Just tax the people. They wont mind. They will be so happy about being taxed they will embrace it and make more jobs at the same time they will see a lose in gross funds. That's brilliant!
How do they think "green jobs" will somehow magically be profitable when there is no actaul need for these jobs? Maybe that is what is happening they are slowly manufacturing the need by pushing going green? Forcing the need thru regulation? I still don't think they will be profitable.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-03-2009).]
In about twenty years when more data is in I will take sides on this issue. Fat chance I will still be here. In the mean time, please tax the crap out of me, I hear there are maybe ten pounds stuck to my intestinal walls.
It doesn't matter. It's NOT warming, despite all the arm-waving that we're either at or past some bullshit "tipping point". It's not happening. Now they're lying about it, saying "warming is accelerating". There is NO evidence, NO data to support that.
(whispering: that's how you can tell someone is dishonest and is deceiving you...when what they say is consistently untrue)
So I read that article and it all boiled down to this statement.
"Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming". However, they go on to state that greenhouse-gas driven global warming will resume full-force after the ten-year break is over."
Daaahhhh......... Of course the earth warms and cools in cycles and after a cooling cycle it goes into a warming cycle...with or without mankind on the face of the planet..
LOL, so now theyre saying global warming is taking a 10 year break ??? Now thats funny as hell. Weve been breaking cold records almost daily here, and I see all the ice in Florida this morning. What excuse are the Goreites going to use when its still cold after their 10 year 'cycle'. OMG, thats just funnier than watching Earl. I guess they will just keep adjusting the cycle to start later. Gore, go shoot yourself and put us out of your misery.
Yup. For 20 years, they've been armwaving about "runaway warming" and "tipping points", now they push back catastrophe another 10 years. Within the year, you'll see the U.S. commit to an 80% reduction in CO2. Next year, a new international treaty - Copenhagen - will be signed to replace Kyoto. The U.S. is expected to sign. This despite CONSISTENTLY wrong projections of warming.
Professor Eric Steig last month announced in Nature that he’d spotted a warming in West Antarctica that previous researchers had missed through slackness - a warming so strong that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica.
Whew! Finally we had proof that Antarctica as a whole was warming, and not cooling, after all. Global warming really was global now.
The paper was immediately greeted with suspicion, not least because one of the authors was Michael Mann of the infamous “hockey stick”, now discredited, and the data was reconstructed from very sketchy weather station records, combined with assumptions from satellite observations.
But Steve McIntyre, who did most to expose Mann’s “hockey stick”, now notices a far more embarrassing problem with Steig’s paper.
Previous researchers hadn’t overlooked the data. What they’d done was to ignore data from four West Antarctic automatic weather stations in particular that didn’t meet their quality control. As you can see above, one shows no warming, two show insignificant warming and fourth - from a station dubbed “Harry” shows a sharp jump in temperature that helped Steig and his team discover their warming Antarctic.
Uh oh.
Harry in fact is a problematic site that was buried in snow for years and then re-sited in 2005. But, worse, the data that Steig used in his modelling which he claimed came from Harry was actually old data from another station on the Ross Ice Shelf known as Gill with new data from Harry added to it, producing the abrupt warming. The data is worthless. Or as McIntyre puts it:
Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in “New Harry” arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It’s a mess.
Read this link and this to see McIntyre’s superb forensic work.
Why wasn’t this error picked up earlier? Perhaps because the researchers got the results they’d hoped for, and no alarm bell went off that made them check. Now, wait for the papers to report the error with the zeal with which they reported Steig’s “warming”.
So after this ten year period (or more) do you think they will say, well these taxes and economy strangling policies we started seem to be working, we better keep up the good work! (?)
So after this ten year period (or more) do you think they will say, well these taxes and economy strangling policies we started seem to be working, we better keep up the good work! (?)
Oh, you can pretty much count on it! They've already proven they are dishonest, so there is no reason to expect they'll suddenly tell the truth (or acknowledge they're wrong).
So I read that article and it all boiled down to this statement.
"Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming". However, they go on to state that greenhouse-gas driven global warming will resume full-force after the ten-year break is over."
Way to cherry pick... That's what ONE researcher says. The paragraph after that tells the full story.
