Free Markets, Free People

The “Great Scare” tries to get its second wind

Apparently it’s time to double down on “global warming”:

More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.

Of course, if the world, considering the economic position it’s in now, does decide to spend the money it thinks is necessary to do this, my guess is the result will be as bad if not worse. As has been pointed out many times, the effort to “tackle climate change” would require that trillions be spent on containing the human portion (which is tiny) of a trace gas while the natural sources, necessarily, continue on unabated.

Sounds like a brilliant plan, no?

And all of that with absolutely no assurance that it will change anything except the poverty level.  And that will go up markedly.

Then there’s the so-called “science” backing this nonsense.  It has been shredded.  Because it has been shredded, the public’s interest in the scare tactics from the doomsday environmentalists is at a low ebb.  They’re just no buying it.

Finally, there’s nature’s cycles.  Oh, my, nature has cycles?  Yeah, for billions of years.  And the one thing constant about the earth’s climate is change.  That means it is always either getting hotter or cooling off.  Go figure.

All this to say, “here we go again”.  The good news?  No interest, no science to back it all up and most of all, no money.

And yes, that’s good news.


Twitter: McQandO

Facebook: QandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

81 Responses to The “Great Scare” tries to get its second wind

  • But we still have Obama mentioning climate change in his DNC acceptance speech.  Why?  I suggest because of the enormous power behind this fraud, and his plans to expand regulation in a second term beyond anything we’ve seen so far.

  • Don’t you love it when predictions are made that can be fact checked?  Usually they pick a year so far in the future (ie 2080 or 2100 and only a fool would claim to have any idea on the world’s economy/technology 80 years from now) that the prediction is forgotten.  But there are near term predictions that can be checked. Example, the UN 62nd  General Assembly in 2008 said: …it has been estimated that there will be between 50 million and 200 million environmental refugees by the year 2010 if we don’t spend a bazillion dollars combating climate change.   Anyone notice them?  Me neither.  Now the estimate is 50 million by the year 2020.  Guess they are still packing their bags.

    • But this isn’t about the science.  It’s about the money.
      Does anybody really think that the Congress, well at least the House, passed CO2 cap and trade (an idea that came from Enron) because they were worried about future generations ?   After $5 trillion of deficits over the last 4 years, nobody came sell that argument.   It was about the taxes and the control that would keep the lines of lobbyists coming to DC bearing gifts in exchange for their little exception to the new order of things.
      The Copenhagen treaty was much the same thing.  Why would “developed” nations send money to the “undeveloped” countries ?  .. for mythical “carbon credits” that they could claim for nothing under their natural sovereignty as a nation state ?  Hell NO.  Copenhagen was an “industrial development” treaty with CO2 as a cover story.  The whole point was that the “developed” nations could stay developed, while the “undeveloped” nations would stay undeveloped with the “developed” countries sending “tribute” to keep the “natural order of things.”   Globalization had shown that if the “undeveloped” countries continued to develop that eventually the “developed” countries would end up in the economic waste bin of history.  Well, the whole thing went dead when the world economy burst in 2008.   The timeline got away from them.

    • Oh.  I forgot to mention … I have this study that says that 800 billion people will die and world GDP will be reduced by $398 quadrillion over the next 3 millenia, if you don’t give me $1 million today.

      • No no Neo, you have to learn to do this right….long pause….then……”one million dollars!  mwaaaahahahahahahahah”     (Dr Neo Evil)

    • Fools like tadcf will always be with us …

      First, the report is seen to claim that “climate change deaths could total 100 million by 2030.” This is actually not what the report says. It carefully outlines how “the present carbon-intensive economy” is causing 4.975 million deaths per year as of 2010, and how by 2030 the “carbon economy — and climate change-related” impacts will kill 6 million people every year.
      Why the cumbersome language of a “combined climate-carbon” economy? Drilling into the composition of the 4.975 million deaths in 2010, one finds these deaths are not predominantly caused by climate change (only a few newspapers like the Guardian didn’t fall for this).
      Indeed, 1.4 million deaths are caused by outdoor air pollution, which is almost entirely unrelated to global warming. This air pollution, of course, is still predominantly caused by fossil fuels, but only because that is what we mostly use for fuel in the world. So, while the report is technically correct in saying that these 1.4 million deaths are caused by “the present carbon-intensive economy,” these deaths are in no way caused by climate change. Rebranding air pollution, mostly from particulate pollution, as “carbon” appears both disingenuous and designed to confuse. It was clearly intended to convey the message that these deaths were somehow relevant for the global warming debate.

