Barbara Boxer on global warming

From a McClatchy article :

If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

She says there's a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children.

She is alarming the public based on the dubious assumption that global warming would cause a feedback loop causing far-fetched worst case scenarios, which is based on top of the dubious assumption that there is “anthropogenic” global warming in the first place.

More carbon dioxide and higher temperatures should have a net positive effect on agriculture rather than damage it. Carbon dioxide is the basic building block of plants, and warmer temperatures mean a longer growing season.

Furthermore, curbing carbon emissions is not presented as a necessary sacrifice, but rather as a benefit. Passing the liberal Democrat bill will bring wondrous benefits including “millions” of jobs. I have no idea why carbon emissions would have anything to do with “air pollution,” because carbon dioxide is completely harmless to children as well as adults.

Liberal Democrats disgust me. This is why I always vote Republican.

Comments

[TangoMan]

To wash that disgust from your palate, take a sip of Governor Palin's editorial in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html

I know that you, in particular, will enjoy this refreshing analysis. :)

[Chris]

"Liberal Democrats disgust me. This is why I always vote Republican."

I agree with the first part. But Republicans disgust me too. That's why I don't vote.

[DaveinHackensack]

Did you catch the NY Times Magazine article on Freeman Dyson a few months ago ("The Global Warming Heretic")? I blogged about it at the time ( http://thehackensack.blogspot.com/2009/03/freeman-dyson-in-tomorrows-ny-times.html ), but Dyson made a similar point about carbon dioxide, noting an increase in it ought to have a positive effect on plant life.

[JohnM]

'I have no idea why carbon emissions would have anything to do with “air pollution,”'

maybe the reason you have no idea is because you're not a scientist.

ah forget it. Hey, we just let the republicans waste billions of dollars on a project that didn't help anything (ref: Iraq). Maybe we should let the dems have at it. there's a better shot at improving the world and the jobs we create won't involved getting shot at.

[rightsaidfred]

Religion used to put Hell far away in time and space. The Gaia sect has made it a closer prospect. So repent and join the true believers, HS, or you will burn, burn! I tell you...

[Meng Bomin]

This post is an example of why you shouldn't write about scientific subjects of which you are not an expert as if you were. Carbon dioxide is indeed used by plants to produce most of their mass.

But carbon is not the limiting ingredient in life...phosphorus is. So, arguing that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide will in and ove itself provide a benefit to plants is a rather weak argument.

Furthermore, if you accept the premise that there is anthropogenic forcing of climate change (I know you don't) or simply that there is a global pattern of climate change (I'm pretty sure you don't accept that either), and that one of the effects of this may be increased desertification, you'd see that another basic ingredient of life--water--would be more scare and thus would hurt agriculture. And desertification is only one of the more obvious examples of how that could happen.

In more general principles, ecosystems tend to run in stable feedback loops given a stable environment. A change in environment can disrupt these feedback loops and thus make it more difficult for, say, the type of crops that currently are well suited to a local climate to have difficulty in a warmer, more carbon dioxide rich enviornment and this effect is compounded when brought to more specific enviroments that may be getting wetter or drier, windier or calmer, warmer or even in some cases cooler. It should be noted that "global warming" refers to an aggregate effect and does not necessarily refer to local warming. In the long term it may be that stability returns and perhaps even with increased crop yield, but for the short and middle term, such would not be the case, as climate change would mainly have a disruptive effect.

So, even though I know you think that anthropogenic forcing of climate change is bogus (an opinion to which you are entitled but your certainty on the matter is nowhere near justified), the rest of your argument is weak at best.

I will give you the fact that the bill will probably not produce a net job benefit as Democrats claim. However, your argument that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant either betrays a lack of understanding of the word "pollution" or a lack of ability to understand your opponent's argument. The main point of contention is the premise of anthropogenic forcing mainly driven by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, a subject that you clearly lack the expertise to competently discuss. If you accept your opponents' premise, it should be eminently clear to you why they see it as a pollutant.

[Lugo]

Where did Barbara get her science degree? Oh, she doesn't have one, she's just a prattling imbecile.