"Other climate modelers disagree with this predicted "break" in global warming. Both theories are reasonable ones, and it is possible that the recent cool years portend the ten-year "break" from global warming hypothesized by Keenlyside et al. It is too early to tell, since the relative coolness of the past few years could easily be natural "noise" (weather) imposed on the long-term global warming trend. The fact that we've had a cold winter in eastern North America and in the UK--or any other anecdotal cold or snow-related record you may hear about--can't tell us whether global warming may be slowing down or not. The amount of global warming over the past century has only been about 1.3°F (0.74°C). Thus, it should not surprise us, for example, if temperatures during tonight's hard freeze in Florida bottom out at 25°F, instead of the 24°F it would have reached 100 years ago. The long-term ten and thirty year trends in global temperature are solidly upwards in accordance with global warming theory, and claims that the globe is cooling cannot be scientifically defended."
Its getting colder all around the world because of global warming caused by CO2 that is ever increasing but its going to take a 10 year coffee break......
Way to cherry pick... That's what ONE researcher says. The paragraph after that tells the full story.
"Other climate modelers disagree with this predicted "break" in global warming. Both theories are reasonable ones, and it is possible that the recent cool years portend the ten-year "break" from global warming hypothesized by Keenlyside et al. It is too early to tell, since the relative coolness of the past few years could easily be natural "noise" (weather) imposed on the long-term global warming trend. The fact that we've had a cold winter in eastern North America and in the UK--or any other anecdotal cold or snow-related record you may hear about--can't tell us whether global warming may be slowing down or not. The amount of global warming over the past century has only been about 1.3°F (0.74°C). Thus, it should not surprise us, for example, if temperatures during tonight's hard freeze in Florida bottom out at 25°F, instead of the 24°F it would have reached 100 years ago. The long-term ten and thirty year trends in global temperature are solidly upwards in accordance with global warming theory, and claims that the globe is cooling cannot be scientifically defended."
For once, you're right, Ryan! The above can't tell the whole story. For that, you'll have to go back in this thread and see the 10-11 year trend in temperatures. Only then will you be able to tell there is no warming.
These are quotes from a previously posted "study":
"Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
Climatologists are touting themselves as the only ones who can really understand the NUANCE. If the rest of we morons, (morons including other scientists with advanced degrees) were only as smart as them, we would understand that anthropogenic global warming is real. Really? You mean NUANCE like mixing data from separate collecting sites, putting it into one graph, and calling it a warming trend? You mean NUANCE like the NASA guy who can't even record data correctly? Scientific geniuses like that?
But look at their approach to "science" just in the poll.
They ask a VAGUE question. Has human activity been A, SIGNIFICANT factor. How significant? Kind of? Very? THE signficant answer? These are supposed to be SCIENTISTS. They are supposed to be interested in gathering PRECISE information. When SCIENTISTS ask vague, imprecise questions they are either stupid or they are INTENTIONALLY asking a vague question to beg a certain answer. You make the call. Stupid or intentionally biased.
Well, yeah, but 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS believe it. No kidding. They are a field of study. They have their "models". They train each other. Of COURSE they have a consensus.
But the explanation to explain away that fact is what takes the cake:
"...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes..."
UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS!
Yeah. A lowly petroleum geologist, well, there is just NO WAY they are going to be smart enough to handle the NUANCES AND SCIENTIFIC basis of climatology. No way. It is WAY above them.
And don't even get me STARTED about METEOROLOGISTS. Those morons? They could never understand OUR stuff. It has too much NUANCE.
Groups of people that DON'T have to bow down to the climatology preconceived biased model, less than half go for their conclusions. Well, maybe they just cannot believe that people that are so pathetic with the fundamentals of actually handling data would even be given serious consideration as scientists.
I honestly cannot remember any field of science that has had so much problems with simply mishandling or representing data that hasn't been vilified for it. I would be curious as to someone explanation why this particular field has been singled out as not being held to the same standard.
Would most climatologists be inclined to say we have an emergency here we need more funding, or there is nothing to see here you can use the money you have from taxes for healthcare?
LOL! The bear is cool but the rest of the incorrect assumptions is just another example of the lies gorites will espouse.