      • Even the most skeptical of skeptics and most denying of deniers believe that the original intention of the Clean Air Act was a good idea … that is to clear up the air.  The CO2 nonsense aside, nobody likes to breath foul air.
        If you look at what is billed as “efforts to abate climate change” in China, you will find that most of these activities are exactly what western countries were doing in the 70’s and 80’s to make the air more breathable.  I applaud these efforts for what they are, not what a few zealot Bozos try to call them.

  • I suppose that the 95% of all scientist who support global warming have all been duped.

    • Now you get it.  Finally you see the BS for what it is.  I’m glad to see you finally coming around and at least trying to think critically!!!

      • Trying, but not succeeding.
        Regurgitating BS isn’t “trying” anyway.

      • They may be complicit, but not duped.
        Consider the alternative, if there is no real danger, or at least no danger that we can stop, what happens to “climate science” and the hundreds of folks who have bet their careers on dangerous AGW ?   They become relegated to the status of the SETI folks … a science that is cute but who’s budget is subject to cuts when the going get rough.
        Currently, the is a symbiotic relationship between “climate science” and politicians .. and they want it to stay that way, at least until they retire.

        • I predict that the next big field will be … Earth Defense … from asteroids.
          All it will take to get this field off the ground is one good sized meteor to wipe out a football field sized area of countryside.

          • So, not really “good sized” then.  In fact, kind of small, and puny.  A football field.  sheesh.   You’re not living up to the Neo Evil title at all here.
            Go for a square mile somewhere.  How about a pot field in the Pacific NorthWest.   Couple of stoner farmers standing on the rim of the crater after impact with their hair blown back like Lloyd Bridges sniffing glue in Airplane.
            “Dude! totally awesome dope!”

          • OK.  How about a football field sized area in downtown Baltimore ? … nobody would notice that.
            Double OK. How about a football field sized area in Chicago ?

          • Baltimore?  Por que?
            Meteorites are too indiscriminate.
            Ideally, decent people would put the scumbags on trial, as in Nuremberg.  Punish them individually, eye to eye.

    • This from the totally duped moron.

    • I suppose that 95% of those ‘scientists’ have nothing to do with climate Science.    Jackwagon.
      But you let the nice men in the lab coats tell you what to do, they have clip boards.  I bet you’d react the same to the nice men in the pretty uniforms too.
      Based on your faith in feckless government I’m not surprised you’re impressed when someone throws out appeals to authority like “95% of all scientists” without bothering to provide any evidence those scientists have any authority to speak about climate science at all.

      • “But you let the nice men in the lab coats tell you what to do, they have clip boards”
        Hey, it works on television. They even used to have cigarette commercials with people in white coats saying “Four out of five doctors recommend Brand X cigarettes”. Of course that’s only 80%.

        • I was thinking of the psych experiment (the Milgram Experiment) to see if Americans would be as good at “Vollowink Oar-ders” as Cher-mans were.  You know, because of course Americans would never do that!!!….but alas….provided someone in a lab coat with a clip board said “I will take responsibility, you must go on”….
          Who says psych classes were a complete waste?

    • Gotta tell ya Tad, I can imagine you parading around all gussied up in a nice Sturmabteilung uniform without any difficulty at all.
      But there’s that Godwin’s law thing come back to haunt me….perhaps a Vogon spaceship guard then.
      Good career for a young Vogon, you know, the uniform, the low- slung stun ray holster, the mindless tedium, the shouting.  I bet you’d be quite good at the shouting.
      Try it on for size – say “Resistence is useless!”   a couple times just to get the feel of it.  If you practice, and if you do it well enough, no doubt they’ll eventually promote you to Senior Shouting Officer.

    • You know Tad, the Climategate emails show how they came up with those 2,000-odd signatures by “scientists”. It isn’t like the nonsense you are spouting has any relevence at all anymore, it is now just lies.