[Horse play]

Now if government schooling taught even basic economics, a politician would get laughed out of office any time they claimed taking money from productive segments of society and doling it out to unprofitable segments, will magically give a net increase in jobs. Leaving aside the main point, which is that humans are not capable of changing the climate enough to cause catastrophic harm, and even if they could, government can't do anything about it. If you can't win the War on Drugs, you can't win the War on Climate Change.
It's past the disgust phase. That these kind of people can get elected and rule over others is a farce.

[Turambar]

"She says there's a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children. "

Lets suppose that we accept her statement. Is this real a "huge" upside? These might be nice benefits but they are not "huge".

- millions of jobs. Yeah right, we've heard that before. But what about the millions of well paying, skilled jobs that it would cost in oil rigging, refining and distribution. How could there be millions *more* jobs unless Boxer is admitting that her proposed alternative is wildly more inefficient?

- less foreign oil: might be nice but in reality even if we never imported another drop of oil we would still be enormously dependent on it. Almost all of our consumer goods are made overseas and China runs on the dreaded foreign oil. If oil prices spike again, up goes the cost of most everything we buy anyway.

- less pollution. Frankly the number deaths based on environmental pollution are negligible, so there is not much to save here. They would be way more offset by kids being butchered by fleets of silent electric cars sneaking up on them.

[Zeenon]

Ummm... more CO2 and heat will probably increase plant growth globally, but certain area's are going to loose out, especially those near deserts, like a large chunk of America's West.

Canada and Russia on the other hand will bloom, but they'll have to deal with rebuilding their northern cities which were built on permafrost.

[silly girl]

Okay, I was a contributor to many environmental groups until they started focusing on the climate change. I really don't think there is much we can do by ourselves because no one is going to stop producing CO2, so it is tons of money spent for no benefit.

Anyway, Barbara Boxer is an absolute rat who doesn't give a blank about the environment.

The media has ignored the enormous spill in Tennessee. Barbara Boxer sits on that oversight committee. She doesn't give a blank about the destruction of the environment in Tennessee. I am sure she had her panties in a wad over the Exxon Valdez and wanted the company punished. But when she is responsible for protecting the environment, she is even more negligent!

WSJ Scott Baker:

"Kingston Fossil Plant in Harriman, Tenn. That plant is run by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), an independent, government-owned corporation dating back to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal of the 1930s. In total, some 5.4 million cubic yards of waterlogged fly-ash -- enough to fill 450,000 standard dump trucks -- flooded into the river, making this the largest environmental disaster of its kind in U.S. history.

Fly-ash contains arsenic, lead and beryllium, among other pollutants, so residents are worried about possible long-term effects to their health, water quality and property values.

TVA is trying to mitigate the damage by spending $1 million a day on the cleanup. But with several lawsuits in the works and a state investigation under way, nearly everyone is calling for the utility to be held accountable.

The problem is that it isn't really accountable to anyone. It is not scrutinized by shareholders and, unlike traditional government agencies, it is self-funded, so it doesn't have to justify itself to Congress to win annual appropriations.

In 1997, Congress cut off TVA's tax dollars completely after Duke Energy, Southern Company and others lobbied for the government to stop paying for the utility's environmental initiatives, economic development plans, and other nonpower programs. Except for lawmakers from states where it operates, Congress then pretty much forgot TVA existed.

California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer admitted as much in January. At a hearing on the Kingston spill, she apologized for ignoring the utility over the past two years -- she is head of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which is supposed to provide oversight of TVA.

But she isn't the only one in Washington who wasn't watching. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates private power companies, but doesn't have jurisdiction over TVA. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123396593942758989.html

Now whenever I get called to donate, I bring up the silence from environmental groups on Barbara Boxer's and the gov't destruction of the environment.

The gov't doesn't care about the environment. Period. They just want money and power.

Government sponsored business sucks. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Tennessee Valley Authority, doesn't matter. They will screw us faster than any private business.

Health Care is the next thing they want to ruin.

[John Smith]

What do you think about relying on foreign oil as something to get rid of? Do you like subsidizing Wahabism with our dollars or increasing our trade deficit?

[HS: Oil is a global commodity, so it's impossible to change the fact that the world as a whole is dependent on oil exporting countries.]

[Mung]

--there's a better shot at improving the world and the jobs we create won't involved getting shot at.--

Yes, yes, if only the Democrats ran things...What could go wrong? Let me know when those windmills get built off Cape Cod. And regarding Iraq, the Democrats voted for it and kept funding it (Oh, yeah, they were tricked!). Besides, a Democrat is President, why is the war still go on? And the war is expanding in Afgahnistan too!

[Tonto]

RE: TVA and Assorted Shenanigans

The gov't in general and JFK in particular fucked over the Redman one last time in Pennsylvania:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinzua_Dam

[Skinny Jeans]

Posted by: Meng Bomin | July 14, 2009 at 04:56 AM

Stick with the SWPL shit, kid.

[Stopped Clock]

I agree with the Sarah Palin piece 100% . If she can do no other good, let her become the loudest mouthpiece for the opposition to the cap and trade plan.

CO2 does increase plant growth, by the way, but the amount needed to make any reasonable difference would be enormous, and put us into a climate like that of the late Jurassic/early Cretaceous, i.e. Alaska becomes Florida and Florida becomes uninhabitable due to swarms of giant rapidly mutating insects.

[brazil84]

"carbon is not the limiting ingredient in life"

Then why do some greenhouse operators artificially raise CO2 levels inside their greenhouses?

Perhaps there are numerous critical ingredients, including water, phosphorus, and CO2.

[Beta C. Mag]

--Florida becomes uninhabitable due to swarms of giant rapidly mutating insects.--

That kind of stuff is no joke. It has happened before. They made a documentary about it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Them02.jpg

Luckily, the tunnels were sealed and the gov't covered it up. Myself, I'm more worried about zombie outbreaks. Plenty of training films and PSAs out there. But whether giant insects or the undead, remember, only headshots will stop them.

[brazil84]

Regarding foreign oil, the obvious way to reduce our dependence is to develop coal and nuclear. We've got plenty of coal and plenty of uranium.

I doubt that the cap & trade bill will help push us towards coal and nuclear.

[HS: This is actually not true, oil isn't used to generate electricity in the U.S., except for a few peaker plants.]

[Turambar]

"To wash that disgust from your palate, take a sip of Governor Palin's editorial in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html"

The Palin piece is good- she writes like she speaks and I think this could be a persuasive piece for most people (although the Washington Post might not be the best venue for this).

Among McCain's many faults is that her pushed her forward too fast with next no professional support. Had Haley Barbour been allowed to work with her for a couple of years she would be a very effective national politician.

[Rob]

I have read, repeatedly, that GW will lead to MORE rainfall, not less, so what gives with those here who say it will lead to less?

[The Undiscovered Jew]

OT

Sigma might be interested in this GSS data from Razib:

http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=2277

The posts below I used education as a proxy for class. This is obviously rough. There are many people without college degrees who are well off, and many with college degrees who are only marginally middle class, or lower. How about looking at both net wealth and education? Unfortunately the sample sizes get a bit smaller, and so I can’t go and look at issue by issue. But I can look at party identification. Limiting the sample to whites here are some interesting points:

1) The proportion of Democrats is highest for whites with the combination of college eduation or higher and net wealth of less than $150,000.

2) The proportion of Republicans is highest for whites with the combination of college eduation or higher and net wealth of greater than $150,000. But whereas the difference in Democratic orientation is 14.5 points for whites across the educational chasm below $150,000, those who are above the $150,000 threshold show only a 3.4 gap between Republican orientation for those who do, and don’t, have college degrees. In other words, education matters a great deal for Democratic affiliation for whites who are less well off, while for the well off Republican party affiliation has only a weak relationship to educational attainment.

3) Political party polarization is greatest among those with wealth and higher education. Only 5.3% were political Independents with no lean in this class. In contrast, 31.2% of whites with no college degree and below $150,000 in wealth were Independents with no lean.

