Free Markets, Free People


Climate Change Update – Falling Dominoes

For the American taxpayer, under the shadow of the recently passed House cap-and-trade (Waxman-Markey) bill, the news continues to be grim. However for the traitorous “deniers”, aka skeptics, who believe the whole climate change hysteria to be an economy killing farce, things are looking better.

For instance India has announced it will not participate in the Western world’s attempts to kill their own economies:

India said it will reject any new treaty to limit global warming that makes the country reduce greenhouse-gas emissions because that will undermine its energy consumption, transportation and food security.

Cutting back on climate-warming gases is a measure that instead must be taken by industrialized countries, and India is mobilizing developing nations to push that case, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told the media today in New Delhi.

“India will not accept any emission-reduction target — period,” Ramesh said. “This is a non-negotiable stand.”

Heh … fairly blunt and straight foward wouldn’t you say? Of course, China took the same stand a couple of weeks ago. I call that good news because it is another country which has decided to put its economy first and this nonsense second. When two countries which are or expected to be very soon the two leading emitters of CO2 say “no”, it makes it rather ridiculous for the rest of the world to say “yes” given the consequences vs. payoff, doesn’t it?

And the US cap-and-trade legislation? Well India sees that as a “no-go” as well:

But last week, the US House of Representatives backed a “border adjustment tax” to equalise carbon emissions charges between domestic production and imports from states that do not cap emissions. The legislation is likely to face tough opposition in the Senate.

Mr Ramesh denounced as “pernicious” US efforts to impose “trade penalties” on countries that do not match its carbon reduction moves.

Meanwhile in the EU:

The European Union risks driving industry out of the region if it continues to push for deeper cuts in carbon dioxide emissions than other economies, according to the chief executive of Eon, one of the world’s biggest renewable energy companies.

Wulf Bernotat, Eon’s chief executive, told the Financial Times that the EU was imposing higher energy costs on its industry than competing regions, and criticised the US for doing “basically nothing” to cut its carbon dioxide emissions.

He added that if there were no international deal to cut emissions agreed at the Copenhagen meeting at the end of the year, the EU would have to rethink its plans to take a lead in fighting the threat of climate change.

“It is a European political issue whether the European Union can continue to lead the policy process if the rest of the world is not joining in,” he said.

“We are adding additional costs to our industries, and if other countries don’t follow, then those industries will move to lower-cost regions.”

Yeah, like India or China … or Mexico. That’s the irony of this nonsense. We have a president and Congress who’ve made a cottage industry of demonizing corporations who “outsource” jobs while they pass legislation that encourages corporations to outsource jobs.

And for those who worship at the feet of Al Gore, another inconvenient truth is to be found in a recently published paper from the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics:

The Abstract states:

Daily temperature and pressure series from 55 European meteorological stations covering the 20th century are analyzed. The overall temperature mean displays a sharp minimum near 1940 and a step-like jump near 1987. We evaluate the evolution of disturbances of these series using mean squared inter-annual variations and “lifetimes”. The decadal to secular evolutions of solar activity and temperature disturbances display similar signatures over the 20th century. Because of heterogeneity of the climate system response to solar forcing, regional and seasonal approaches are key to successful identification of these signatures. Most of the solar response is governed by the winter months, as best seen near the Atlantic Ocean. Intensities of disturbances vary by factors in excess of 2, underlining a role for the Sun as a significant forcing factor of European atmospheric variations. We speculate about the possible origin of these solar signatures. The last figure of the paper exemplifies its main results.

The paper concludes:

In concluding, we find increasingly strong evidence of a clear solar signature in a number of climatic indicators in Europe, strengthening the earlier conclusions of a study that included stations from the United States (Le Mouël et al., 2008). With the recent downturn of both solar activity and global temperatures, the debated correlations we suggested in Le Mouël et al. (2005), which appeared to stop in the 1980s, actually might extend to the present. The role of the Sun in global and regional climate change should be re-assessed and reasonable physical mechanisms are in sight.

Shorter conclusion?

“It’s the sun, stupid”.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

32 Responses to Climate Change Update – Falling Dominoes

  • “It’s the sun, stupid”…

    …and Obama and his Democrats needing ever more tax dollars to feed their power grab. Marxism, is the real cause of “man made global warming!”  

  • You know the simple solution here to the Dems, right?

    Tax the sun.

  • But… but… but… THE EARTH HAS A FEVER!  Those dirty capitalists in China and India are putting their selfish interests above the good of Mother Gaia!  They should be TAXED!

    / sarc

    I’d like to see Algore or the other global warming con artists try to explain how it is that the governments of the two largest countries in the world think that global warming is such a (ahem) minor problem that they are unwilling to do anything to stop it.  Sadly, though, I don’t think that MiniTru will ask the question. 

    Too bad.

  • The sun does not vote and therefore will be ignored.

  • Only wealthy nations can afford to indulge liberal folly.

  • LOL!  You’re trying too hard to spin something that is untrue to make it sound true.  You are like those who claimed that the science behind cigarettes causing cancer was hooey.  The sad thing is, out of a lust for continued unsustainable consumerism you’re condemning my children and the next generation (and you and many other greedy willfully ignorant comrades) to much horrible consequences.
    But I think you realize how hard your case is to defend.  You make wild over the top headlines:  Falling dominos! You’re the Baghdad Bob of climate change!  It’s funny, if it wasn’t for the fact you’re defending continued destruction of our ability to live a quality life.   Your ‘evidence’ is some quotes from short term thinking politicians, and a story about regional climate change noting only the sun is a factor.  Well, DUH!  That doesn’t deny the vast majority of climate change scholars, authoritative studies and the like.  As usual with mindless propaganda, you: a) use an infammatory but over the top headline; b)misstate a study to make it sounds like it says something it does not; and c) assert that somehow this misstated study contradicts the vast evidence out there which has most experts convinced.
    You have an ideological, political view on this issue, you believe what you want to believe, and twist evidence to support your whims.   You are anti-scientific, anti-rational, and are supporting unsustainable policies that are going to destroy our way of life.  But hey, you’re old.   You don’t care.   Reality doesn’t matter as long as you can try to win propaganda games for political sport.    Your kind of thinking is why this country and planet is in the mess it’s in, and hopefully the political shifts of the past couple years will banish your way of thinking to the ashheap of history.

    • Oh, look…Erb stopped by to provide some of his non-insulting, rational, and unbiased thoughts! I’m sure everyone will be the better for it. Thanks, Erb.

    • I always wondered what kind of people fell for scams like the Nigerian Email scam, or the book of the month club.  Now I know.

      You really are not a deep thinker are you.  Bet you still believe that if we hadn’t switched to expensive new refrigerants (when the patents for the old refrigerants were expiring, what convenient timing) that right now there would be no ozone layer. (despite the fact that the ozone layer has never changed from its current fluctuating parameters).

      Bet you will fall for anything as long as a couple of academics tell you it’s settled science and find a way to spin it so that evil capitalists are to blame.

    • LOL! See how young-minded an hip I am, using that? Unlike you old people around here, who don’t care about the environment or much of anything, because you’re just twisted, dense righties.

      You have an ideological, political view on this issue. Unlike mine,of course, which is not the least bit ideological or political. Nope, it’s based on pure objectivity, and the fact that I don’t know squat about statistics or physical science is beside the point, so stop saying that! I listen to other wise leftists with important degrees, and as I have tried and tried to tell you dense righties, we wise leftists with important degrees are clearly much, much smarter than you and you should let us run society and stop questioning our goodness and wisdom.

      You believe what you want to believe, and twist evidence to support your whims. And, no, I don’t have to actually point to any evidence you’ve twisted. It doesn’t work that way with wise leftists who have godlike powers of political science. Unlike you moronic righties, especially you deluded ex-military basket cases, our advanced degrees allow us to decree that you’re wrong and you have to accept it. Don’t you see?

      You are anti-scientific, anti-rational, and are supporting unsustainable policies that are going to destroy our way of life. And the environmental policies of the left are totally scientific, and the fact that we can’t predict what cap-and-trade is going to do in reality or how much it will cost is just irrelevant. Because with our sterling intentions, we’ll just keep tweaking it until it works. That will probably mean eroding more of this freedom stuff that you righties blather on about, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.

      But you vicious, dense righties would throw all away our chances to save the world, and make it a wonderful place run by wise leftists in the bargain. But hey, you’re old. You don’t care. In fact, you probably want things to turn out bad and wrong, just like those nasty corporate types. Thank goodness I ended up in academia, where we never, ever are tempted to screw our fellow man by providing them with something they might actually value.

      Your kind of thinking is why this country and planet is in the mess it’s in. And we on the left have no responsibility for the mess, none at all. I mean, yes, we did stand up for Stalin and Mao and Che, and they killed a few folks, but it was all with the best of intentions, I tell you! It’s never our fault when things go wrong! Never! Because our hearts and souls are so pure and good and honest. Unlike you monstrous righties, who are just sitting there hoping things will go wrong. Don’t deny it! I know you are! But hopefully the political shifts of the past couple years will banish your way of thinking to the ashheap of history. And glorious leftism will triumph, and mankind will be as one in our glorious future of continuous five-year-plans creating by wise leftists like me.

    • Im am double posting because I forgot about the workaround for relies.

      Scott,
      Your comments are hardly fair. When you talk about “twist evidence to support your whims”, I only have to reference Mann and the hockey stick model and James Hanson and the withdrawn temperature data as well as the false “warmest Russian” month ever by citing the wrong month’s data. The climate skeptics have shown that CO2 concentration follow warming not cause it. In fact, at about .12% of the greenhouse gases, it is very, very difficult to see how CO2 can be any part of the problem without an unusual, and unsubstantiated, positive feedback loop. It is extremely unlikely that CO2 acts on climate like a nuclear explosion.
      My claim, Scott, is that the global warming advocates (now climate change because we have seen no warming for 11 years, are merely proclaiming via hype and have some entirely different agenda than preventing global warming. In addition, even though all the research money is going toward proving Global warming, more and more of the science is showing just the opposite. There is no CO2 caused global warming. That is also spreading to other countries. Besides India and China, Australia is questioning the conventional wisdom. My experience is that whenever the population reaches some conventional wisdom on new science, the conventional wisdom is wrong. So it is here.   Science is about questioning, not consensus.
      Rick

    • Scott -

      What is the ideal temperature for the earth?

      Would it be ideal if it stayed exactly the same as it is today, and if so why? And how could we make it do that? Or would it be better if it got a little colder? The polar bears might like that.

      How do we know that it might not be better if it got a little warmer? It certainly has in the past. In fact, crops do much better in warmer and more CO2-enriched environments. So a slightly warmer planet is likely to be better for farmers, including those in poor countries.

      And what if we had decided to try to change the world’s climate when it was getting colder between 1940 and 1975? What if we had been trying to warm the planet just when it decided to do so on its own?

      What if we dramatically cut CO2 emissions now and then the earth cycles into another cooling period? Our efforts to “fix” a climate problem might make matters worse. Historically, cool periods such as the Little Ice Age have been much harder on humans than warm periods.

    • Erb spews propaganda. But without a solid argumet of any kind. Keep spinning, Erb . . .

  • It’s interesting to note that while China has this stated position, they are also doing their level best to churn out solar power stations so that at least part of their energy grid is powered by renewables.  Why would this state controlled nation bother doing such a thing unless they knew they’d need that energy supply somewhere down the line?

    • The point, of course, is they see it as an energy supply “somewhere down the line” while they continue to exploit the hell out of what they have now (coal, oil, NG). We, otoh, have decided we’ll transition to technology which can’t fill the energy bill now while not exploiting that which we have available now. Economically, which do you suppose is the more sane plan?

  • “Falling dominos! You’re the Baghdad Bob of climate change! ”

    Climate change? Wait a minute, isn’t that what we used to call weather? What happened to “Global Warming”.

  • erb, i’ve watched here for awhile as you pop in and squeal your liberal, statist foolishness and then pop out – refusing any and all questions, challenges, and engagements. this seems to have earned for you a sense of amused contempt among the regular commenters – sort of like how one might feel about a likable but seriously stupid brother-in-law, say. (“yeah, he’s a complete moron, but he’s a good guy to go fishing with, as long as you use small words.”)  i assume your claim to be a college prof has been checked out, since i’ve seen no mention of it being a lie: all your other lies are instantly debunked, so i gather ‘you being a prof’ is at least semi-true.

    but, *dude*. reread that latest moronic post of yours. read it slow; read it out loud if you dare.  there’s no genteel way to say this, so i’ll just spit it out: “professor” erb, you write like a preteen girl.  maybe you oughta get that looked at – it appears that your writing skills are degenerating to match the degeneracy of the nonsensical notions you continually spout. i’m not sure what a psychiatrist would make of this, but i rather suspect it can’t be good.

  • When an efficient non-carbon method of producing energy is discovered we will switch to it. But in the meantime I  am not willing to give up my current standard of living nor am I willing to force others to live in poverty through ecological imperialism.

    • Well that already exists, it is called Nuclear energy. The latest technology doesn’t even produce waste, and it has been used safely and extensively by many nations.

      It is one of the biggest reasons that I doubt the doomsayers. If they really did believe that fossil fuels were destroying the planet they would be shouting the need for nuclear from the rooftops, but they are not.

  • Mr Ramesh denounced as “pernicious” arrogant US efforts to impose “trade penalties” on countries that do not match its carbon reduction moves.

    Look more accurate now?


     

  • No strike tag? Crap.

  • exactly, an alternate source of energy purely as an additional source and for no reason due to supposed climate change

  • Scott,
    I’ve looked at the science a great deal. Have you? I don’t mean appealing to authority, which is your argument, or arguing whether an appealed-to authority is correct. I mean actually looking at data. It’s out there, you can look at it. Here’s a summary:
     

    Global warming does currently exist.
    Man does contribute to global warming.
    The sun and greenhouse gasses are contributors.
    Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas with the greatest effect.
    Man’s contribution to carbon dioxide does exist but it is infinitesimal.
    It will cost a lot of wealth to reduce the tiny amount we contribute to the tiny effect of carbon dioxide.

    The economic global warming decision is whether the cost of reduction is worth the benefit. For anyone looking at the real data, this should be a very easy decision. This has little to do with being old or caring about the environment. This is a very serious decision. You are advocating that we choose to do real harm to ourselves, and mostly to the poor, to accomplish almost nothing.
    You’re an educated person but you aren’t doing your due dilligence on this issue. There is a lot of mis- and disinformation out there, for many it’s a borderline religion. Your GW wealth destruction is going to do more damage to future generations than the consumerism you rail against. As for anti-science, I know you haven’t approached this scientifically. Most likely you’ve been informed completely by authoritarians you trust based on your worldview.
    I challenge you to actually research this instead of using the same political spin you accuse McQ of using. Your position is going to achieve the very things you irrationally think it’s going to avoid.
     

  • ZOZO ,

    Upon what evidence do you believe that “global warming exists”?  To my knowledge, the satellite temperature data is the best that we have because it provides near-100% coverage and isn’t affected by local environmental conditions (like putting a weather monitoring station in the middle of a parking lot).  What one sees with that data is a pretty noisy, random variation around a mean, with some significant excursions tied to specific events such as the explosion of Mt. Pinatubo.  There does not appear to be any appreciable long-term trend either way.

    I’m also curious about the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as I’ve seen studies that show it to be at best a LAGGING indicator of global temperature.

    Your comment about water vapor is spot-on, and the fact that the global warming con artists refuse to discuss its role in their scheme is evidence that it is exactly that: a global con game.

  • Scott,
    Your comments are hardly fair.  When you talk about “twist evidence to support your whims”,  I only have to reference Mann and the hockey stick model and James Hanson and the withdrawn temperature data as well as the false “warmest Russian” month ever by citing the wrong month’s data.

    The climate skeptics have shown that CO2 concentration follow warming not cause it.  In fact, at about .12% of the greenhouse gases, it is very, very difficult to see how CO2 can be any part of the problem without an unusual, and unsubstantiated, positive feedback loop.   It is extremely unlikely that CO2 acts on climate like a nuclear explosion.

    My claim, Scott, is that the global warming advocates (now climate change because we have seen no warming for 11 years, are merely proclaiming  via hype and have some entirely different agenda than preventing global warming.  In addition, even though all the research money is going toward proving Global warming, more and more of the science is showing just the opposite.  There is no CO2 caused global warming.  That is also spreading to other countries.  Besides India and China, Australia is questioning the conventional wisdom.  My experience is that whenever the population reaches some conventional wisdom on new science, the conventional wisdom is wrong.  So it is here.

    Rick

  • “Hey, you’re old”  – I’m gonna go out on a limb here…
    Wait… it’s Dr. Erb I’m talking about.  I’m going to walk out on to a very flat, large, geologically safe plain here, where there is no visible means of falling off and no danger of tectonic activity that would endanger me.
    Dr…you’re a real dick head.

  • If there really were a consensus of opinion amongst ‘experts’ and ‘top researchers’ I doubt that there would be so much dissent on the issue.  After more than ten years of temperatures that have either fallen or remained stable from year-to-year, in the face of continued increases in CO2 output, I think that the veneer has begun to crack.  Scott speaks of the “continued destruction of our ability to live a quality life.” I feel that this should be in reference to what is being done to the economy, not the ecology.

  • Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean “global warming” in the alarmist sense that we’re on a runaway temperature rise to destruction. I meant that at best guess, the earth has warmed naturally since the Little Ice Age. The forensic methods applied have been legitimately questioned , which is why I say “best guess”, but I usually just skip this because I’ve never seen a true believer agree that the forensic methods could be flawed. I just capitulate and say that the earth is warmer. I suppose it would be more accurate to say the earth is *likely* warmer.
    I’m also seeing more evidence that carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator of temperature. However, it is by definition a greenhouse gas because it strongly absorbs infrared. The top gasses are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, with water vapor having the highest concentration, like 95%. Even if industry doubled the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over what it was 100 years ago, the greenhouse effect will only increase 1 percent. And even if that percentage was bigger it doesn’t mean temperatures will rise because that idea ignores clouds/precipitation as a temperature regulator, like most (all?) climate models do.
    What concerns me most about the entire debate is that few believers appreciate the cost. I’ve heard some say that even if global warming isn’t man-made, or even if there isn’t any global warming right now, shouldn’t we do something about it anyway? The assumption of vast communal wealth, such that we can “fix” the “problem” while continually striving to improve global living standards, makes no sense to me. Humans cannot produce that level of wealth without technological help. And before everyone is helped or given a chance to help themselves, we’re going to scale back and/or chuck our technologies over an unproven hypothesis that’s fraying. Weirdest of all, the people clinging strongest to the global warming idea and the damage it will do mostly to the poor, are the same ones that preach about the plight of the poor being kept down by others.

  • You can see that Mr. Erb cannot see the emperor’s absence of clothes.
    Maybe he eats at the government trough?
    But, never mind, that is ad hominem and we should not use the same tactics as the “climate astrologists” (darn, I did it again)
    Bottom line, the burden of proof is in the AGW camp, it is on THEM to prove their case, since they are the ones advocating Draconian change to the status quo.

  • Zozo,

    Thank you.  I’m sorry to say that the “debate” over global warming has led to, um, SUSPICION on my part whenever I see somebody say that “global warming exists”. 

    Unfortunately, the very terms we use have been corrupted.  As you say, there HAS been “global warming” since the Little Ice Age.  What the con artists like Algore mean is “man-made global warming”, for which there is not an iota of solid evidence.  Further, there isn’t even a debate: there are facts and science on one side, and hysteria, distortion, intimidation and outright lies on the other.

  • As usual, Scott Erb runs away from facts.  I appreciate your trying to engage him a thoughtful debate, Zozo, but it’s a hopeless cause.  Erb will never admit he’s wrong, never debate honestly, and never acknowledge facts that don’t support his conclusions.  He will just sit back and accuse you of using spin or emotionalism.
     

    • All true, but at least he has retreated to a “turd drop” form of engagement. He used to try to make every thread about any one of his hobby horses into a dreary back-and-forth with his smug condescension and intellectual dishonesty alternating with the attempts of reasonable people to point out he was wrong.

      I think Ott Scerb was a factor in stopping that. Though of course Erbie himself would never, ever be able to admit it.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet