[Thales]

I know I'm in late on this thread, but global warming is much ado about nothing. It's a movement that comes out of postmodernism. Postmodernists are basically shill, anti-capitalist, anti-Western, anti-reason, anti-man zealots. They are extreme nihilists. They are bitter, backward, dishonest advocates of man destroying ideas. They work by an insidious code of dishonesty.

This is what they are, and they are the people behind the movement. Keep in mind that postmodernists don't care about the truth. They could not care less about facts. They are driven by their ideology.

When Hedi Cullen, "climate expert", on the Weather Channel came out against any meteorologist who didn't believe in the GW hype, one meteorologist said the following:

James Spann on "Weather Channel Mess"

The Weather Channel Mess

January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

Take note, he doesn't know one meteorologist who believes the hype. This should tell you that we aren't getting the straight story from the news media, who keep telling us only a minority of scientists disagrees with GW.

Also, the best climate scientists, such as Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, et.al. do not agree with the hype. They believe there is mild warming, but nothing catastrophic.

[Galileo Blogs]

Even if the burden on nuclear energy by the government is ten times whatever tax break or subsidy they decide to throw at it, and even if that burden is proportionally larger than that of any other industry, the very fact that there is any kind of tax break or subsidy will allow ignorant and dishonest leftists to claim that "Big XXX" is "subsidized."

You make a good point. That is why I asked the previous poster what are the subsidies to the oil companies. I think the answer is none when measured against their level of taxation vis-a-vis other industries.

Another somewhat different example of your point happened here recently in New York. Mayor Bloomberg raised property taxes 23%, then a few months later he handed out a $400 property tax rebate to all property owners in the city. Figure out the math on that one and the philosophical principle behind who got taken and who got back on that little maneuver.

[Galileo Blogs]

I know I'm in late on this thread, but global warming is much ado about nothing. It's a movement that comes out of postmodernism. Postmodernists are basically shill, anti-capitalist, anti-Western, anti-reason, anti-man zealots. They are extreme nihilists. They are bitter, backward, dishonest advocates of man destroying ideas. They work by an insidious code of dishonesty.

This is what they are, and they are the people behind the movement. Keep in mind that postmodernists don't care about the truth. They could not care less about facts. They are driven by their ideology.

I agree. Environmentalism is essentially a religion of nihilism. Their positions are taken on faith, nature is their God, and it is characterized by a hatred of man and his technology.

I have not had many conversations with ardent environmentalists, but I suspect they are as (un)reasonable as born-again Christians.

However, the crazy environmentalists aren't the only voters, fortunately. It is important to explain the facts behind environmentalism to all of the thoughtful people out there. They need to understand that environmentalism seeks to make man's environment a hell on earth.

[Thales]

I agree. Environmentalism is essentially a religion of nihilism. Their positions are taken on faith, nature is their God, and it is characterized by a hatred of man and his technology.

I have not had many conversations with ardent environmentalists, but I suspect they are as (un)reasonable as born-again Christians.

I used to argue with many such people regularly on Usenet. I used to think people could be convinced by the facts and logical argument. After years of dealing with such people and supplying them with evidence and arguments from high level scientists, I'm now aware that they are simply not interested in the truth. They know full well they aren't being logically consistent, so they want to maintain the fiction. Anyone who threatens to burst their balloon will become their avowed enemy. So be it.

I go broader with this and apply it to postmodernists generally. The Duke "rape case" coupled with the behavior of environmentalists really crystallized for me what postmodernists are about and evading reality is a big part of their modus operandi.

However, the crazy environmentalists aren't the only voters, fortunately. It is important to explain the facts behind environmentalism to all of the thoughtful people out there. They need to understand that environmentalism seeks to make man's environment a hell on earth.

The crazy environmentalists are what should be focused on, because they've been the ones pushing the agenda, so they must be defeated. Although, I don’t think they’ll ever be convinced, because they are too far gone, but perhaps we can save others from going into that abyss by defeating the philosophy that underpins the movement.