“Having a polar bear show up in your front yard is one of the more compelling pieces of evidence that climate change is real.” .......Ummm not when you are in their habitat. Polar bears have been seen foraging in trash of artic communities for a very long time.
Originally posted by Phranc: “Having a polar bear show up in your front yard is one of the more compelling pieces of evidence that climate change is real.” .......Ummm not when you are in their habitat.
It's the sun, not CO2, that's to blame David J. Bellamy and Mark Duchamp Friday, January 30, 2009
OP-ED:
After the wet and cold centuries of the Little Ice Age (around 1550-1850 A.D.), the world's climate recuperated some warmth, but did not replicate the balmy period known as the Middle Age Warm Period (around 800-1300 A.D.), when the margins of Greenland were green and England had vineyards.
Climate began to cool again after World War II, for about 30 years. This is undisputed. The cooling occurred at a time when emissions of C02 were rising sharply from the reconstruction effort and from unprecedented development. It is important to realize that.
By 1978 it had started to warm again, to everybody's relief. But two decades later, after the temperature peaked in 1998 under the influence of El Nino, climate stopped warming for eight years; and in 2007 entered a cooling phase marked by lower solar radiation and a reversal of the cycles of warm ocean temperature in the Atlantic and the Pacific. And here again, it is important to note that this new cooling period is occurring concurrently with an acceleration in CO2 emissions, caused by the emergence of two industrial giants: China and India.
To anyone analyzing this data with common sense, it is obvious that factors other than CO2 emissions are ruling the climate. And the same applies to other periods of the planet's history. Al Gore, in his famous movie "The Inconvenient Truth," had simply omitted to say that for the past 420,000 years that he cited as an example, rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere always followed increases in global temperature by at least 800 years. It means that CO2 can't possibly be the cause of the warming cycles.
So, if it's not CO2, what is it that makes the world's temperature periodically rise and fall? The obvious answer is the sun, and sea currents in a subsidiary manner.
The tilt of Earth, the shape of Earth's orbit (distance to the sun), and Earth's "wobble" as it turns around the sun are all important factors in the cyclical recurrence of ice ages and interglacial periods. It has been observed that ice ages last about 100,000 years, and warm interglacials only 12,000. And within these warm periods, variations in solar activity cause shorter periods of less-pronounced warming and cooling.
There is no way to know for sure if the present cooling period will last several decades or 100,000 years. Russian scientists have just warned that a fully-blown ice age is not to be ruled out, as about 12,000 years have elapsed since the end of the last one.
Entering a new ice age would be a disaster for humanity: billions of people could die from lack of food, from the cold, and from the collapse of the world economy, social strife, war, etc.
And if what's ahead of us is only a little ice age, the consequences would still be pretty dire. World food reserves are already low, and we can barely feed the current population of the planet. Surfaces of arable land used for bio-fuels and biomass are increasing. Cool and wet summers would cause crop failures as they did in the Little Ice Age (as a result, starving Parisians had taken to the streets, soon sending their king to the guillotine). Winter frost would also bring its share of misery, destroying fruits and vegetables on a large scale.
Let's just hope we'll only have a few years of cooling, and that another warming period will follow. But it may be wishful thinking. In any case, there will be hardship during the cold cycle, whatever its length.
As President Obama takes office, and as the European Union is about to waste one trillion euros to de-carbonize the economy (in a bid to stop nonexistent man-made global warming) they would be well-advised to perform a reality check on what's currently happening to the climate. Talking to independent scientists about the positive properties of CO2 (plant food that enhances crops) would also be a good idea.
If they don't, we may be in for mass starvation. And let's not forget that the world population is increasing by about 78 million every year.
David J. Bellamy is a professor at three British universities and an officer in several conservation organizations. Mark Duchamp, a retired businessman, has investigated global- warming theory and written more than 100 articles.
I know I'm not alone in my beliefs on this subject, but I tend to repeat myself so please excuse me if I do.
These Goerites will not stop spreading the untruth of Anthropological GW because they have a fundamental problem. They simply do not believe God created the global weather system.
They instead believe that Mankind somehow can control his manifest destiny and can somehow overcome whatever challenges come along.
Ten years from now when the earth starts to warm again in its continued cycle, these guys will still not believe that God created the universe and will not believe He put in place cycles that we cannot overcome. The current Sun cycle of no solar storms is simply part of the cycle and when they start up again it will be again part of the cycle.
These Goerites and fortunes invested in their mistake belief and have vested interests in promoting the "green technology" industries. They will continue to fight to protect their investmensts. In the meanwhile, if we enter another mini-ice age, you can bet they claim it would be worse if not for ---- wait for it----- Global Warming by human generation.
I know I'm not alone in my beliefs on this subject, but I tend to repeat myself so please excuse me if I do.
These Goerites will not stop spreading the untruth of Anthropological GW because they have a fundamental problem. They simply do not believe God created the global weather system.
They instead believe that Mankind somehow can control his manifest destiny and can somehow overcome whatever challenges come along.
Ten years from now when the earth starts to warm again in its continued cycle, these guys will still not believe that God created the universe and will not believe He put in place cycles that we cannot overcome. The current Sun cycle of no solar storms is simply part of the cycle and when they start up again it will be again part of the cycle.
These Goerites and fortunes invested in their mistake belief and have vested interests in promoting the "green technology" industries. They will continue to fight to protect their investmensts. In the meanwhile, if we enter another mini-ice age, you can bet they claim it would be worse if not for ---- wait for it----- Global Warming by human generation.
Arn
I don't believe in god. God has nothing to do with what they believe when it comes to global warming.
Wow. For the record, I'm not a "Goreite". I don't like propaganda or fear mongering.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: They instead believe that Mankind somehow can control his manifest destiny and can somehow overcome whatever challenges come along.
But that's the biggest load of crap I've ever seen on this forum. Throw up your hands! God will save the day! If God had meant for us to fly, he would have given us wings! If God had meant for us to go to the moon, he would have built a ladder!
No, we write our own destiny.
p.s. I think it's quite hypocritical that "religion" and "environmentalism" seem to be in opposite corners. Being good stewards of God's creation makes more sense to me than "rape the world, let God sort it out"...
[This message has been edited by ryan.hess (edited 02-06-2009).]
We are mere specks in the universe. Whether you believe in God or not, there are forces at work in our solar system that we cannot modify, influence, or change. If nature, or God, or the big Kahuna decide the sun isn't going to go into a storm cycle, then we're going to get colder. If the sun decides to go into a storm cycle, we'll get warmer.
On the lighter side, if you have 3 million bison on the great plains, over a million deer in the big forests and the pre-industrial wild life vs. 450 million Americans and 35 milliion Canadians, who will produce more hot air? If a wild fire goes unchecked across the prairie, or through the northern forests, or Mount St. Helen's erupts, what will produce more carbon? If you compare the huge forest fires of bygone centuries vs. the Alberta tar sands project? What is the greater influence? Especially when CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere. These Goerites still think they can mitigate forces well beyond their control and they are wrong.
Don't worry about "carbon" or CO2. It has NEVER driven temperature on this planet, and it's not doing it now. Worry about asinine carbon taxes and other government intervention.
Friday, February 06, 2009 More bad news for the media.
Fifty-four percent (54%) of U.S. voters say the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is. Only 21% say the media present an accurate picture, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Thirteen percent (13%) think the media make climate change appear to be better than it truly is. Twelve percent (12%) don’t have an opinion.
No wonder 23% say it is at least somewhat likely that global warming will destroy human civilization within the next century. Common to all surveys about the media, Republicans are more critical than Democrats.
Seventy-nine percent (79%) of GOP voters say the media paints a darker picture of global warming that the reality merits, and 63% of voters not affiliated with either party agree. Democrats, however, are much more closely divided: 27% say the media make it look worse than it is, 22% better, and 34% say they present an accurate picture.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls).
Men are more skeptical about media coverage of global warming than women. Younger voters question it more than their elders.
Whites are more than twice as likely as African-Americans to say the media make global warming look worse than it is.
One beneficiary of positive media coverage is former Vice President Al Gore who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-global warming efforts. But only 36% of voters believe he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the environment and global warming.
Still, 64% of voters think global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 41% saying it is Very Serious. These numbers are down slightly from earlier surveys.
But voters are shifting away from the idea promoted by Gore and others that human activity is the cause of global warming and are viewing it instead more as the result of long-term planetary trends.
The majority perception that the media aren’t playing it straight with global warming matches similar Rasmussen Reports surveys last year in which doubts were raised about news coverage of the presidential campaign and the problems in the economy. Public unhappiness with this coverage comes at a time when newspapers, magazines and broadcast media are all dramatically downsizing, thanks to shrinking audiences and advertising revenues.
In a survey in mid-November, 46% of Americans said most reporters and media outlets try to make the economy seem worse than it really is. This was a slight improvement from July, however, when 50% said the media was guilty of painting a worse economic picture than the facts merited.
Just before last November’s election, 68% of voters said most reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and 51% believed they were trying to help Democrat Barack Obama. Just seven percent (7%) thought they were trying to help his Republican opponent, John McCain.
The number of those suspecting a media tilt toward Obama had grown since June when just 44% believed reporters would try to help him get elected. At that time 13% thought they would work for McCain’s benefit.
The recent European Union climate agreement provides a useful warning to incoming President Obama and his team when they consider what to do about global warming. The rhetoric from the EU may sound nice, but when it comes to translating words into action, Europe has shown that the job is harder than it looks. EU member states have found it very difficult to reduce emissions, meet renewable energy targets or create lasting green jobs.
The European Union has had a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions in place for several years now, but has failed to make much dent in emissions. This is important to America, because a cap-and-trade scheme is President Obama's preferred policy vehicle for delivering emissions reductions. Yet the European experience with cap-and-trade should sound alarm bells.
The scheme has been repeatedly gamed and manipulated by industry and governments so that emissions have actually increased faster than the those of the United States, with none of the big reductions promised materializing. Industries have enjoyed windfall profits from emission credit trading, and some U.S. firms also have hoped to cash in - Enron and more recently Lehman Brothers were major proponents of American adoption of cap-and-trade policies.
For everyone else, however, results have not been so happy. European households have seen electricity bills rise. Europe has become more dependent on Russian gas. And a recent study by the British think tank Open Europe found the scheme's major costs accrued to essential public service facilities like schools and hospitals.
Meeting renewable energy targets has been no walk in the park, either. Leaked British government documents reveal how meeting the target of 20 percent of all energy being from renewable sources by 2020 is next to impossible.
In addition, the massive conglomerate of subsidies and mandates necessary for such an energy supply transformation would create large distortions that would severely hamper sound functioning of the market. Indeed, former Business Secretary John Hutton hinted that Prime Minister Gordon Brown should join with more skeptical European countries, such as Poland, to lobby for a reduction in the targets.
Spain, meanwhile, faces the prospect of government-induced "green" unemployment. Spain's renewable energy sector expanded very quickly due to large government incentives - which the government has since realized are unsustainable, so the industry is now cutting back. While Spanish taxpayers and consumers will pay higher bills for years, the stock value of green energy firms has crashed more than the stock market index, even in these troubled times. Up to 40,000 jobs could be lost in 2009 as the number of "green jobs" contracts.
Moreover, most of these "green jobs" were transitory, anyhow, mostly connected with construction, not operation. A study funded by the German Environment Ministry shows the net effect on job creation - the number of green jobs created minus the number of jobs lost because of higher energy prices - can be positive only insofar as the country remains a net technology exporter. Thus, the net effect on net European job creation can easily be negative.
Considering all this, it should not be surprising that the recent negotiations proved difficult - and yielded results that environmental pressure groups described as "embarrassing." Those "embarrassing" results are due to a confused, self-contradictory policy that sets unrealistic targets, while it creates a way out of those targets.
The European Commission called for introducing tough rules to cut emissions and promote renewables, but a coalition of countries - including Italy, the Eastern member states, and, albeit less vocally, Germany and Spain - asked for and got exceptions to reduce the economic impact of the climate deal.
This means emission allowances will be auctioned, but most will be distributed for free by governments to the economic sectors most effective in lobbying. This all comes at a very high price - not just great economic costs but major regulatory uncertainty.
Hence, a greater degree of political interventionism is likely to come. National governments will be able to spend the revenues from auctions in subsidizing further green energy projects, adding to existing market distortions.
Given the huge amount of money that will be doled out directly or indirectly - by EU decisions over whether a sector can be exempted from buying allowances - one might expect the commission's efforts will boost not just the green industry, but also the industries that can provide gifts and junkets for officials in Brussels.
And what is the upshot of all these huge costs and market distortions? A minuscule cut in emissions - 4 percent by 2020, far below the ambitious 20 percent target. As the Romans said, the mountains went into labor, and gave birth to a ridiculous mouse.
It is often said American Democratic politicians are more eager than their Republican counterparts to learn from Europe. In the case of global warming policy, such learning would be welcome, because the lessons from Europe are clear: Rhetoric can outpace action, and the action itself can be much more painful than rhetoric suggests.
The dems and their retarded cap and trade scam will go on full force despite the absolute failure of it in Europe. Just look at socialism. The dems love socialism and its been a failure in Europe for a long time.
The dems and their retarded cap and trade scam will go on full force despite the absolute failure of it in Europe. Just look at socialism. The dems love socialism and its been a failure in Europe for a long time.
But like good idealists, they will keep trying, with the thinking that "oh, it just wasn't done right before".
I don't believe in god. God has nothing to do with what they believe when it comes to global warming.
Whether you believe or not doesn't matter. You are right god has nothing to do with what they believe because they chose to believe there isn't a creator. I am sure for some it never entered their mind, and for otheres it is driving them to "prove" it.
Wonder when the Goreites are going to get on their soapbox blaming Austrailian fires on global warming.....since its been as high as 120* there................. and they wont mention that looks like most of it is arson.
Wonder when the Goreites are going to get on their soapbox blaming Austrailian fires on global warming.....since its been as high as 120* there................. and they wont mention that looks like most of it is arson.
They are too busy lying about "runaway global warming" and "polar bears going extict". But give 'em time. Being liars keeps 'em really busy.
Even the realization of Al Gore's dream of "capping" carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants wouldn't satisfy NASA's James Hansen. He wants to shut them all down, despite the untold human misery such hysterical action would inevitably bring. And toward that preposterously unattainable end he is now pushing panic buttons with the alacrity of a man truly possessed.
In a wild rant in Sunday's Guardian responding to British Prime Minster Gordon Brown's green-lighting of the controversial Kingsnorth power plant, the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies managed to outdo even his own sophomoric guilt trips and fear-mongering. Repeating last year's call for a moratorium on British coal-fired plants, which he has since extended to Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and others, Hansen branded coal as "the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet."
He insisted "that the coal source must be cut off" as "a cap only slows the use of a fuel - it does not leave it in the ground." Calling for a "phase-out of coal," Hansen even restated references to the plants as "factories of death," and trains carrying the black rocks to them as "death trains," the latter a toned-down adaptation of these outrageously offensive words he laid on the Iowa Utilities Board back in October of 2007:
"If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains - no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."
That he continues to evoke dreadful Nazi Death Camp imagery - however restrained - betrays a mind obsessed beyond reason. Indeed, when R. Naasz, president of the National Mining Association, protested "the [2007] suggestion that coal utilization for electricity generation can be equated with the systematic extermination of European Jewry is both repellant and preposterous," Hansen replied that Naasz "[did] not wish to have the message about the grave future consequences of unrestrained growth in coal-fired power plants publicly stated." Needless to say, he supported his signature straw man argument by blasting "increasing human-made greenhouse gases" as not only "a threat to humanity," but also the "predominant cause of extinction of species."
Of course, horror fans immediately recognize Origin of Species Extinction as a recurring theme in many a Hansen spook-story. Remember how last year's testimony that opening Kingsnorth would lead to the extinction of no less than "400 species" helped convince an OJ-caliber British jury that the criminal vandalism to the plant by six Greenpeace activists was "proportionate response" to the environmental damage the plant would have inflicted upon the region?
But in an effort to inflate the danger to over half of all species globally during Sunday's appeal to Brown, Hansen invoked previous warming periods: [emphasis mine]
"The most threatening change, from my perspective, is extermination of species. Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct.
Hansen asserted that previous periods of warming were caused by unspecified "amplifying feedbacks," having previously insisted that "the mechanisms causing planetary energy imbalance and global temperature change are the ice-albedo and GHG feedbacks," both of which "are now under control of humans." Yet, the most recent warming period -- prior to the one apparently concluded in 1998 -- was the Medieval Warm Period which ended half a millennium before the industrial age that spawned greenhouse gas-emitting machinery ever began.
Forgive me, but I doubt one need be a rocket (or, for that matter, a climate) scientist to appreciate the sophistry at play here.
Nevertheless, Hansen is so **** -sure that we're experiencing a warming era both unique and enduring, he concluded that "Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know," raising the "sea level 75 metres higher." That's over 12 times Al Gore's hysterically-driven 20 foot prediction and over 120 times the IPCC's "worst-case" prognosis. Clear? Yeah - as mud. Say Jim, just how "clear" will the wellbeing of the "planet we know" be should we heed your hysterical demands to decommission those plants with no immediately available and viable replacement for the vital power they generate?
Behold Hansen's alternate energy plan, as illustrated in a March 2008 letter to Duke Energy CEO James E. Rogers, after imploring the power honcho not to proceed with plans to build 2 new plants, claiming they'd be a waste of money. Explaining his sudden concern for Duke's bottom line, he wrote "we have already passed the limit for CO2" necessary to prevent reaching "tipping points," the effects of which include "intensified regional climate extremes" and, of course, "extermination of countless species," therefore "coal-fired power plants built now without CO2 sequestration will soon have to be shut down." So what might fulfill their duty? Wrote Hansen:
"Near-term demands for energy can be satisfied via a real emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energies. Neither carbon sequestration nor nuclear power can help in the near-term, and they both have serious issues even over the longer term."
Yes, carbon sequestration has "issues," not the least of which is lack of an economically and technologically viable design for both capture and long-term storage. And Hansen knows that, their recent carbophobic faux receptivity notwithstanding, bedrock greenies are not likely to renounce their engrained no-nuke ideology any time soon. So he's suggesting that we can replace our primary source of electricity with so-called "green technology."
Sounds great, but before investing in that windmill company, consider these current figures from the Energy Information Administration:
Coal-fired plants contributed 48.4 percent of the Nation's electric power, year-to-date. Nuclear plants contributed 19.4 percent, while 21.4 percent was generated at natural gas-fired plants. Of the 1.1 percent generated by petroleum-fired plants, petroleum liquids represented 0.8 percent, with the remainder from petroleum coke. Conventional hydroelectric power provided 6.4 percent of the total, while other renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining 3.1 percent of electric power
Of all "renewables," hydroelectric currently stands alone as economically feasible. But with most plants relying on population-relocating dammed water to drive their turbines, it, too, has many detractors. Add limited potential new installation sites and rising green complaints of fish endangerment, and we're not likely to see hydroelectric's reach rise much beyond 6 percent any time soon. And its fellow renewables all require creative tax breaks in order to keep their limited energy flowing. In fact, the new "stimulus" bill includes $20 billion in renewable energy tax incentives, and up to a three year extension of the "production tax credit," a per-kilowatt-hour credit paid to green energy companies to offset the dismal unprofitability of their business models. Surely, the only "green jobs" these policies will create or save will evaporate the moment the plug is pulled on federal subsidies, as will any meager "green energy" they produce.
However they spin it -- Coal remains King. It supplies nearly half the juice with which we power our lights, our refrigeration, our communication and environmental equipment, our land and air traffic control systems, our life-saving medical equipment, and countless other instruments crucial to both civilization and human survival. Not to mention computers, including those Hansen uses to generate his questionable climate models and written fear-mongering of their results.
So James, might you kindly explain -- without mention of extinction or sea-level rise or ice sheet disintegration -- just how you propose we close these "factories of death" without synchronously opening a global arena of human want, suffering and ultimate demise?
It pains me to type this, but this guy's whacky ideas make even Al Gore's lunacy ring marginally sane.
Even after last week's annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting, at which the Goracle likened his battle to stop global warming to that of 19th century abolitionists fighting to end slavery.
Indeed -- in gauging the measure of a movement, one need not delve far beyond its leadership.