    • No matter how many times you put a stake through its heart, this statement rises from the dead again.  One more time…and I will try to keep the words in as few syllables as possible. The number came from an online survey for a Masters thesis.  Over 13000 individuals globally could have been surveyed, and 3000 of these with specialties in solar influences on climate were not asked to participate. Of the 10000 polled, 3000 responded.  90% of the respondents were from the U.S, and another 6% from Canada.  Major European countries less than 3%. China had 3 (not 3%), Russia and India zero.   Hardly a global view.  The surveyor narrowed the responses to only those (244) identified as active climate researchers, with a final number (77) as those who self-identified themselves as climate scientists with at least 50% of their publications in the last 5 years on climate change.  To encourage responses, the survey asked (1) has the climate warmed since 1800 and (2) were human activities a significant contribution.  For question 2, 75 out of 77 (97%) said yes.  This is the number that has been used by those ignorant of its source.  I’m surprised the totals were not 100% to both questions.   Those deemed “skeptics” acknowledge the climate has warmed since the Little Ice Age, and also acknowledge human influences on the warming.  Irrigation, farming, deforestation, reforestation, city expansion all have an impact, but what is a significant influence..10%, 25%…??%.  By framing the questions so generally, you get the tally you want.  What has happened is that the 97% number who stated there were human influences on climate has been touted as 97% support the CO2 caused Catastrophic Warming thesis and we are all doomed.

      • That’s all very interesting but we were informed by a scientist just last week that sample size doesn’t matter.

        • Weeeeelll…’scientist’ might be stretching the word as applied to him in the same way that the description “fabulously wealthy super action hero sex object” applies to me.

      • It is like the truly awful story of how the whole “save the Polar Bears” mythology got started.
        From an airplane, flying over the Arctic seas…AFTER a major storm…a “sciencey guy” observed FOUR dead bears in the water.
        No follow-up.  No findings as to what caused the dead bears.  No IDEA what caused the bears to die.  CERTAINLY no connection to Gorebal Warming.
        Welcome to the age of witchcraft masquerading as “science”.

        • Saw an article recently concerning a record number of polar bears at an Alaska Arctic village of Kaktovik.  Seems the remains of a bow head whale caught by native villagers attracted the attention of 80 polar bears, a record number seen in one day.  Previous record was 65 back in 2004. Poor delicate things have no idea they are going the way of the dodo.  A long time Alaska resident told me he would hug a grizzly before he would be within a half mile of a polar bear..unarmed.  Seems they are looking for food all the time…like the Terminator…that’s what they do, that’s all they do.

          • Well, and make and rear baby Polar Bears…
            But the dads WILL eat the babies.  Hey, food is food!  AND it brings the females back into heat.  Males are such pigs!

    • And there’s the issue Tad!  You see, “supporting” isn’t anywhere close to “proving”

    • “Hide the decline”

    • It’s all about the “Golden Rule” … he who has the gold makes the rules

  • Sorry, I forgot:  /sarcasm switch off

  • By a happy coincidence…
    DDT didn’t ACTUALLY do anything claimed by the witch-doctors.
    It DID save millions of lives, and would be doing so today if not for the Green Goo elitists in the Developed World.

    • No Rags, much better to drape the population of entire nations in mosquito netting….look, saving lives and raising standards of living is just something the poorer brown peoples of the world will have to do without. Resource-rich westerners are trying to save the planet dammit! So what if kids are starving, we need that corn to power our SUV to take us to Whole Foods…

  • This is simple: Ask two questions: 1) If you were to stop ‘climate change’ what temperature would you set the global thermostat to?
    2) In the glorious and monumental effort to achieve goal #1, What significant energy consuming part of your life are you will to forgo, forever? Heat/AC? Transportation? Entertainment? Shopping for finished goods/food at Stores? Employment in an office or factory?
    A) There will never be agreement on one temperature (even a range). B) A will never happen, because you’ll never get even 1% to significantly, negatively and permanently change their lifestyles.

  • I’ve given up trying to convince the neanderthal ideologues that science matters and that they’re buying snake oil hooey when they listen to the deniers, whose case is weaker than that of holocaust deniers.  But hey, they say the polls are skewed, the media is working for Obama.  On the right reality has given way to an alternate reality, a narrative full of conspiracy.   It is irrational, and when called on it they just attack, call names, and do the functional equivalent of putting their hands on their ears and go “nah nah nah.”  Of course human caused global warming is real, that’s an accepted scientific fact.   Only a handful of climate scientists doubt that, and even they admit the evidence is strong.  You’re peddling an ideological narrative that is so out of touch with reality that it’s fraying at the seems and starting to go down in flames.   No more arguing with you guys, it’s time to just defeat you politically – you’re simply in a fantasy alternate reality.  It’s important to assure the next generation doesn’t fall into the trap that seems to have engulfed aging white males, especially those in the south.
    I think you realize you’re failing too – this blog once had lots of content and discussion.  It was interesting – I disagreed, but you had ideas.  Now it seems petty, angry and shallow.  My blog is getting more discussion than yours.   Time to look inside guys, question whether or not your view of reality is accurate.   I’ve looked on now and then (mostly to get economic stats) but don’t be surprised if this is my last comment.  There’s not much here any more.

    • More discussion there…
      Except except where you disingenuously claimed to have heard nothing about an American citizen being shuffled off in hand cuffs in the middle of the night, by your side, for “questioning” on a probation violation, a citizen who also had a little something to do with the infamous video that supposedly got our Ambassador assassinated.
      You want discussion but you dodge a truly thorny, totalitarian move made by the side you cheer for.
      That told me all I need to know about your intellectual honesty: none, zip, zilch, nada. Sod off.

    • Why so down on Neanderthals Scotty? It is scientifically accepted that they were cousins of ours, had a larger brain capacity on average than us so were far from stupid and had strong cultures. They disappeared because the more cunning and vicious Sapiens killed them off and forced them to extinction. So in ypour enlightened narrative, does that make lefties genocidal exploiters? Why yes that fits quite nicely!
      Also, if they lived today we’d regard them as fully human and using “neanderthal” as a derogatory epithet as you do would be like calling someone a money-grubbing kike, or a cunning slope, or a nigger. So in Erb world it is OK to abuse the name of a racial group who most likely would have tenured positions at Ivy League schools rather than moose-tipping non-phd granting colleges?
      Still, they are all dead so it is OK eh Erb?

      • LOL … “neanderthal ideologues”. Now there’s an invitation to open and reasonable debate if I’ve ever heard one”. Ott won’t even have to parody this one.

    • Tell us again how many degrees you have in a science, Erb? See I am having trouble accepting the scientific reality of a man who cannot describe the statistics of Gaussian distributions properly and who dribbles on about physics like it is some revelatory religion.

      • Once again Erb lets his guard down and shows his true colors – he is just another progressive shill.  I would say Democratic shill but once in a while he will criticize Obama, but only when Obama seems to slide ever so slightly toward the middle.  Erb is in his element, swallowed by the academic world of no-nothingness and political correctness. engulfed in the world of Kum-By-Ya and “can’t we alll just get along” so long as we get along on my terms.  And don’t even dare to question progressive Kant – evil oil, global warming, diversity and keynsian economics.  To do so will get you ex-communicated by the mob.  And the worse thing that could ever happen to Erb is find himself alone and not have anyone tell him how and what to think.

        • Well, based on the sudden discovery by the American public they’ve been taken for a ride by the academic community, I expect Professor Erb will be dealing with an opportunity to ‘re-task’ his potentials in the next 5 years.

    • Gee-whiz, Erp has his nose out of joint in a MAJOR way!
      Say, Erp, do you endorse the “science” of the story McQ noted?  Is the prediction sound?
      On a net scale, how many human beings have you and your elite killed since Rachel Carson wrote her anti-rational crap?  Just a rough estimate will do, since we know you are challenged in various areas…
      And are you SERIOUSLY asserting that the media is NOT working for Obama?  (Just trying to plumb the depths of your dementia.)
      You ARE aware the electric car is a dead letter, right?  And the Arab Spring was everything we told you it would be, and nothing you fantasized about.
      How do you feel about being lied to by Obama and the Obami?  And about their attacks on free speech?
      C’mon.  Discuss!

      • Aw, Arab spring hasn’t fulfilled it’s potential (or plumbed the depths, as the case may be).  That could be because those damned Israeli’s are sitting in the midst of the caliphate to be, doing their chosen people thing, and the armies of the prophet just haven’t gotten around to trying their metal, one more time.   I would like to point out that the armies of the prophet keep getting their asses handed to them every time they try fighting someone who’s not a fellow army of the prophet member.  And wars between the (pun intended) propheteers just seem to go on without any resolution, for years and years.  NOT an impressive record so far.   Plenty good at slaughtering women, kids, bus riders and pizza parlor patrons though.

        • I think ol’ Erp is feeling lonely, irrelevant, and…unhinged.  He keeps on pimping that blog!

          It is irrational, and when called on it they just attack, call names, and do the functional equivalent of putting their hands on their ears and go “nah nah nah.”

          This is what we call “projection”.

          Of course human caused global warming is real, that’s an accepted scientific fact.

          And nobody believes that anymore, Erp.  And NOBODY is willing to join your Collectivist war on modernity to fight what ain’t there.
          Frustration, and a cry for attention seem to be the hallmarks of his posts lately.

          • Really sorta beginning to remind me of  “Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected.”
            I still like “good and necessary” though, you just can’t beat that for the naive mindless stupidity it epitomizes.

    • “I’ve looked on now and then (mostly to get economic stats) but don’t be surprised if this is my last comment.
      You just never learn do you.

      • “You aren’t going to have Dick Nixon to kick around any more”.  Boy, the parallels are SPOOOKY…!!!!

    • ”  My blog is getting more discussion than yours”

      No doubt a result of the  thorough analysis and attention to detail for which you are justly renowned.
      “I’ve looked on now and then”
      Oh. Never mind.
      “but don’t be surprised if this is my last comment”
      Again with the James Brown routine. You never fail to amuse.

    • We’ve heard that before – how many times now? And, by the way, I have been a regular visitor to your “site” for some time now and, for the most part, all i see there are synchophants eager to cozy up to the great and powerful Erb.
      Insightful discussion at your site? YGBSM! (Translation – You Gotta Be Sh*tting Me!)

      • You, sir, are made of stern stuff.  If you will accept the assignment, you can be our designated “tunnel rat”, tasked with crawling through the sewers of Erpian thought.
        There are places I just won’t go…

        • Sometimes it is fun – you ought to see the rats scatter when I throw out my “30 pieces of silver” for the Democratic Shill routine.  But i have to admit i can only take it in small doses – the stench of Erb’s “Holier Than Thou” preaching is overpowering!

          • Boring, too. I can only handle a couple of minutes at a time. It kind of reminds me of the “Deep Thoughts” bit on SNL, with a little Stuart Smalley thrown in.

      • What he means is ‘2 people agree with me’.

    • “No more arguing with you guys, it’s time to just defeat you politically.”  Once again you show your true colors.  It has never been an attempt by you to provide any measure of give and take.  It has always been, either convert to my way of thinking or to hell with you.  Just like Obama’s difinition of “negotiate”!!!

    • human caused global warming is real, that’s an accepted scientific fact.

      You are thrashing away at strawmen.  The scientific debate is not whether human industry has raised global temperatures, i.e., Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).  The debate is how much influence does human industry have and whether the catastrophic predictions (CAGW) of drowning coastal cities in decades, of hundreds of millions dying, have any basis in fact.
      You do know that CO2 has a logarithmic influence on global temperatures, right?  That’s is accepted scientific fact.  But the CAGW predictions of alarmists are not based upon that.  They are based upon the unproven, untested idea that positive feedbacks will not only cancel out negative feedbacks, but sufficiently outpace them to convert a decreasing logarithmic function into a linear or even exponential function (hockey stick).
      You being a social “science” acanemic are probably too stupid to understand the math behind that.  So, instead you accuse skeptics, who do understand the math, of being worse than Holocaust deniers.  You’re not making factual arguments, but ignorant, emotional arguments.

      it’s time to just defeat you politically…

      The anti-Science alarmists already have most politicians, nearly all of the media, and a plethora of pop culture spokespeople in their pocket.  It’s always been about politics.  You show videos of children (children!) who don’t participate in the 10-10 project being blown up into bloody messes.  You have politicians suggesting that skeptics be imprisoned.  You have “scientists” suggesting that the homes of skeptics be burned to the ground.
      This is a political fight.  It’s all about the alarmists who exaggerate, “hide the decline”, and propagandize trying to silence any dissent (suggesting violence or explicitly threatening political suppression).  It’s all about putting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the pockets of cronies, who are nothing more than “green” carpetbaggers (Solyndra, SoloPower, the failed “green revolution” in Spain, etc., etc.).  It’s about giving politicians the economic control over industry they couldn’t get without this manufactured crisis.
      We know this is political, and those of you who are complicit in this massive fraud should be held accountable.  In California, they’ve levied an arbitrary “green” tax on business, to the extent that the top 500 companies are losing $1,000,000,000 per year.  Do you think that kind of economic suicide is going to “save the planet”?  Or just drive businesses out of California faster than ever?
      If you and your party are behind a manufactured economic disaster, why shouldn’t you be judged and punished accordingly?

      • If you and your party are behind a manufactured economic disaster, why shouldn’t you be judged and punished accordingly?

        If Bernie Madoff gets 10 years prison time for each $billion, then these politicians and their enablers deserve the same.  We’re talking $trillions, too.  Republicans and Democrats, contributors, union leaders, “green” scam artists, and their ilk, all doing hard time for life.
        That is justice.

    • My blog is getting more discussion than yours.

      By what metric?  QandO has been going strong for years, with plenty of articles resulting in dozens of comments, some numbering in the hundreds.  How many of your articles have produced the same?
      Go to  Type in “qando” without hitting Enter.  Already, a full page of links.  Put in “” and hit Enter and you get “1,010,000 results“.  Do the same with “Scott Erb” and the majority of results are about other people with the same name (e.g., a photographer).  Put in the website name and you get 7,280 results.
      This is just more evidence that Scott Erb is a pathetic, narcissistic liar.  But anyone who has read him knows this for a fact.

  • Ooops, sorry about “Neanderthal.”  I tried to remove any personal insults and focus on criticizing the point of view being displayed.  Wasn’t going to post again, but figured I should apologize for Neanderthal.  I also thought I’d taken out comparing my blog to yours, that’s also a personal insult.  I wanted to keep the focus on what you believe, not who you are.  So with that apologize, adios!

    • WTF? First Erb does his version of “all your bases are belong to us”, then it seems he has had one two many shandies at the staff club over lunch. Got to get me some of that tenure!

    • I tried to remove any personal insults and focus on criticizing the point of view being displayed.

      And, as with most things, failed dismally.

    • I tried to remove any personal insults and focus on criticizing the point of view being displayed.

      Wow, Erp!  Post the original…unedited…version, please, please, please!  That would be a laugh riot!

    • ‘I tried to remove’  – hey, pinhead, why were they there in the first place?   It means, dear clown, you’re certainly NOT any better than us, as has been demonstrated.   When I insult you, I do it CONSCIOUSLY (like, pinhead and dear clown).  You’re doing it without even realizing.    Not surprising since so much of you delivery comes, as it does, from your perception that you are on high.
      Again, not a good sign huh?

    • “Ooops, sorry about “Neanderthal.” ”
      No, you are not. You are only sorry you got caught in another bit of hypocrisy.
      “comparing my blog to yours, that’s also a personal insult”
      No, it isn’t an insult. You are just embarrassed by your petulant little lie. Calling you a liar is a personal insult (albeit true), telling someone they have fewer visitors/comments is not. See the difference?

    • Unfortunately, he’ll be back!

      • Yes, he will. If his vaunted blog were giving him the ego-boost he needed, he would have stopped coming here long ago.

        His problem is that you can’t talk down to sycophants because they go away. Only hit-and-run lecturing to out-of-touch Neanderthals will do to give that true superior feeling that failed academics crave. So when the cravings hit him hard enough, he’ll be back.

        We know, because we’ve been through this before. This time, we’re Neanderthals, and “petty, angry and shallow”. Last time, we were “inbred and sterile” and compared to Goebbels. And of course, he told us “Good news for you — I’m going to stop reading this blog and so you won’t have to be annoyed by my comments!” which of course was a lie then just as it is now.

        We know that jackass better than he knows himself. He’ll be back; he lacks the self-control to stay away from his fix of condescending lecture to what he considers his intellectual inferiors.


    Of course human caused global warming is real, that’s an accepted scientific fact. (Noted soft [in the head] social scientist, Prof. MooseSqueez)

    Is it an “accepted scientific fact” that DDT has ANY of the ill effects claimed when it was banned?  Hmmm…???

    • Doesn’t matter to him, Rags, or to the other leftist idiots he associates with.

      I was in a group of such a few years back, after the true damage from Rachel Carson and the DDT banning came out. They were off on some enviro-wacko subject, and I very nicely suggested that it was necessary to be careful in such cases. I mentioned the unintended deaths from malaria that came from DDT banning, and that they were numbered in the millions.

      Those people, every single one of them, looked at me as though I was a reptilian alien.

      They were not the least bit interested in the facts of the matter. They only knew that Rachel Carson had wonderful intentions, and of course, so do they. To them, that absolves them and their kind from anything and everything that results from their activism and resulting policies.

      Remember they, and that imbecilic professor in Maine, are post-modernists. When Scotty talks about science, he really means their special, *post-modern* version of science, in which scientific fact is indeed established by consensus. Remember, to them, “truth” is socially constructed, and that applies to scientific truth just as much as any other kind.

      I know you don’t like looking at them through such a lens. As a good child of the Enlightenment, you want to hold other humans responsible for being rational creatures who believe in existence of objective reality, and that if they deny it, they therefore must be misinformed or lying. But I’m telling you – their actions, responses, and entire worldview make much more sense if you accept that they simply do not believe in the concept of objective reality and the corollary of objective truth.

      The corollary is that it doesn’t make sense to debate them. When the rules of logic are not the same for the two sides, it is quite literally impossible to have productive debate. Even when you think you have made a point or gotten through to them, they will blithely discard what you said the very next time they talk with another member of their social group who says something different and more palatable to believe.

      • I get it, Billy.  I really never post for Erp’s benefit.  He is long dead to me.  I do it to barb him, or make a point in opposition to him, or in support of his other opponents.

    • From what little I’ve read about the subject, you want more land ice, not sea ice.  If I recall correctly, glaciers on land in Antarctica continuously slide into the ocean.  More sea ice and less land ice could indicate that glaciers are moving faster than in previous decades, which is likely the result of warming.  Greater sea ice raises sea levels in the same way that putting ice in a glass raises the level of the liquid, both when the ice is solid and after it melts.  On the other hand, an increased area of ice also reflects sunlight more.  Still, I wouldn’t consider increased sea ice to be a good sign or a refutation of AGW (except, of course, for those scientists who predicted less sea ice, possibly due to flawed, overly simplistic computer simulations).
      My main criticism of that article is the use of the word “record” to describe polar ice extents.  When that author does so or when the alarmists do so, that is deliberately misleading.  Records only go back to when they put up satellites to measure the ice, within the lifetime of most of us.  Attaching the words “record high” or “record low” to any geological event in that time frame makes no sense at all.
      As a skeptic of catastrophic AGW, I would prefer than counterarguments against alarmist hysteria be factual and complete, not selective or misleading.

      • My understanding is that a major component in the speed of movement of glaciers is the weight of ice “upstream”.
        And, if you looked at the graph, it was a record.  Noting a record event is not misleading in the least, and it certainly makes sense to note it.  No less than reciting we have a record level of debt.

        • When your graph starts in the 1970s or 1980s, calling a geological measurement “record high” or “record low” makes no sense.
          When the alarmists declare that the arctic sea ice is at a “record low”, without clarifying that records have only been kept a few decades, that’s deceptive.  People will read that or hear it and think that, for thousands of years, the arctic has had more ice than today.  But in fact, there have probably been many instances during human history in which the arctic ice melted even more during the summer.  It’s just that there weren’t satellites to take pictures in centuries past.  Or, at least not ones put up by humans. 😉

          • Silly.

          • ” People will read that or hear it and think that, for thousands of years, the arctic has had more ice than today.”
            This is only because we lost all the records on yak skin that were carefully taken and preserved in Muglub’s yurt when GhenKai got drunk on kumis that time and burned it down with a flaming arrow.
            Oh, wait, sorry, THAT was the temperature record for the steppes from 4000 b.c. to 1860.  I remember now, the arctic sea ice records were lost when Nunavit and Nunuku got attacked by polar bears in the main igloo and shredded the walrus skin they were written on because Nunuku tried to hide under them.  But admittedly THOSE records only ran from about 500 AD to 1910.