Also, while it is true that the vast majority of people are simply bandwagoners and innocent, it should be noted that the news media is part of the equation, because they are largely on board with the propaganda. They religiously ignore any facts that counter the catastrophic GW position, and they quote known leftist groups as authorities (e.g. Greenpeace). In fact, just today I saw the "Union of Concerned scientists" (very left wing) quoted by Reuters. They said, paraphrasing, "Scientists are being pressured by the Bush administration to not support the GW hype.“

Here is a quote from the story:

Reuters’ Story

Scientists charge White House pressure on warming

Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:17 AM ET

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. scientists were pressured to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of a former oil-industry lobbyist, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday.

"Our investigations found high-quality science struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

A survey by the group found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.

"Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.

...

These people are the most insidious propagandists, because the truth of the matter is that virtually all of the pressure is to be on the GW bandwagon. Nothing could be more obvious. One thing leftists often do is twist reality on its ear and turn things around 180 degrees. Virtually all of their (environmentalist’s) energies, I now realize, are devoted to twisting reality around.

[gags]

Also, while it is true that the vast majority of people are simply bandwagoners and innocent, it should be noted that the news media is part of the equation, because they are largely on board with the propaganda. They religiously ignore any facts that counter the catastrophic GW position, and they quote known leftist groups as authorities (e.g. Greenpeace).

Another key avenue for spreading environmentalist propaganda is the public education system. It's extremely disturbing the way children are taught right from kindergarten on up that we are "stewards of the earth". Environmentalist ideas are implanted at a very young age and so they go unchallenged by most people. It is almost universally accepted as fact among school-age children in this country that man and "corporate polluters" are destroying the planet.

[Galileo Blogs]

Another key avenue for spreading environmentalist propaganda is the public education system. It's extremely disturbing the way children are taught right from kindergarten on up that we are "stewards of the earth". Environmentalist ideas are implanted at a very young age and so they go unchallenged by most people. It is almost universally accepted as fact among school-age children in this country that man and "corporate polluters" are destroying the planet.

That is a very good point. I was in elementary school in the early 1970s when the famous crying Indian ads were aired against pollution. That kind of propaganda is mild compared to the incessant propaganda kids receive today, yet that ad was very effective in making me emotionally receptive to the environmentalist argument. It is kind of like the brainwashing one gets in church as a young child.

Of course, a good dose of Objectivism, knowledge of economics, and my own observations of the world have thoroughly counteracted what the "crying Indian" did. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that we have a huge brainwashed cadre of people out there who do not question the environmentalist Gospel.

[Viking]

I just read this in the news:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4518941.html

The panel quickly agreed Thursday on two of the most contentious issues: attributing global warming to man-made burning of fossil fuels and connecting it to a recent increase in stronger hurricanes. Negotiations over a final third difficult issue — how much sea level rise is predicted by 2100 — went into the night Thursday with a deadline approaching for the report.

While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on hundreds of scientists, including skeptics.

"I hope that policymakers will be quite convinced by this message," said Riibeta Abeta, a delegate whose island nation Kiribati is threatened by rising seas. "The purpose is to get them moving."

This new report claims that Global Warming is "very likely" man made. Now, I've read many articles by fellow Objectivists before stating that there simply has not been any proof that Global warming is man made, which I'm sure was true. But what if this new report is true, that they have found a link, how does that change things? Should anything be done?

Does it justify laws against old, unclean cars, taxes on gasoline, or anything like that?

[softwareNerd]

I think we could have a small tax which would go into a fund. Then, two decades later, when the powers that be end up creating a tax on global cooling, we can transfer the money from the warming fund to the cooling fund. Of course, the nature of this fund would be something like social security -- a theoretical fund, that will be paid maybe, sometime by someone, though we all know it will not. Bottom line: solve the hypothetical problem with a hypothetical solution.

Seriously though, this particular report was not about any new scientific findings. This was a case of government representatives getting together and deciding what language should be in a UN report.

[Thales]

I just read this in the news:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4518941.html

This new report claims that Global Warming is "very likely" man made. Now, I've read many articles by fellow Objectivists before stating that there simply has not been any proof that Global warming is man made, which I'm sure was true. But what if this new report is true, that they have found a link, how does that change things? Should anything be done?