Table below the fold.

[Truth(er)]

1) Climate scientists are not trustworthy. They are funded, directly or indirectly, by the same government that promotes climate change as a serious problem. This is nothing but a naked grab for power.

Remember, climate scientists have no possibility of finding work in the private sector. They are forever dependent on government money. The government will call the tune they play.

2) Even if you accept that global warming is true, you cannot force China and India to stop using oil. You cannot prevent them from polluting. You cannot get them to agree to any climate treaty that could easily be monitored.

The net result is pollution and a de-industrialized United States.

[Brawndo all the way]

CO2 - it's got electrolytes that plants hate!

[tommy]

"If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more."

If global warming is real and the Senate does pass a bill, then the consequences will still be dire. Passing a bill will do nothing to curb emissions in countries like India or China.

[DaveinHackensack]

"- millions of jobs. Yeah right, we've heard that before. But what about the millions of well paying, skilled jobs that it would cost in oil rigging, refining and distribution. How could there be millions *more* jobs unless Boxer is admitting that her proposed alternative is wildly more inefficient?"

Making energy more expensive, by mandating the use of more expensive sources of energy such as solar and wind, will cost jobs, not create more jobs on net. In particularly, it will destroy jobs in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing -- just what we don't as our economy needs to gradually shift from excessive consumption to more savings, production, and exports.

Incidentally, George Will recently quoted a Spanish economist, who noted that Spain was the world leader in wind energy and has an unemployment rate of 18%. The Spanish economist estimated that the huge government subsidies for alternative energy in Spain lead to a net loss of jobs, when taking into account the jobs lost outside of alternative energy. I blogged about this at the time here: http://thehackensack.blogspot.com/2009/06/tilting-at-green-windmills.html

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

"If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming..."
I'm sure the climate pays close attention to the US Senate and obeys all US laws.

Chris: "That's why I don't vote."
Then buy thi$.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

thi$ = http://www.cafepress.com/subgen.14536564

[Lugo]

"less foreign oil: might be nice but in reality even if we never imported another drop of oil we would still be enormously dependent on it.

HS: Oil is a global commodity, so it's impossible to change the fact that the world as a whole is dependent on oil exporting countries."

Also one should note that if we don't use the foreign oil, SOMEONE ELSE will. Oil will remain a cheap and effective source of energy, and it will be even cheaper if we don't use it and thus dramatically decrease demand. Thus, we will have made energy more expensive for ourselves, and cheaper for others, while not helping the environment at all because the same amount of oil is being used. What a great strategy!

[Beta C. Mag]

"Then buy thi$."

These first:

http://www.betaco.com/

[mikeca]

The point most people are missing here is that the age of cheap hydrocarbon based energy is drawing to a close. It probably will not end abruptly, although the 2008 run up in oil prices gives you a taste of what can happen when demand exceeds supply by even a small amount.

Hydrocarbon based energy is going to cost more in the future. Whether that comes from higher taxes or higher market prices, you are going to paying more for your hydrocarbon based energy. You can be paying that extra money in taxes to our government or you can be paying it to middle east sheiks, Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez.

Take your pick.

[silly girl]

Reminds me of the old joke about the Louisiana legislature passing a law to make pi = 3. You can't change the natural laws. Gravity Strictly Enforced!

[JohnM]

"1) Climate scientists are not trustworthy. They are funded, directly or indirectly, by the same government that promotes climate change as a serious problem. This is nothing but a naked grab for power."

Are you for real? Have you met any scientists recently? I got new for you. Virtually all science and medical fields are funded directly or indirectly by the govt.

Do you honestly think a person will go through 4 years of college, 4-5 years of grad school, all the while studying climatology, just so that they can grab power and get rich? Yeah, that's where all the money is. Climatology.

Heck, why do real research on such topics as hurricane tracking, storm research and flood control when I can make up shit about future climate change, just so I can scare people? That way I can help the government gain power and I can pay off my kids braces. Why address real environmental concerns such as rain forest depletion, wetland destruction, and desertification when I can make climate predictions and get rich off of government grants?

Yeah, better get virtually every single climate specialist in the whole fucking world together for a secret meeting. Oh and invite those folks in meteorology, oceanography, and the world health organization together to vouch for us. We gotta get our facts straight.

You guys are all a bunch of proles. It's obvious you haven't met any type of research scientist.

I hope you all start smoking. You should. After all, most cancer researchers get their money from government grants. And the warnings about lung cancer are just a power grab from the government, who wants to tax the tobacco companies to line their coffers. cancer specialists are not trustworthy. They are funded, directly or indirectly, by the same government that promotes cancer as a serious problem. This is nothing but a naked grab for power.

Maybe we can get some darwinism in action here. Or do you think that's all a conspiracy too? It wouldn't surprise me.

[brazil84]

"oil isn't used to generate electricity in the U.S., except for a few peaker plants."

That's correct, but coal and nuclear could be used in conjunction as a substitute for oil. e.g. electric cars, hydrogen powered cars, or even coal gasification.

I understand the Nazis used coal gasification back in the 1940s when they ran low on oil reserves. So the technology has been around for a while. Presumably we could improve it a bit.

I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me we could build nuclear power plants in the middle of nowhere in the West and use the energy to gasify coal. Since the plants would be in the middle of nowhere, we could spend a lot less money on safety and security.

"This is actually not true"

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that oil is used to generate electricity in the US. Just that coal and nuclear could be used to substitute for oil.

[Zeenon]

@DavinHackensack: Correlation =/= Causation. Spain's high unemployment rate is more a product of it's basically open door immigration policies than alternative energy.

[bbartlog]

"a politician would get laughed out of office any time they claimed taking money from productive segments of society and doling it out to unprofitable segments, will magically give a net increase in jobs"

I think you haven't really perceived the fallacy. Government surely *can* create jobs - but our standard of living is not defined by how many people we have laboring at any one time, but rather by how productive we are. The creation of low-paying (or for that matter high-paying) jobs that create nothing of value is not beneficial - quite the opposite.

[HS: Yep, it's more honest just to give people free money than to make them work at bogus and useless tasks.]

[Liberals Are Fascists]

Where did Barbara get her science degree? Oh, she doesn't have one, she's just a prattling imbecile.

Posted by: Lugo
=

Please address her as SENATOR Prattling Imbecile. It's just a thing. She worked so hard to get that title. She'd appreciate it.

[silly girl]

My gut feeling on oil, gas and energy is basically since we don't yet have a totally renewable replacement for oil, we should do our damnedest to be the first to come up with a replacement and patent it. Until then we should buy foreign oil exclusively and bleed the rest of the world dry first before using our own. That way when theirs is all gone we will still have all of our reserves and they will be at our mercy instead of our being at their mercy. I feel a little guilty for being so cut throat about it, but that is my gut feeling.

[Truth(er)]

"Hydrocarbon based energy is going to cost more in the future. Whether that comes from higher taxes or higher market prices, you are going to paying more for your hydrocarbon based energy. You can be paying that extra money in taxes to our government or you can be paying it to middle east sheiks, Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez.

Take your pick."

Or, we could be seizing Middle East oil fields for our own use. Cut out these middle men.

[sabril]

"Do you honestly think a person will go through 4 years of college, 4-5 years of grad school, all the while studying climatology, just so that they can grab power and get rich? Yeah, that's where all the money is. Climatology."

I doubt anyone goes in to climatology with the idea of getting rich. The problem is that -- like anywhere else -- tenure track jobs are scarce. And funding is scarce. And opportunities to publish in prestigious journals are scarce.

Apparently it helps a good deal in competing for these goodies if you relate your research to the party line on global warming. Or at least don't contradict the party line.

A similar phenomenon occurs in many of the humanities. To get ahead, it helps to worship the holy trinity of race, gender, and sexual orientation.

And don't even get me started about James Watson.

[Liberals Are Fascists]

It may be more honest to just give people free money without making them work at useless tasks, but there is something to be said for making them work, if only as a disincentive for their sloth and irresponsibility.

[Gil]

Touché JohnM. Mind you lung cancer was a rare disease prior to 1930 hence it wasn't until the 20th century that there was a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Yet smoking has been around for well over 300 years. The plot thickens . . .

Oh well. Hippie-do-gooding Liberals believe that people shouldn't foist negative externalities onto others. If the West is creating climate problems that would affect those who had nothing to do with it then they ought to do something about it. Conservatives, on the other hand, understand you can't make omelettes with breaking eggs and that the Earth was made for the strong not the weak. Hence, the strong have a right, nay - a duty, to foist any negative externalities onto the weak in the quest for economic progress. Besides Conservatives would point out that 'unnatural' living allows some 6.7 billion people to live when 'natural' living only allows for 300-500 million to survive. Therefore those who can displaced from any effect of 'Global Warming' (if they could even prove it which they can't) can look to the developed nations for jobs.

[Peter A]

Yep, it's more honest just to give people free money than to make them work at bogus and useless tasks.

More honest maybe, but also more destructive. Really. Look at Japan for example. Societies actually seem to work better when you dress up the useless part of the population in nice uniforms and give them some some simple stupid task to do (i.e. gas station attendant, train platform monitor, store greeter,etc.) Japan is also a welfare state, but the welfare is indirect and imposed by social convention and government regulation. The result is higher prices and less consumer consumption but it does seem to keep crime down. People need some dignity or they tend to turn anti-social.

[Burley]

"I hope you all start smoking. You should. After all, most cancer researchers get their money from government grants. And the warnings about lung cancer are just a power grab from the government, who wants to tax the tobacco companies to line their coffers. cancer specialists are not trustworthy. They are funded, directly or indirectly, by the same government that promotes cancer as a serious problem. This is nothing but a naked grab for power."

Would this be the same gov't that subsidizes tobacco farmers?

[Sato]

"The result is higher prices and less consumer consumption but it does seem to keep crime down."

I don't think it is the uniforms...

[Burley]

RE: The Gov't and AGW/Environmental Nonsense

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/15/perlmutter-provision-would-aid-familys-green-bank/

[sabril]

"Look at Japan for example."

This should be the official motto of the HBD-denialist crowd.

How about we look at Japanese-Americans and see what their crime rate is like? My prediction is that ethnically Japanese people have low crime everywhere, regardless of welfare or make work.

[Peter A]

Sabril and Sato - so you think just giving people money is better than making them work for that money? That solution doesn't seem to have worked very well in the UK. I don't think it's HBD - denialist to assume that most humans have some level of pride.

[sabril]

"so you think just giving people money is better than making them work for that money?"

I'm not sure which is better. Roughly speaking, my point is that giving makework jobs and uniforms) to people in the underclass is not likely to make them start acting like Japanese people.

[Truth(er)]

“Are you for real? Have you met any scientists recently? I got new for you. Virtually all science and medical fields are funded directly or indirectly by the govt”.

Actually, most scientific research is funded by private entities. Even if you are right, there still remains a distinction between politicized and non-politicized science. Politicized science is science used to support the design of public policy, whether or not the underlying science is true. Non-politicized science is the opposite. Climatology is an example of politicized science. Particle physics, for example, is not.

Politicized science may not, on the surface, be inaccurate. The problem is, once government policy is invested in a particular scientific outcome, it is very difficult for government to move away from that outcome. Right now, the bureaucracy is committed to pushing the idea that man damages the environment. It does so because that would give it enormous power over the population. In turn, it finds climate scientists to back its policy agenda.
I don’t understand why no one sees this. Furthermore, why would “meeting” a scientist change anything?

“Do you honestly think a person will go through 4 years of college, 4-5 years of grad school, all the while studying climatology, just so that they can grab power and get rich? Yeah, that's where all the money is. Climatology.”

It is not a power grab for climatologists. It is a power grab for government bureaucrats. Climatologists are just useful idiots helping men like Al Gore get rich.

“Heck, why do real research on such topics as hurricane tracking, storm research and flood control when I can make up shit about future climate change, just so I can scare people? That way I can help the government gain power and I can pay off my kids braces. Why address real environmental concerns such as rain forest depletion, wetland destruction, and desertification when I can make climate predictions and get rich off of government grants?”

Hurricane tracking was made possible by engineers using real science to build satellites. Climatologists are not responsible for that. “Storrm research” has yielded little in the way of controlling storms, predicting storms, or harnessing their power for any real use. Does “flood control” mean we no longer have damaging floods? I don’t think so. Wetlands, desertification and forest depletion are typical climatologist bugaboos designed to prevent development and castigate average people for having microwave ovens and other examples of modernity. Studying these fields yields nothing of value because experimental design is nearly impossible to do and these studies suffer from a severe correlation vs. causation problems. Any barely educated person can see that.

In other words, your profession is a fraud. In fact, if your profession is not a fraud, you could make money working for private agricultural companies helping them predict changes in climate that affect the growing season. Surely, your vaunted “climate models” should be able to tell agri-business if next year’s growing season is ideal for investing the opitmal amount of seed, fertilizer, water, etc. for maximizing crop yields. But you can’t do that, can you?

Yet, we’re supposed to trust the input from frauds like you when determining national policy.

“Yeah, better get virtually every single climate specialist in the whole fucking world together for a secret meeting. Oh and invite those folks in meteorology, oceanography, and the world health organization together to vouch for us. We gotta get our facts straight.”

You don’t need a secret meeting or a conspiracy. Like-minded people like you find each other because you all choose the same professions.

“I hope you all start smoking. You should. After all, most cancer researchers get their money from government grants. And the warnings about lung cancer are just a power grab from the government, who wants to tax the tobacco companies to line their coffers. cancer specialists are not trustworthy. They are funded, directly or indirectly, by the same government that promotes cancer as a serious problem. This is nothing but a naked grab for power.”

People have known about lung cancer from smoking for at least 100 years. The fraud “cancer researchers” are perpetrating is second-hand smoke. This is, again, from useless people who haven’t actually cured anything making nonsense proclamations.

[Gil]

Oh! Wow! Truth(er) has shown us the truth! Hurrah!

You could say space travel is a fraud because the only big time results came from government. Private ventures have barely got a vehicle into orbit. Conclusion - space travel isn't viable because private venturers don't waste their time with that which has a huge outlay and little-to-no return. Only government can waste enough resources to plonk men on the Moon, a merely 1.5 light-seconds from Earth and bring them back. Or did they? (* cue Capricornia One conspiracy theory *)

Maybe those who hate the thought of Global Warming and want people to show that the climate is changing via random effects and therefore no one can be held accountable should look in the world of insurance agencies. Insurance agencies make their money from making sure they can make it look the claimant didn't have all 't's crossed' and 'i's dotted' so they don't have to pay out claims. They would be the best at saying "climate is random, end of story, no need for anyone to pay anything".

Not to mention, and as you pointed, human success equals nature degradation. Those who 'despoil' nature are those who improve the human races' lot in life. Hence those who want to see Amazon rainforest kept in its natural state are condemning millions of South Americans to poverty so thousands of Westerners can feel good about themselves. Does it not mean there's a natural duty for those who wish to change the natural environement into cities and towns to expel those who want to 'be one with nature', that is to say, tribal people? What seems to be a negative externality is a going to be huge positive externality? After all, to combat climate change would require 'de-industrialisation'. Many Westerners may be keen at the thought of having their own organic farms, non-Weterners (esp. china and India) are looking to escape poverty and enjoy the standard of living that Westerners have been taking for granted for the last fifty years.

However, I totally disagree with your 'secondhand smoke' conspiracy theory. To determine whether secondhand smoke is dangerous merely requires an experiment whereby a smoker inhales from a cigarette then exhales into a bag. The contents of the bag can be examined to see if it contains any of the toxic chemicals that make up cigarette smoke. If it does - well there's the answer. A big reason why secondhand smoke isn't much of a killer per se is due to the fact that non-smokers don't usually hang around smokers. Duh!

[sabril]

"The contents of the bag can be examined to see if it contains any of the toxic chemicals that make up cigarette smoke."

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but right now you are breathing in asbestos, radon, and possibly many other toxic substances.

Not only that, but you are right now bathing in ionizing radiation.

[Truth(er)]

The responses to my post prove that a) people do not know how to read; and b) people are stupid.

The science and technology that went into the space program was based on science and technology that had proven itself in other fields.

The "science" of climatology is largely invented out of whole cloth with no history of actually proving itself.

For example, the teams that designed the Titan rockets had extensive private industry experience. They were given projects with deadlines and budgets to manage. It was not a difficult applying these principles to managing the space program.

Cimatology, on the other hand, has no industry background. Wouldn't you expect climatologists to cut their teeth trying to, say, predict the growing season for big agribusiness? Yet, people who cannot tell you what the weather will be like next year are confident that, in 50 years, we will have extensive desertification and all coastal cities will be flooded (a salutary idea since that would drown most Democrats.)

The people who, say, built the Titan rockets had extensive industry experience in electrical engineering, material science, aeronautics and other fields that have proven themselves in countless practical applications.

Where is the climatologist's practical background? Nowhere.

Why does government listen to these frauds? Power and control.

And this kind of thing happens a lot in government.

[Gil]

Why the hell would I breathing in asbestos of all things?

[Gil]

Well, Truth(er), I bet you have no time for macroeconomics either. Austrians and Keynesians have it all figured (allegedly) yet neither can give you a good stock tip. Maybe you could work well in the tobacco industry - not every smoker died prematurely and not every lung cancer victim smoked. There's a correlation between smoking and lung cancer but there's are also incidents of non-correlation hence it's dubious to claim causation, er right?

The best read I've read on Global Warming is:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM

And, yes, it includes a discussion on confusing meteorology versus climatology.

Besides would you conclude a warmer climate benefits mankind anyway? We should be welcoming it not shunning it?

But then what sort of magical powers would Al Gore types get from enacting further environmental laws? If it all comes to grief (Western government pass laws that cause businesses to flee to Asia and leave the West in dire poverty and civil strife) how would politicians feel powerful? Except being a big warlord fish in a small barbarian pond perhaps?

The basic question of Global Warming is whether it is occurring and will it be harmful to others. It doesn't necessarily matter if Global Warming benefits others but if Global Warming is harming those who aren't industrialised such that they are suffering from someone else's pollution then there's ground for the polluters to stop polluting or compensate the sufferers for the effectts thereof. (And, yes, compensation should only be proportional to the harm created - if there's little to no harm then there's little to no compensation.) Either that or you could say that pollution shouldn't be regulated (esp. via government) because it's progress and those who are downstream should pack up and get out of the way.

[sabril]

"Why the hell would I breathing in asbestos of all things?"

Because regular air contains asbestos. As far as anyone knows, it's not enough to cause serious health problems, but then again . . . who knows?

[Truth(er)]

Gil -

1) Nobody listens to macro-economists for stock tips. Look at the mess they made out of the Fed.
Look at their track record in calling bottoms just this year. Economists are shunned as stock pickers and rightfully so.

Keynsianism is thoroughly discredited, yet it is still used in government policy because it...provides power to bureaucrats.

I have an undergraduate degree in econ from the University of Chicago, and I can tell you, even then, no one taught Keynsian economics.

2)To put it bluntly, lung cancer is not important. Banning smoking or allowing people to smoke really has no bearing on any larger issue. My life and the lives of most people will change little no matter what the government does regarding cigarettes. Climate science's impact, on the other hand, is far more devastating.

3)Listening to climate scientists about climate change is like listening to economists about picking stocks. It's bound to lose you a lot of money.

4) Regarding pollution, you are missing a very important point about externalities: internalizing an externality is itself based on a cost-benefit approach. Simply recognizing that one set of human activities harms a third-party is not enough. Sometimes what is produced is so valuable that it is perfectly reasonable to let the externality go untouched.