Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Progress through regression
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, January 31, 2008

Perfect...
Former President Bill Clinton ... characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?
Progressives Against Progress!

UPDATE:

Ok, I've been away from the blog for awhile. I see that Clinton has been mischaracterized....to some extent. It looks like Clinton said that we could slow the economy down to help prevent global warming, but we shouldn't. Instead, we should act to prevent global warming...and create more jobs, in doing so. A pretty standard invocation of the broken windows fallacy.

So it's not Progressives Against Progress, so much as it is Progressives for a Free Pony.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well there is this. And I am thinking that maybe people should read this book.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I JUST sent this to McQ...

I also liked this line of Bill’s:
"Everybody knows that global warming is real,"
Excuse me, Mr President?

’What’s this "we", whiteman?’
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Bill doesn’t care if the economy slows - he’s made his millions.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Yeah, Bill definitely wants Hillary to succeed in this campaign.
 
Written By: Tim
URL: http://
This doesn’t appear to be a fair reading of what Clinton actually said:
...and maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ’OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.
Clinton was not advocating that we should we should actually slow our economy.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Why is the choice always between saving the planet versus saving the economy?

Nuclear power, and later solar power as the costs go down, produce few greenhouse emissions.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Scott J., almost nobody is seriously denying that global warming is real, the evidence is conclusive. Some deny that humans are a major factor in global warming.

But with comments like this, I have to wonder if Bill even wants Hillary to win, he seems to be undercutting her. Should she vote "no" on the stimulus? (I would, but that’s another issue).

Huxley, I agree — nuclear power, solar power, and augment with geothermal and others as possible. I think there are developments in clean burning coal. And, if oil production is really starting to peak, we may have no choice in the matter anyway.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
JWG - your read was the same as mine, it was a parable pointing out that China/India, etc were not going to just join in to scale back their economy for their grandchildren’s sake.


I don’t like the man (to put it mildly), but this phrase is out of context if you read the actual story.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
How about Bill eliminating his speaking engagements? That’d cut down on the hot air being released into the environment.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Scott J., almost nobody is seriously denying that global warming is real, the evidence is conclusive. Some deny that humans are a major factor in global warming.
And considering he’s talking about slowing our emissions (and his hat-tip to the Goreacle), it’s clear which he believes, and I highly doubt his statement was meant to mean anything along the lines of people causing it.

I’m certain he meant "no one denies we’re to blame", otherwise why cut emissions?

And have you been outside? I’d welcome some fraking global warming right about now. Freaking COLD out there. Hit -34 degrees Tuesday night/Wed Morning in central IL with windchill...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
We’re experiencing a great winter in Maine, loads of snow, and temps usually cold enough to keep it from melting. Not the bitter cold I remember from Minnesota, but nice pleasant temps about 10 to 30. Global warming, though, is uneven, and I think some models see the Northeast cooling rather than warming (while areas around the equator warming immensely).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Global warming, though, is uneven, and I think some models see the Northeast cooling rather than warming (while areas around the equator warming immensely).
That would explain the total average drop of a degree or two over the last several years then?

Really, if it’s global, then it’s all over. If Bangladesh is heating up and the rest is cooling, then invest in AC sellers there, but don’t tell me it’s global warming.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
but nice pleasant temps about 10 to 30
Sounds like reasonably normal, from what I remember, Maine winter temperatures, or Massachusetts, or CowHampshyah. Long before anyone was worried that kerosene porch warmers were causing global warming.
That would explain the total average drop of a degree or two over the last several years then?
Geeze, don’t get all factual - stick with philosophies like "it would have set a record for warm temperatures if it hadn’t gotten cold in the winter!" to keep your global warming disaster pie hot.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
and just keep murmuring the last predicted global disaster mantra - Y2K, Y2K, Y2K.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Even if he did not mean it as McQ took it, I still shake my head when I read -
the rich counties
Followed by -
and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor
It’s no fun unless you base on the rich vs. the poor.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I think some models see the Northeast cooling rather than warming (while areas around the equator warming immensely).

I guess that explains why it snowed 4 inches in Jerusalem, and snowed in Baghdad, and snowed in Bogotá this winter.

Temps peaked in 1998, and we’ve been holding steady or dropping a little ever since. The sun just entered a period of low sunspot activity, so we could be headed for cooling in just a bit.

But before you go talking about "conclusive," read this blog for a few weeks

http://www.climateaudit.org/

and research the phenomenon known as "information cascade," then tell me in 500 words or less why something can be considered scientific when the folks who have the raw data sets (ice core samples, bristlecone pine rings) won’t release that data for scrutiny by their peers.
 
Written By: dicentra
URL: http://dicentrasgarden.blogspot.com
It even snowed in Maui—Hawaii! Scientists are beginning to coalesce around a new climate paradigm—It’s getting friggin cold and it’s gonna get friggin’ colder the next several decades!
 
Written By: Rugby
URL: http://
Global warming, though, is uneven, and I think some models see the Northeast cooling rather than warming (while areas around the equator warming immensely).
As I recall, it’s the other way around. According to GW models I’ve read about, the equatorial areas won’t warm as much as the Northern latitudes, plus more warming at night than during the day. Antarctica is a case onto itself. I don’t know of any models that predict that the Northeast will cool.

But they’ve got more models and scenarios going than you can shake a stick at, which makes sense, but makes it hard to pin them down to anything specific. In fact they don’t even call it "global warming" anymore but "climate change."
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Geeze, don’t get all factual - stick with philosophies like "it would have set a record for warm temperatures if it hadn’t gotten cold in the winter!" to keep your global warming disaster pie hot.
Sorry. I keep forgetting to drink my kool-aid...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Yeah, if New England is gonna stay cold, how is all that predicated arable land going to become available up in Labrador?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
We just have to slow down our economy
So when the Dems complain about how the Bush economy is "worst since Hoover" they’re really anti-global warming?

Who knew the sub-prime defaulters were really Gaia crusaders as opposed to greedy idiots who got in over their heads!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Dr. Erb -

"...almost nobody is seriously denying that global warming is real, ... Some deny that humans are a major factor in global warming."

"Almost nobody" and "Some" disagree with you, Doctor. That means over 19,000 scientists (in America alone).

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
 
Written By: coolpapa
URL: http://
Classic.

Henke, no offense, but this is your most hackish post to date. Clearly, Bill Clinton would never, never, never, make an assertion such as the one you quote and assert that he believes it to be true. He is not an idiot.

It has now become clear the assertion in the statement was taken out of context and that Tapper led people to believe that Clinton asserted he held a belief in the trusth of the assertion, when he made it clear he does not.

Nevertheless, you obviously cited it today to prove that Clinton does believe in the truth of the assertion. In so doing, you proved your gullibility, and hence your lack of analytical skills. Any idiot would have suspected that Clinton would have never have expressed belief in the idea that we should slow our economy when his wife is running for president.

This is not a moral judgment. You probably are a good guy. But the fact that you apparently gain income doing political work is frightening, given your obvious lack of judgment here. But then again, you worked for George Allen. Why should I be surprised.

Look, I hate the Clintons. I have come to hate Bill. This isn’t about defending the Clintons. It is about your lack of judgment.

Oh, and yes, I am anxiously awaiting your explanation of how you knew the quote was taken out of context and that you were using it to criticize the media. Lay it on me.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Henke, no offense, but this is your most hackish post to date.
Better watch out Jon... this criticism is coming from someone who KNOWS about hackish posts!
This is not a moral judgment. You probably are a good guy.
Blah, blah, blah -but I’ll disparage you anyway and question your judgment...
Look, I hate the Clintons
(but I’ll be voting for Hillary in November - shhhhhhh)
This isn’t about defending the Clintons.
Sure you’re not defending the Clinton’s.... sure.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Even if he did not mean it as McQ took it ...
Wrong guy ... I didn’t write it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It was raining two days ago, now we’re getting snowed in.

If that’s the worst global warming can throw at me, well then I’m not impressed.
 
Written By: jows
URL: http://
"Almost nobody" and "Some" disagree with you, Doctor. That means over 19,000 scientists (in America alone).
Read carefully. Your link talks about whether or not Kyoto would help, which is exactly where I said the dispute was, it does not deny the existence of global warming. It is in agreement with my statement. Also, the site doesn’t seem very legit, and it’s claim of 19,000 scientists is laughable.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
It agrees with you, but it isn’t legit? Interesting.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Dr. Erb -

"Read carefully. Your link talks about whether or not Kyoto would help. . ."

Take your own advice, Doctor, and read carefully on: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate." (Emphasis mine.)

You said, "Some deny that humans are a major factor in global warming." 19,000 scientists are in disagreement with your statement. Quite a bit more than "some".

As for this -

"Also, the site doesn’t seem very legit, and it’s claim of 19,000 scientists is laughable."

The only thing laughable is this typical leftist smear of the messenger. The petition is an independent project started by some members of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. OISM was co-founded in 1981 by Martin D. Kamen, PhD, (He discovered Carbon-14 and won the Enrico Fermi Award in 1995) and Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, (He co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973). These not "very legit" scientists were later joined at OISM by R. Bruce Merrifield, PhD, a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry in 1984. According to the project’s website, it gets no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. However, it is supported by the past president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, also, I assume, not "very legit".
 
Written By: coolpapa
URL: http://
"Scott J., almost nobody is seriously denying that global warming is real, the evidence is conclusive."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are a careless hack.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Ah, you guys don’t understand - scientists who aren’t directly working on climate aren’t eligble to talk about climate unless they agree with the Global Warming thesis.

If they agree then they can be chiropractoric scientists and they count towards
the total in the ’many’ scientists who agree with Scott.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Also, the site doesn’t seem very legit
Just because it conflicts with the prophets of AGW, most of whom are not scientists at all (like Gore who failed out of Divinity school).

AGW is just another wacky new age religion run by watermelons (Greens with Red agendas).

I believed in AGW when it first came out but realized that it was agenda based fake science driven by social engineers. You need to spend more time on sites like climateaudit.org
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The science has been settled, and most people agree that man is causing global warming.


(just trying the mantra on for size - feels a little tight around the skull)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’ve been away from the blog. I’ve updated the post to reflect the initial inaccurate report.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Also, the site doesn’t seem very legit, and it’s claim of 19,000 scientists is laughable.

Just for fun - how many would it take to change your mind?
It agrees with you, but it isn’t legit? Interesting.
Don’t try this at home, dude. He’s a professional.
Global warming, though, is uneven, and I think some models see the Northeast cooling rather than warming (while areas around the equator warming immensely).

I guess that’s the model you’re going with? Which one is that specifically? I want to know so I’ll know which of the hundreds is the correct one. And how did you choose it? Based on the credentials of the chief researcher or the color of the team’s helmet?
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Scott Erb and Bill Clinton make some unsupported assumptions:

1. The globe has warmed compared to what?

2. What evidence do you have that this has occurred over what period?

3. The draconian CO2 solution proposed will achieve what results at what cost?

I doubt green house gasses are the problem. CO2 is certainly not the problem.

Before we implement another UN program to solve a problem, we should debate the issue honestly and openly.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Before we implement another UN program to solve a problem, we should debate the issue honestly and openly.
Never happen. They’ve already passed you up. You’re an "obstructionist" and not to be tolerated nor considered. You might as well be advocating eugenics (which oddly enough is what they’re advocating, albeit with a 21st-century twist).
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Before we implement another UN program to solve a problem, we should debate the issue honestly and openly.
I realize the skeptics believe they are being shut out of the debate, but they’d have much less problem engaging in the debate if they were producing peer-reviewed research on the subject. Creationists and intelligent design proponents also demand to be debated seriously. The lack of interest in debating them primarily stems from a clear recognition that (a) they are mostly just making gap arguments, and (b) they have no interest in being persuaded or seeking the answers to their questions.