Does it justify laws against old, unclean cars, taxes on gasoline, or anything like that?

What if it were true? I'd be rejoicing! I'd love for the earth to be warmer. Any negative created by the warmth, would probably more than be offset by people not having to endure as much cold. And, frankly, the only thing you could do is let the free market take care of it. It's a trivial issue for man if he's free. Just look at Holland and their dikes as a for instance, there man has fought the elements and won in spades.

Btw, my belief, based on studying the issue, is that there is slight warming, and that man has contributed to it somewhat. My main sources on the matter are the scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and a few others, because they are professionals I've come to trust.

[kufa]

My solution for global warming is for mankind to learn how to create a new ozone layer. Its a much easier solution than controlling polution.

[D'kian]

But what if this new report is true, that they have found a link, how does that change things? Should anything be done?

If it were true, then all regulations should be removed for nuclear power plants. That would let us move to hydrogen fuels, hydrolized from water, in two decades or so.

Of course, water vapor, the exhaus from hydrogen fuels, is a greenhouse gas...

[Viking]

Seriously though, this particular report was not about any new scientific findings. This was a case of government representatives getting together and deciding what language should be in a UN report.

If that is true, then this article is extremely misleading:

There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science.

What if it were true? I'd be rejoicing! I'd love for the earth to be warmer. Any negative created by the warmth, would probably more than be offset by people not having to endure as much cold. And, frankly, the only thing you could do is let the free market take care of it. It's a trivial issue for man if he's free. Just look at Holland and their dikes as a for instance, there man has fought the elements and won in spades.

Good point. I used to live in Norway, so I agree it could be beneficial.

My solution for global warming is for mankind to learn how to create a new ozone layer. Its a much easier solution than controlling polution.

Haha, I like this solution.

[Inspector]

But what if this new report is true...

But it's clearly not true. You should know better than that by now...

[Strangelove]

What if it were true? I'd be rejoicing! I'd love for the earth to be warmer. Any negative created by the warmth, would probably more than be offset by people not having to endure as much cold. And, frankly, the only thing you could do is let the free market take care of it. It's a trivial issue for man if he's free. Just look at Holland and their dikes as a for instance, there man has fought the elements and won in spades.

Btw, my belief, based on studying the issue, is that there is slight warming, and that man has contributed to it somewhat. My main sources on the matter are the scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and a few others, because they are professionals I've come to trust.

Earth's weather system is not that simple, Global Warming does not mean that the Earth simply gets "warmer" and lo and behold, we get no more cold weather. The concern is that Greenland will melt, the freshwater will stop the North Atlantic Deep Water current from getting warm air to Europe, and then Europe (which is at the same latitude as Canada yet is warmer) will then cool down quite significantly.

There is enough evidence to suggest that mankind is having a measurable effect on the Earth's environment. Al Gore's predictions of doom aside, the fact is that we can never hope to predict the weather accurately now, so the likelyhood that we can predict the exact consequences of global warming are low. Maybe things will go exactly as described in An Inconvenient Truth, maybe things will not, maybe they will be at some half way point.

And more importantly, realistically, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to get China to stop its industrialization so whatever America does is not likely to save the planet when one billion people are starting to get cars and other such items.

Good point. I used to live in Norway, so I agree it could be beneficial.

Actually it would really suck for you.

My solution for global warming is for mankind to learn how to create a new ozone layer. Its a much easier solution than controlling polution.

I do believe that the Ozone layer and Global Warming are unrelated. I was under the impression that the hole in the Ozone over Antartica was a concern about the Solar Radiation that could get into the atmosphere since the ozone was no longer there. Global Warming is about greenhouse gasses aritifically heating up the planet.

But in either case, a slightly more effective solution would be to build a solar shield of some sort to defect the suns rays and try and "regulat" the warming of the planet.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Strangelove

[Viking]

But it's clearly not true. You should know better than that by now...

Not at all. Just because past reports have failed to accurately show a link, does not mean that no future report will.

Actually it would really suck for you.

You're right. I forgot about the whole Gulf stream problem.

[Thales]

Earth's weather system is not that simple, Global Warming does not mean that the Earth simply gets "warmer" and lo and behold, we get no more cold weather. The concern is that Greenland will melt, the freshwater will stop the North Atlantic Deep Water current from getting warm air to Europe, and then Europe (which is at the same latitude as Canada yet is warmer) will then cool down quite significantly.

Greenland is called Greenland for a reason. Also, the evidence indicates that the Greenland ice sheet is increasing in size.

There is enough evidence to suggest that mankind is having a measurable effect on the Earth's environment.

Please, have more respect than to provide a clip of Al Gore on the subject of science. He knows nothing about science. He's a propagandist. If you want to read a real scientist and one of the foremost atmospheric scientists in the world, try this link: Richard Lindzen

Regarding those who support "shrill alarmism" he says:

To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

As to us having a "measurable effect", my response is so what? We live on the planet, so of course we're going to have an effect. Hopefully we'll gain more control and have more of an effect. This follows the environmentalist idea that we are unwelcome intruders into nature.

Al Gore's predictions of doom aside, the fact is that we can never hope to predict the weather accurately now, so the likelyhood that we can predict the exact consequences of global warming are low.

Global what? Listen, the whole issue is over whether or not there is catastrophic warming, and I consider it sheer lunacy to believe there is. It's not even remotely scientific. That there has been mild warming, that's true, but that's all together different from the nut jobs (not scientists, btw), who are putting forth this ridiculous idea. The guys at debunkers.org might be able to fill you in.

What we have here is a media and activists pushing a postmodernist idea in the face of the evidence. Gobbles would be proud of them.

Maybe things will go exactly as described in An Inconvenient Truth, maybe things will not, maybe they will be at some half way point.

It’s a convenient lie. Gore keeps claiming there is a consensus, btw, and that is proven wrong by the petitions on sepp.org, and by the numerous scientists who have come out saying they don't believe the hype.

And more importantly, realistically, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to get China to stop its industrialization so whatever America does is not likely to save the planet when one billion people are starting to get cars and other such items.

"save the planet" --- why are you using their irrational phrase? The planet ain't in danger. One day it'll be engulfed by the sun, but that's a few billion years away.

Environmentalists (postmodernists generally) are propagandists with an agenda, that's all. They will do and say anything to promote their cause. That's what you have to realize. You just have to come to grips with how utterly dishonest they are. It took me a while, but I finally realize it, and so I now know what it is I’m dealing with.

I do believe that the Ozone layer and Global Warming are unrelated. I was under the impression that the hole in the Ozone over Antartica was a concern about the Solar Radiation that could get into the atmosphere since the ozone was no longer there. Global Warming is about greenhouse gasses aritifically heating up the planet.

Yes, they are separate phenomena.

The thinning of ozone occurred only over Antarctica during periods of low uv radiation, in an area where nobody lives. The mid-latitude ozone is what would be of concern, and that was fine.

But in either case, a slightly more effective solution would be to build a solar shield of some sort to defect the suns rays and try and "regulat" the warming of the planet.

The planet is just fine right now. See, that's the problem, you actually think there is a problem and you have to find a solution to it.

There are a few big dangers regarding environmentalists:

1> They take away resources that could go to really valuable things, such as curing cancer

2> If there is a real problem nobody is going to believe them. It's the boy who cried wolf problem.

3> Our freedoms will be lost, and then what?

[Inspector]

Not at all. Just because past reports have failed to accurately show a link, does not mean that no future report will.

Why must I go into this again? Every single article or essay I've ever seen from Objectvists makes this perfectly clear: GW freaks are liars. The things that come out of their mouths are complete and unmitigated BS. They deserve no more consideration than the unwashed derelict on the streetcorner holding up the "Repent your sins: THE END IS NEAR" sign.

Are you pretty much admitting that you haven't read anything by Objectivists on Environmentalism?

[Strangelove]

Please, have more respect than to provide a clip of Al Gore on the subject of science. He knows nothing about science. He's a propagandist. If you want to read a real scientist and one of the foremost atmospheric scientists in the world, try this link: Richard Lindzen

Do you honestly have a problem with Ice Core data? I suppose you could argue that the scientists who come up with the data are intentionally giving false information, in order to make the situation look more dire then it is in reality, and if you believe in that sort of conspiracy then your opinion can't be changed. I am not even interested in whether the Cores show that CO2 will cause the world to be in dire danger, its just a point that humans are having an affect on the planet. Which you acknowledge anyway:

As to us having a "measurable effect", my response is so what? We live on the planet, so of course we're going to have an effect. Hopefully we'll gain more control and have more of an effect. This follows the environmentalist idea that we are unwelcome intruders into nature.

Yeah, but it would sure be a shame if our affect on the Earth worked to our disadvantage. This has nothing to do with the environmentalist nonesense about returning to nature. If you are changing something you don't completely understand (like weather) then it at least makes sense to be concerned about possible negative consequences. You can't just say that "I hope we have a constant affect on the Earth because human beings must affect nature!", you should make sure that you at least know the consequences of your actions. I would love the Environmentalists to be proven wrong, I would love to see the Earth in the same condition when I die as it is now. I have every reason to be at least interested in data and I hope that we can dig deeper ice cores to get an even more accurate view of what has happened to the Earth over Billions of years.

And yes, I do agree that if there were to be any sort of Global Warming, that the Free Market would get a solution much more effectively then the UN or any government.

[Inspector]

Do you honestly have a problem with Ice Core data?

Here, take the test dangit.

Or skip to here and here.

[Strangelove]

Here, take the test dangit.

Or skip to here and here.

You are avoiding the question. My point is NOT whether CO2 has anything to do with global warming. My point is that Ice Core Data allows us to see that there is more CO2 now then there has been in the past 650,000,000 years. (Because we measure the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere and compare it to what has been captured, and low and behold, there is a significant difference.)

The point has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the idea that "humans affect the planet" which you half acknowledge to be true anyway. Being interested in whether or this affect is going to do good or bad things sounds like a reasonable position to take. Simply saying "This is all based on million year long millenial cycles and has nothing to do with us, end of discussion" is scientifically disingenuous in the same way saying "This is all based on CO2 and nothing else" is disingenuous.

[Inspector]

Simply saying "This is all based on million year long millenial cycles and has nothing to do with us, end of discussion" is scientifically disingenuous...

(bold mine)

No, the words you are looking for are "the actual truth."

[y_feldblum]

You are avoiding the answer.

1. Varying and cyclical natural climate trends, on a vast scale, have been going on continuously since the birth of the planet.

2. Human activity affects the general climate on a scale so very, very small, compared to (1). E.g., human production of carbon dioxide affects global temperature trends only to a very, very small degree, compared with the natural phenomena which affect global temperature trends.

3. If life with plenty of place to live and work, with a month's worth of clothing in the wardrobe, with grocery stores stocked with everything one can imagine, with personal transportation at 80mph wherever you want to go (so long as it has an exit number), with the ability to sit in one's living room and engage in nearly any kind of business transaction via networked computer, with medication or surgical procedures for nearly any kind of ailment, and with many of the cruder ailments nearly wiped out, etc., if that sort of life means that the environment must change ... then it's worth it a million times over.

[DavidV]

We already have a bunch on global warming:

Global Warming and self interest, A political farse or a real threat?

So much for "unanimous" - an inconvenient truth

Earth 2020: three outcomes to global warming

Edit: I am merging threads.

Edited February 2, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[DavidV]

This is as expected, bad news.

My January electric bill was $480. The rate increase went into effect this month. Last year, we had a 36% rate increase, and in the past two years, electricity has shot up 58% over 2005 rates.

To add perspective, my 1999 bills averaged $80/month. In 1967, my bill was about $8/month. Today, $480. Last year, I paid 5X as much for electricity than for heating oil.

We NEED cheaper alternatives!

Have you ever heard of inflation?

The average real price of electricity in 1967 was about the same as today. That's still outrageous relative to improvements in other fields, but hardly a 6000% jump.

Edit: It's also worth noting that prices have been falling non-stop since 1984 while capacity keeps expanding.

Edited February 2, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist