« The end of wealth for the masses? | Main | Redshirting »

August 23, 2010

Comments

I would say that is part of the story. Another part of it is that global warming allows people to hate on whitey. It's really like the Duke Lacrosse hoax. Or Avatar.

"Astronomer Royal Martin Rees has publicly offered a bet that a biological catastrophe—accidental or intentional—will kill at least one million people by 2020 (so far, no takers)"

One million? The environmental movement's anti-DDT effort alone kills that many people every six months.

I still think this is the best video to show the folly of those who believe in Global Warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1hFKKmVcjg&feature=search

Charlton Heston reading from Jurassic Park's forward. Beautiful stuff.

"One million? The environmental movement's anti-DDT effort alone kills that many people every six months."

Maybe it means "one million people in a country the western media cares about" - i.e., not Africa. =)

Very interesting parallel between religious superstition and secural liberal superstition. One notes the same thing concerning liberal and religious creationism:

http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/liberals-who-deny-evolution.html

I think that this man-made catastrophe fits into the liberal paradigm very well. In essence, the liberal ideology stresses the primacy of man, in that his institutions and power supersede those of nature/God. Thus, he has the ability to reshape the Earth and then become "God" by saving it.

There seem to be two quasi-religious biases that misinform the (ostensibly) secular imagination. As you indicate, one is the "apple in God's eye" perspective that sees humanity as something intrinsically special and central in the scheme of things. The other, which seems more pronounced in the common misapprehension of Darwinian processes, is a tendency to view phenomena in teleological terms; that is, to infer a purpose behind observable events. I think these biases are particularly salient in the popular acceptance of AGW, which is my main reason for remaining agnostic about the subject.

I am starting to believe that anthropogenic global warming might be correct, not because I have personally been convinced by the evidence, but because scientists believe it.

For most of them, its plain old moral vanity. It makes them feel like they are "better than" the yokels who doubt the theory.

If we had ten straight record cold years with the worst winters in recorded history and cool summers replete with short growing seasons, the masses who support AGW would be --DISSAPOINTED-- that no looming catastrophe was imminent, not elated that we ducked the environmental apocolypse they have prophesized. All is vanity with these people.

I'm someone who has stumbled upon this blog in search for information and commentary on HBD. I completely accept HBD, and I'm deeply interested in its implications.

That said, as I've browsed the blog over the past several days, I've noted just how thin the line is between scientific review on this blog and lunatic paranoia. The HBD topics, for the most part, are approached logically, interspersed with commentary. The global warming posts are paranoid.

Because it is the dominant liberal viewpoint that HBD is not real, you subscribe to some vague conservative ideology. This "anti-liberal" disposition comes to overdetermine your viewpoint with regards to global warming--you think it's farcical.

I hate to break it to you: global warming is just as real as HBD. So it was very cold the past few winters. This does not refute global warming. One reason why it was "colder"--ironically--is that more water vapor (from evaporation) means more cloud cover. Clouds are white and reflect ~95% of sunlight. More clouds means colder temperatures in the short term. Moreover, places that are somewhat humid will become WETTER over the next few decades (i.e., more snow and cloud cover), and places that are drier will become even more dry. Also, global warming does not mean all places will get warmer--just that on AVERAGE--the globe will get warmer. (It should be in the range of 3 degrees warmer by the 2nd half of the century. It doesn't sound like much, but in the last ice age the Earth was 6 degrees colder.) Europe, for example, will probably get colder because the north atlantic current, which warms it, will get blocked off by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. In sum, climate change is very complicated--I'm just using these examples as illustrations.

One more random fact: the US, over recent years, has not felt the full brunt of global warming (in terms of an absolute rise in temps). According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the planet has just come through the warmest decade, the warmest 12 months, the warmest six months, and the warmest April, May, and June on record.

LOL, global warming's going to make things colder. Didn't you get the memo? Leftist scaremongering is about "climate change" now, not global warming.

And US has not felt the brunt of global warming. So the US is not, um, on the globe? Or the warming is not global?

You can't even tell a coherent story and you think we're the paranoid lunatics when we don't believe you?

"So the US is not, um, on the globe? Or the warming is not global?"

Are you serious?

"I hate to break it to you: global warming is just as real as HBD"

Well it depends what you mean by "global warming."

Do you mean that global surface temperatures have generally increased over the last 100 years?

Do you mean that mankind's CO2 emissions are likely to cause an increase in global surface temperatures?

Do you mean that mankind's CO2 emissions will cause an increase in global surface temperatures which will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback?

I suspect that you yourself haven't given careful thought to what exactly is meant by "global warming."

By the way, I've had these sorts of internet discussions on global warming many times where somebody wanders in and arrogantly announces the Tidings of Warmism.

Almost always when I ask them to explain exactly what is meant by "global warming," they simply disappear.

Human-caused global warming appears, prima facie at least from the consensus, to be the current position held by experts in that particular field. Now, if you think that all of their peer-reviewed research has been compromised by a dogmatic belief in X or Y, I suppose that's possible---it's not as though such things haven't happened before in history---but I don't have any reason to believe it's that likely.

To me, this is like a liberal charging that a conservative's disapproval of the welfare state is motivated by irrational racism, and then arguing that this fact renders his claims invalid.

"One reason why it was "colder"--ironically--is that more water vapor (from evaporation) means more cloud cover. Clouds are white and reflect ~95% of sunlight."

By the way, this is the opposite of the popular global warming hypothesis, which holds that water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas and causes temperatures to increase.

CO2 emissions are leading to an increase in temperatures, period. There are natural cycles within the climate--sure--but controlling for those factors, the excess of CO2 is contributing to temperature rise. There are a multitude of variables contributing to a positive feedback loop: e.g., less ice = less reflectivity = faster warming ---> unlocking methane (greenhouse gas) in permafrost-->even faster warming....etc.

Insider said it. It is intensely irrational to believe the scientifically peer reviewed lit is bunk, just as it is to believe that racial gaps are purely environmental.

To me, the variance among readers of HBD blogs is pretty fascinating in itself, as I only entered the game 2 weeks ago. You get really intelligent, scientifically-adept people searching for answers on HBD, and you get not-so-intelligent people with an underlying distrust of minorities simply looking for some justification for their beliefs. Are their beliefs completely unjustified? Not necessarily, but their original motives are suspect.

"CO2 emissions are leading to an increase in temperatures, period"

That's probably true, but so what?

And why can't you answer my question?

"There are natural cycles within the climate--sure--but controlling for those factors, the excess of CO2 is contributing to temperature rise."

Cites, links, and quotes please.

"There are a multitude of variables contributing to a positive feedback loop: e.g., less ice = less reflectivity = faster warming ---> unlocking methane (greenhouse gas) in permafrost-->even faster warming....etc."

That's meaningless unless potential positive feedback loops are compared in magnitude to potential negative feedback loops.

"t is intensely irrational to believe the scientifically peer reviewed lit is bunk,"

So you accept the scientifically peer-reviewed publications of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer?

Since jcen seems to have disappeared, I will answer my own questions.

First:

_____________

"CO2 emissions are leading to an increase in temperatures, period"

That's probably true, but so what?

______________

The answer is that many -- perhaps most -- serious skeptics, for example Richard Lindzen, do not dispute that increase levels of CO2 may very well cause temperatures to increase.

The real dispute is over feedback. Warmists claim (with essentially no evidence) that any temperature increase will be dramatically amplified by water vapor feedback.

Second:
________________

"There are natural cycles within the climate--sure--but controlling for those factors, the excess of CO2 is contributing to temperature rise."

Cites, links, and quotes please.

__________________

As far as I know, the only evidence to support this sort of claim is untested computer simulations. There's no evidence that anyone understands the climate well enough to know what temperatures would have been without the influence of extra CO2.

Third:
__________________

"t is intensely irrational to believe the scientifically peer reviewed lit is bunk,"

So you accept the scientifically peer-reviewed publications of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer?

_____________________

The answer is presumably "no." As an apparent warmist, jcen presumably believes that much of the peer-reviewed literature is "bunk."

I don't think this makes him per se irrational, but neither is it per se irrational to reject publications of the likes of Michael Mann or James Hanson.

Holy crap! This is almost a word for word passage from a book called Eco-Scam, by Ronald Baily! Even the whole comparison to the atom bit... I've had this quote memorized for YEARS and is what I always tell hippies when they get all moralistic on me!

But whatever, nothing will be done about this...

The comments to this entry are closed.