My disinterest in arguing with AGW skeptics is reinforced most effectively by the actual arguments they make - almost all of which are profoundly ignorant of the easily discoverable answers. Again, they are much like the creationists in that regard.

If you find my response dismissive and condescending, then you have apprehended it correctly.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Mr. Henke:

The central assumption in the IPCC global warming argument, that carbon dioxide is a forcing component in global climate change, is false.

There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is a forcing component in global climate change. Greenhouse has never triggered an ice age or reversed one. Look at Al Gore’s charts comparing atmospheric levels of CO2 with temperature. Rise in carbon dioxide levels follow increases in temperature. CO2 is a result of warming, not a cause.

Look at Dr Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart. Where is the Medieval Warm period? The Little Ice Age? Why did the warming his model predicted for the 1990s not occur? Why will he not release the source code for his model developed using public funds? Why does the model ignore the effect of water vapor, the most abundant and effective greenhouse gas? False major premise (CO2), flawed code, bad data.

Let’s assume that CO2 is the problem. What are we going to do about it? According to NASA, 168 billion metric tons (BMT) of the gas enter the atmosphere every year. 100 BMT are released by the world’s oceans. 30 BMT come from decaying biomass - rotting plants & animals; another 30 BMT, from respiration. 1 BMT come from forest fires. Industrial production of steel, bread, wine and other products emit 1 BMT. All fossil fuels - coal, petroleum and natural gas - account for only 6 BMT. If we ceased all use of fossil fuel today and shut down our economy, we could only reduce CO2 levels by 3.57%.

Debate is being suppressed by selectively funding only one side of this argument. Last month, the Pope asked for the scientific community to have a free and open debate before imposing these very severe measures.

BTW, science, by definition, is never "settled."
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Jon Henke:

But, don’t take my word for it.

Dr Reid Bryson at the University of Wisconsin is recognized by both the American and British Academies of Science as the expert on climatology. His CV and an interview on the subject available here as a .pdf. Here’s an interesting exchange:

"Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

"A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

"Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

"A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

Lord Christopher Monckton, a former climate change advisor to Margaret Thatcher and member of the IPCC, points out some of the glaring flaws in their reports here.

"As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror."

He goes on to point out that the IPCC:

1. Overstated rise in sea level from 7 centimeters to 7 meters,

2. Overstated radiant forcing of recent CO2 increases from 1% to 20%, and

3. Refused to use Stefan-Boltzmann law which converts radiant energy to temperature.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, had an OpEd in the WSJ entitled Don’t Believe the Hype, in which he outlines the politics and media campaign to cut off debate and embark on another large, international program before we understand the problem.

Dr. John R. Christy, Professor and Director Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, co-authored a NSF study comparing model predictions with actual temperature trends.

"Abstract: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data." [Emphasis are mine.]

The study is available as a pdf here.

Dr. Christy is a scientist involved in the collection and analysis of climate data, a less flashy sector than the modelers such as Drs. Mann and Singer. What this study concluded was that something we do not understand is happening with regard to CO2 and climate.

I suppose, Jon, you think all these people are fools because they seem to dare to disagree with you.

Myself, I do not know what causes climate change, but before we rush to spent $500 B per year to fix it, we should find out.
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Creationists and intelligent design proponents also demand to be debated seriously. The lack of interest in debating them primarily stems from a clear recognition that (a) they are mostly just making gap arguments, and (b) they have no interest in being persuaded or seeking the answers to their questions.
Hmmm, but their opponents only argue based on fact and seek to be persuaded that they may be wrong? Interesting that you would feel that way.

Nicely done, Arch, but those scientists you mention have already been given the dismissive handwave for being either nutballs, heretics of the scientific community, or corporate lackeys. No, the AGW side apparently has been bumrushed by all of the honest scientists of the world. What are the odds?
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider