Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Global Warming: It’s Time to Panic

Global Warming: It’s Time to Panic

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Oh no. Global warming’s on the move again.

You heard me right. Our  president told us so today. When he was asked about NYC Mayor Michael “Nanny” Bloomberg’s belief that Obama would do more to fight global warming, Obama made it clear he’d hold up his end of that bargain. In fact, he went so far as to say that temperatures are rising even faster than predicted just ten years ago. Here’s what he said, verbatim:

I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. You know, as you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe. And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it. 

Forget the study that showed how global temperatures stopped rising 16 years ago. If you live near a coast, I hope you have a go bag ready. I hope you’re not shrugging this off, because this could be very serious indeed.

While the rest of us busy ourselves by purchasing durable bicycles, protesting energy exploration in North America, and making compost heaps in our backyards with all the stuff we can’t flush down our low-flow toilets, President Obama and his team will be working hard to do their part by making sure none of us are using the wrong light bulbs or flushing too much water.

Most importantly, President Obama and his team of crackerjack government specialists will be making another round of enormous “investments” of taxpayer money into the sort of green technology companies that can play a part in saving the world from this entirely foreseeable, human-caused disaster.

The world needs successful green tech companies, now more than ever. The stimulus-funded green companies from Obama’s first administration will act as a great road map to how to do it. There was only one  problem with those state-of-the-art, cutting-edge innovators: they all failed in the free market. Damn that free market. Now we’ll have to do something about that, too.

There’s obviously a lot of work to be done here, so I guess we should split the labor. I’ll work on using your tax dollars manipulating and rigging the markets, while you go work in the compost heap.

Powered by

About Ombud

  • Jeff Giels

    Never mind you cherry picked the data (I quess you know how since you always charge scientists of doing it!). By picking the low of variation of a year of warming and factoring the average it appears no warming for a mere 16 years. Don’t consider La Nina or Nino…no we are very straight foward in our beliefs global warming is not happening.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “global warming stopped 16 years ago”.

    I guess you should have pointed out this “study” (for which you provided no reference) to the fine people over at the British Metrology Office who found that the ten years from 2000 to 2010 were in the hottest eleven years since record-keeping began in 1850.

    But that’s already two years ago, you say? Okay, here’s this from the U.S. National Climate Data Center:

    The first eight months of 2012 have been the warmest of any year on record in the contiguous United States, and this has been the third-hottest summer since record-keeping began in 1895, the U.S. National Climate Data Center said on Monday.

    Each of the last 15 months has seen above-average temperatures, something that has never happened before in the 117 years of the U.S. record, said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at the data center.

    Winter, spring and summer 2012 have all been among the top-five hottest for their respective seasons, Crouch said by telephone, and that too is unique in the U.S. record. There has never been a warmer September-through-August period than in 2011-2012, he said.

    “We’re now, in terms of statistics, in unprecedented territory for how long this warm spell has continued in the contiguous U.S.,” Crouch said.

    But wait, you say, how about this letter from 49 NASA scientists that says that human-generated CO2 being the cause of global warming is NOT proven? Even NASA scientists know that all this global warming claptrap is a government hoax!

    Really, Ombud? Is that what you think? I don’t know, since I’m just putting words in your mouth based on what you wrote in your article, but if you’ll look at that list of 49 scientists, you’ll find astronauts, administrators, engineers, managers…but NO climatologists. As this article points out, EXPERTISE MATTERS. Here’s our choice:

    On the one hand we have a bunch of former administrators, astronauts, and engineers who between them have zero climate expertise and zero climate science publications.
    On the other hand we have the climate scientists at NASA GISS who between them have decades, perhaps even centuries of combined professional climate research experience, and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of peer-reviewed climate science publications.
    Amongst those individuals at NASA GISS are some of the world’s foremost climate scientists. They include James Hansen, who created one of the earliest global climate models in the 1980s, which has turned out to be remarkably accurate
    .

    That’s why 97-98% of ALL climatologists agree that anthropomorphic global warming is quite real…EXPERTISE MATTERS.

    But I get it, Mr. Ombud – whatever Obama says Must Be Wrong. Whatever Obama supports Must Be Wrong. And Thou Shalt Not Question the fine folks over at Fox News who tell you that Obama is Always Wrong, the government is Always Evil, the liberals are Always Stupid, and half of Americans Always Want Free Stuff From Hard-Working Conservatives.

    A wise man once said, “Facts are stubborn things”. That was Ronald Reagan…who wisely listened to the last time the climate scientists brought up a big problem with what mankind was doing to the world. Remember CFC’s and the Ozone Hole? But of course Reagan was just another moonbat liberal like me….

  • Dr Dreadful

    “Forget the study that showed how global temperatures stopped rising 16 years ago.”

    Forget that you can pick any especially hot point in time and then claim that because it hasn’t got hotter since then it proves global warming isn’t happening.

    It’s like me picking September 14th (the hottest day this year here in San Diego) and claiming that because temperatures have been on a downward trend since then it proves next summer isn’t going to happen.

    Obama is correct that warming is taking place faster than predicted. He was probably referencing the recent research summarized in this Scientific American article.

  • Cindy

    Ombud’s article is an example of how belief precedes rationale.

  • Doug Hunter

    Glenn, to your ‘remarkably accurate’ link the first things I note (I tend to be a stats and hard figures guy like yourself) were these.

    “Figure 1 reproduces Hansen’s Scenario B with a 16% reduction in the warming trend”

    AND

    As the figure above shows… it only overpredicted the warming by approximately 15 to 25%”

    So if you reduce the trend 16% then it’s only around 20% high… that’s not exactly what I’d call ‘remarkably accurate’ sounds a little weasely, like someone trying to spin the numbers a bit. Why not just admit his scenario was 35-40% high?

    #3 And dreadful, that goes both ways. The earth’s climate goes in all kinds of longer cycles, the PDO for example. You can be on an upcycle then easily project runaway warming into the future by the same token.

    From your link in SciAm

    “The X factors that MAY be pushing the earth into an era of rapid climate change are long-HYPOTHESIZED feedback loops that MAY be starting to kick in”

    Lots more weasel words in the body than at the top, scary headlines do sale though.

    The facts are that hurricanes have shown no trend, Sea level rise has little to no acceleration and continues on a pace of 9 inches or so per century (ooh, scary! Although it has risen 400 ft or so in 15,000 years… that’s a long term trend), tornadoes have shown no trend, alot of people have been mislead on these issues that have been held up as evidence of global warming when you research the raw data you find it’s not quite as frightening as they make it out. Globally we are on a warm plateau in regards to temperatures and the Arctic ice is very low for a few weeks in the summer, those are trends that should be monitored.

    At the EPAs own estimated $700 Trillion cost to adjust the thermostat a single degree over 75 years (to be precise, $78 billion a year in regulations should adjust the temperature .006-.015 by 2100 and contain sea level rise .06-.14cm) I’d sit tight and see what the future holds without giving up the gains of industrialization. perhaps instead of spending $78 Billion a year we could just build our building 1.4 millimeters higher for example.

    I know scientists know all though, and indeed global warming is very scary. They told me I’d get vaporized by ‘green’ space aliens if I drive a Hummer. I believe everything everyone with a degree says!!!

  • Dr Dreadful

    A wise man once said, “Facts are stubborn things”. That was Ronald Reagan

    Indeed. I would go further and observe that both facts and global warming denialists are funny things, and it is tragically fascinating to watch what happens when they meet.

    It used to be that the anti camp simply flat-out denied that warming was happening. Eventually, the weight of data (and personally observable phenomena) forced them to accept that it was happening, but they stood their ground and insisted that it wasn’t humans who were causing it. At that point they were asked to come up with an explanation for what was causing warming if humans weren’t. They couldn’t come up with anything convincing, so now they’re back to denying the whole thing again.

  • Doug Hunter

    If you’re worried about flood and drought in addition to the fabled increase in tornadoes and hurricanes here is your research:

    From the Hydrological Sciences Journal:

    No trend in US flooding over 85-127 year span

    Nature Journal: Little change in global drought over 60 years.

    Of course, who needs actual evidence when the computer models say really scary stuff may/might/possibly/could/likely happen and aliens will kill us if we don’t immediately enact taxes that, while not actually changing anything temperaturewise, will let us feel good about ourselves and make our politicians so happy!

  • Doug Hunter

    #6

    I think it’s funnier the other way. If you only read media scare stories you’d think the world was about to end. I posted lots of facts, no trend in US flooding, no trend in global drought, no trend in hurricanes, no trend in tornadoes. These are not polls of scientists or articles about what some computer model spit out, these are the facts as best as science can currently determine… I know the facts. Most people think droughts are way more prevalent, most people thing hurricanes are bigger and more common, most people think ‘weird’ weather like tornadoes and flooding are on the rise… most people are wrong.

  • Dr Dreadful

    #3 And dreadful, that goes both ways. The earth’s climate goes in all kinds of longer cycles, the PDO for example. You can be on an upcycle then easily project runaway warming into the future by the same token.

    And what makes you think no predictions have been done based on long-term trends?

    “The X factors that MAY be pushing the earth into an era of rapid climate change are long-HYPOTHESIZED feedback loops that MAY be starting to kick in”

    Lots more weasel words in the body than at the top

    Not weasel words, just scientific caution. Or perhaps an awareness that anti-AGW attack dogs are likely to pounce on any too-forcefully worded statement.

    The facts are that hurricanes have shown no trend

    Really? This graph was plotted using the NOAA Atlantic Hurricane Center’s hurricane data. The horizontal axis shows the progression of time and the vertical is the accumulated energy of a particular season’s storms. Sure looks like a trend to me.

    Sea level rise has little to no acceleration and continues on a pace of 9 inches or so per century (ooh, scary!

    Cherry picking. The data I believe you have in mind are for the continental US only, a region that has its own special circumstances that affect sea level, not least of which is postglacial rebound. Globally, sea level is most assuredly rising, and while a few inches might not seem scary to you, it can still mean exacerbated flooding trends in low-lying coastal areas, which is where most of us overevolved monkeys happen to live.

    tornadoes have shown no trend

    Is a trend predicted? As far as I’m aware, tornado data is too incomplete to determine whether there’s a trend or not.

    perhaps instead of spending $78 Billion a year we could just build our building 1.4 millimeters higher for example.

    Besides the laughable notion that building a building 1.4 millimetres higher off the ground will save it from flooding, what about the rest of the infrastructure? What about the roads and railways that serve the buildings? What about ports? Flood defences? Fields? Power lines? Before you know where you are we’ve spent so much on reactive engineering it’s dwarfed what it might have cost to be proactive.

  • Dr Dreadful

    No trend in US flooding over 85-127 year span

    Again, that study is limited to the US, which for reasons previously explained is not necessarily a good indicator of global trends. This from Nature takes a global look and finds an increase in the frequency of severe floods.

    Nature Journal: Little change in global drought over 60 years.

    I still see an upward trend, albeit small.

    Another thing: your various sources have time periods that are all over the place. 60 years… 85-127 years… since 1900… between 1916 and 1980, etc. Again, if you cherry pick your data you can make them “prove” just about anything.

  • j

    The snarky tone of this article annoys me.

  • Doug Hunter

    “Really? This graph was plotted using the NOAA Atlantic Hurricane Center’s hurricane data. The horizontal axis shows the progression of time and the vertical is the accumulated energy of a particular season’s storms. Sure looks like a trend to me.”

    I’m fairly familiar with the NOAA datasets and imagine that is an estimate based on known storms in the Atlantic. The thing about that is that in 1850 all we KNEW were what the occasional ships (who were trying to avoid storms BTW) told us. Later we found more hurricanes using aircraft, then the last uptick occured when we started using satellites. Satellites can measure a ‘hurricane’ who only qualifies for a few hours and doesn’t ever really miss anything like the old methods.

    Translation: You’re using very suspect data.

    The most reliable record we have is actual landfall data and that shows no trend. ACE data shows that satellites are better than airplanes are better than wooden ships at spotting storms out in the middle of the Atlantic not effecting anyone.

    If you don’t believe me you can read NOAA say the same thing here.

  • Doug Hunter

    Doc, not accelerating is not the same as not rising, I think you were confused as to what I was saying. Sea level rise has been on a steady trajectory to by up a few inches by the end of the century.

  • Doug Hunter

    The notion that was meant to be laughable was that we should spend $78 billion a year, every year, for 75 years to prevent 1.4 mm of sea level rise by 2100 per the EPA’s own projections. I’m glad you agree it’s a bit silly.

    Your nature article’s not coming up now, I’d love to see their methodology, did they correct for land use changes, urbanization (concrete sheds water very fast), etc. but for now I’ve had too many posts on this topic. I’ll let you excoriate me with the last word if you want. Good day.

  • Dr Dreadful

    @ #12: There is another study I referenced on another thread, and which I can’t find now (stupid browser history cleanup!) a few weeks ago which used storm surge evidence along the US east coast and confirmed that there is indeed an upward trend in landfalling storms. I’ll see if I can find it again.

    @ #13: You are correct that I got mixed up between accelerating and rising. However, my source does confirm acceleration (first graph on page 12).

  • http://www.lunch.com/JSMaresca-Reviews-1-1.html Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doug –

    Apparently, you think that extra nine inches is no big deal. What you’re not getting – and what any scientist would immediately get – is that warm water is a kind of battery – it stores energy. Add an extra nine inches of warm water over 361,800 square kilometers (which is how much water surface area we have on Earth) and you have LOTS of extra energy just waiting to be used by local storms.

    You can deny global warming all you want, but expertise matters – I’ll listen to the experts before I’ll listen to you…and in this case, the climatologists ARE the experts.

    The really sad thing is that you don’t pay attention to exactly who it is that’s funding most of the climate-change denial industry – Big Oil. You’ve got the VAST majority of the scientists who don’t have a financial dog in the fight telling you that AGW’s a big problem affecting the entire planet, and you’ve got Big Oil (and a few Big-Oil-funded crackpots) telling you it’s all a lie…and Big Oil stands to lose a LOT of money if America does something about climate change.

    One side doesn’t get rich if they’re right. The other side makes BILLIONS by convincing you the other guys are wrong. And this doesn’t make little alarm bells go off in your head? And then there’s the old conservative saw that the 98% of climatologists are just after increased funding and credibility within their ranks…but you’re not thinking it through. Why?

    Because – and here is the biggest reason why you should pay attention to the climatologists – the climatologists WISH they were wrong. They DON’T WANT to be right. Why? Because they see all the tragedy that is coming because of global warming.

    So really now, to the cynical, skeptical mind, which is more likely to be telling the truth: the ones who WISH they were wrong (and who could make beaucoup bucks by working for Big Oil if they were willing to say something different) because they know how bad it will get…

    …or the ones who would make billions more by getting you to believe that AGW is all a lie?

  • http://www.realville-usa.com/ Ombud

    Don’t forget the people who make millions by getting you to believe in global warming. Al Gore has made, by some estimates, nearly a BILLION dollars scamming the gullible public with businesses who get revenue through government mandates.

    Oh wait, global warming isn’t happening. So now we call it climate change. Now any type of weather change is a reason for hysteria. Yay.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Al Gore isn’t a climatologist.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ombud –

    Al Gore has made, by some estimates, nearly a BILLION dollars scamming the gullible public with businesses who get revenue through government mandates.

    Riiiiiiiight. Care to show some kind of proof other than a wild claim off some Rabid Right wingnut blog? I didn’t think so.

    Here’s a clue, guy – just because a claim fits in with your assumptions about the world doesn’t make that claim true.

  • http://www.realville-usa.com/ Ombud

    He’s worth over $100 million, and he stands to profit TREMENDOUSLY from cap and trade, among other green scams.

    If you use a search engine, you can find this stuff on your own, you know.

    Al Gore Carbon Billionaire

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ombud –

    As a partner in a venture capital firm. Ever watch “Shark Tank”, Ombud? They’re all venture capitalists there…and that’s how they got much richer than what they were to begin with. AND just because Gore invests in a green company doesn’t mean it’s wrong for him to support green technology. For instance, are you going to call Motor Trend a Democratic shill for calling the all-electric Tesla its Car of the Year? You should go sit in one sometime – it’s very, very nice and is as fast as any gas-powered vehicle in its price range. Better yet, are you going to call The Motley Fool a Democratic shill? They just called Tesla “The next Apple”. Yes, this or that green tech company fails – as is the case in ALL industries – but sometimes you get a real game-changer…and Tesla just might be it.

    And how’s the Prius doing? Still selling like hotcakes, last I looked…but it’s unAmerican to invest in green tech in your eyes, I guess.

    NOW, Ombud, stop cherry-picking about this or that single person and tell us why 98% of ALL climatologists – who certainly will NEVER get rich for spreading the alarm about global warming – present so much evidence for something that NONE of them want to happen? Why is that, Ombud?

  • http://www.rosedigitalmarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn, is that figure of 361,800 sq km of water surface area accurate? I would have thought it was rather bigger…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    Sorry – it’s 361,132,000 square kilometers. Thank you for pointing that out.

  • Doug Hunter

    #17

    You should really read my comments before you respond with your alarmist boilerplate. Everything I linked to… NOAA, respected journals, EPA testimony in the congressional record has nothing to do with your ‘climate denial industry’ boogeyman. Again, it’s you that is short on facts.

    No one getting rich on climate change?

    From an activist group who supports climate change spending and regulation report the US spent $38,000,000,000.00 (38 billion with a B) on ‘public investments …incentives’ in regards to climate change in 2010 alone. According to the environmental leader, the global carbon trading market was valued at $142,000,000,000.00 (142 billion with a B) Reports indicate that could spring into the Trillions if the US and other major emitters sign on.

    Again, I’ll go to groups on your side since maybe you’ll listen. Greenpeace reports that in all the years from 1998-2008 Exxon spent a grand total of $23 Million, with an M, on largely conservative groups and foundations that oppose climate change, no indication if the money was earmarked solely for the ‘climate denial industry’.

    Of course, you’ve already admitted your mind is closed regardless of the source, you have your precious poll of scientists who make a single generalized statement (one with which even I wouldn’t disagree) and refuse to even consider anything else.

    Please quit spouting nonsense, It’s obvious you’re out of your league in this area.

    #10 Doc, I got the abstract now on your study. Can’t determine much as you have to pay to read it. I did notice this line though “The recent emergence of a statistically significant positive trend”, I’d love to see the chart on that, sounds like it’s just outside the margin of error. Land use and urbanization have huge effects on flooding, can’t see how they dealt with that though.

    I know the US and many parts of Europe have shown no change in flooding. I’m not trying to cherry pick studies… most scientific studies just simply aren’t as alarming as the media stories you read. I have no control over what year range they use, although I try to link relatively fresh information.

    I’ll resummarize my links for posterity and so all the people scared of ‘weird’ weather they hear being pushed in the media can breath perhaps it bit easier:

    Journal Nature – Little Change In Global Drought

    Hydrological Science Journal – No Increase in US flooding

    NOAA – No Trend In Hurricane Landfalls

    NOAA – No Trend In Tornadoes

    Never fear though, the guvmint and the EPA, (in their own words) have a deal for you. For the low, low cost of 84 annual payments of just $78,000,000,000.00 you can, not stop global warming, not reverse global warming, but you can slow down the potential increase in sea level by .6 to 1.4 millimeters and of temperature by .006 to .015 by the year 2100… that’s only $700 Trillion dollars per degree!

    Buy now, this offer won’t last long. It’s ‘worse that we thought’ and the models show tipping points and catastrophe right around the corner if you don’t act now… just like they did last year… just like they did 5 years ago… just like they did 10 years ago… just like they did 20 years ago… just like they will in 5 years if you don’t fall for it this time.

    Please call now (before green aliens vaporize our planet for not tithing Gaia)

  • Doug Hunter

    More of the charade of fear:

    Esteemed global warming scientist Michael Mann, author of the famed hockey stick, has warned (Warning: link includes a scary picture a person in the water clinging to a pole) that Pacific islands including Tuvalu will dissappear… it’s worse than we thought. These islands have already asked Australia and New Zealand to accept their population 11,000… climate refugees (part of the 15 million or so the IPCC claimed we would have by now) they also in a famous dog and pony show signed a treaty underwater in support of climate change wealth transfers.

    Facts: All but 3 of 27 studied low lying Pacific islands have remained stable or grew over 60 years… including 7 of Tuvalu’s who grew during that time period. Tuvalu’s population and size have grown.

    You’re right though, facts are stubborn things… never let them get in the way of a good cause! If you care enough to do your research you’ll notice this time after time after time that the scare stories are just that. The population is being manipulated with very misleading information, it’s a sad thing… but no different from anything else in politics. It’s almost as if we expect our leaders and elites to lie, the ends justify the means I guess.

  • Doug Hunter

    Here’s another article posted regarding the above study of low lying islands since most people will not be able to access the full study.

    Climate change ‘increases island size’

  • Brad Fregger

    It’s hopeless trying to convince the Global Warming religious fanatics. They don’t pay attention to scientific data anymore than the creationists. It’s so sad that they are willing to give the world’s governments billions of dollars, from the pockets of the middle class, to be used to accomplish nothing but the furthering of the progressive agenda.

  • Fred

    I am old enough to remember when the conservatives told us that cigarette smoke was harmless and they had the science to prove it. Sometimes history really does repeat itself

  • Doug Hunter

    #29

    The difference now is that you don’t have to manufacture science, the government’s best data doesn’t even support the nonsense, although computer models do (models tend to predict whatever the person who programs them tells them to). Science has a history of generally being right, but not nearly always (especially when money is involved).

  • Clavos

    @Joseph Maresca:

    The report to which you link in comment #16 specifically excludes tropical cyclones (hurricanes), which were the topic of conversation up to that point, for lack of sufficient data (as Doug Hunter had just pointed out in comment #12). Here are the pertinent paragraphs from your linked report:

    For hurricanes and typhoons, robust detection of trends in Atlantic and western North Pacific tropical cyclone (TC) activity is significantly constrained by data heterogeneity and deficient quantification of internal variability. Attribution of past TC changes is further challenged by a lack of consensus on the physical linkages between climate forcing and TC activity. As a result, attribution of trends to anthropogenic forcing remains controversial. (emphasis added)

  • Clavos

    Al Gore isn’t a climatologist.

    True. But he’s still getting rich “playing one” in the movies and on TV.

  • Clavos

    In response to ombud’s assertion that:

    Al Gore has made, by some estimates, nearly a BILLION dollars scamming the gullible public with businesses who get revenue through government mandates,

    Glenn sez, in #20:

    Riiiiiiiight. Care to show some kind of proof other than a wild claim off some Rabid Right wingnut blog?

    Well, Glenn, you’re right, The New York Times, which is, admittedly about on a par with your average “right wingnut blog,” seems to think that Algore has already made millions from his global warming warning activities, and if Cap and Trade becomes a reality, stands to make at least a billion.

    But, it’s true, and everyone knows The NYT is only good for catching your parrot’s poop in his cage.

  • Clavos

    Sorry, Forgot the NYT link in #33.

    Here ’tis.

  • zingzing

    so “has made” and “stands to make” mean the same thing? not even time can constrain some men.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Curious as to why it’s OK for fossil energy execs to pursue wealth through oil trading but not OK for Al Gore to pursue it through cap and trade.

  • http://www.realville-usa.com/ Ombud

    Glenn,

    Because “climate scientists” are funded primarily through government grants, they are effectively political shills with PhD’s.

    As far as real science goes, they are a step below parapsychologists. Parapsychology was never rocked by an enormous collusive fraud scandal like the climatologist community was.

    Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

  • http://www.realville-usa.com/ Ombud

    Doc –

    Because cap and trade is not a free market. It only exists because government mandates that it exists. It’s a pretend market. Nothing more than a scam, really.

  • Clavos

    so “has made” and “stands to make” mean the same thing? not even time can constrain some men.

    Obviously they don’t and I didn’t say they do.

  • Zingzing

    Great, so he hasn’t made a billion dollars off of capntrade. Glad that’s settled.

    Ombud: “Because “climate scientists” are funded primarily through government grants, they are effectively political shills with PhD’s.”

    So the global oil market is not controlled by politics? Come on. Interestingly, even when the Koch brothers paid some scientists to come up with experimental data to refute global warming, the scientists came back and said the data backed it up. Global warming is real, it’s been proven every which way, and beyond that, it’s inescapably logical. Even if you don’t understand the science, you’d have to be one ignorant person to think that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere would have no affect upon the chemical composition and behavior of our atmosphere. That’s just stupid. So stupid. Unbelievably so.

  • Zingzing

    Put bacon grease on your face every day, ombud. See what happens. Chemistry is real and it doesn’t matter if it’s your face or this planet.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Ombud –

    Because “climate scientists” are funded primarily through government grants, they are effectively political shills with PhD’s.

    You’re forgetting all the climate scientists that work at all the major universities in America – none of them are federal employees. Some of them might get grants, but you’re making a grand logical error by assuming they all do.

    Again, Ombud, none of these climate scientists are getting rich by telling you what their research shows…and ALL of them wish that they were wrong. Think about it, Ombud – if YOU knew something was happening that was going to wind up killing many, many people, and likely lead to wars, would you really choose a bundle of money to say that there’s nothing to worry about? Would you? No? Then what makes you think that 98% of the climatologists on the ENTIRE PLANET would ALL agree to lie to the world about climate change? AND if you knew anything at all about grand conspiracies, you’d know that a secret conspiracy among thousands of people…doesn’t stay secret very long.

    So which is more likely – that Big Oil is telling you what they hope is true (and along the way make many, many billions more by funding climate change denial), or that the VAST majority of climate scientists – who know more about the matter than anyone else, remember – are telling you what they WISH was false…and they’re making no extra money by doing so.

    AND Ombud – with this SECRET CONSPIRACY that you seem to think exists among all the thousands of climatologists, do you not realize that if there were such a conspiracy, within a friggin’ year one of them would have sold the story to Fox News for millions.

    But none have. Again, with the great majority of people, if they know that something’s going to happen that’s going to lead to great tragedy affecting entire nations, they’re NOT going to keep their mouths shut or to lie about it.

    I just wish you’d FOLLOW THE MONEY and apply the same cynicism against Big Oil’s climate change denial efforts as you do against the people who know more about the subject than anyone else.

  • Deano

    In case you haven’t been following the media in the real world, the “climategate” scandel was copiously investigated conclusively laid to rest with the conclusion that the accusations HAD NO MERIT.

    Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. These included the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the UK Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, an Independent Climate Change Email Review from the UK government, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation.

    By the way the comment that climate scientests are “one step below parapsychologist” is possibly the stupidest remark I’ve ever read on Blogcritics. Congratulations, you win the prize.

  • Clavos

    Great, so he hasn’t made a billion dollars off of capntrade.

    No. it hasn’t been passed yet. But when it is, his company will be at the top of the C&T heap in terms of earnings. He has maneuvered to where when there is a market, his company will control much of it. And of course, he travels everwhere with his Powerpoint slide show advocating the establishment of a EU-style C&T system for America. Here’s The NYT’s take on it.

  • Clavos

    One other thing worth mentioning, zing. When C&T is launched, the price of visrtually everything we need to live and acquire by purchasing from stores wil increase substantially in price — everything. That which is not made with petroleum as an ingredient (and you’d be surprised how much is nowadays; for starters, everything with plastic or synthetic fibers in it — most clothing — even the majority of autos these days contain significant quantities of plastic), still has to be transported from origin to market. The cost of living will increase significantly for everyone — especially all those poor people you libs are always feeling sorry for.

    Food for tought — and yes, food will surely skyrocket.

  • Zingzing

    Clavos, in case you haven’t noticed, the price of food is already on the rise because of droughts and warmer than usual condititions. And it will only get worse, and food will get more expensive and there will be even less of it, and you’ll wish something had been done. But it probably won’t significantly affect YOU, so whatever.

  • Zingzing

    Your number 45 seems rather speculative… And maybe alarmist. And what does “significantly” mean to you? Noticeably, maybe? Because similar legislation has been passed and implemented before and it hasn’t caused anything much like what you describe, as far as I can tell.

    The day when doing anything with fossil fuels becomes more and more expensive is coming quickly, clavos, whether you want to see us prepared for that day or not. I can’t believe how short-sighted you’re being.

  • Clavos

    Your number 45 seems rather speculative… And maybe alarmist.

    Obviously, I disagree. Based on the all-around pervasiveness of petroleum-based products in today’s world. It’s far more than just a fuel. Google it. You’ll see what I mean.

    Significantly in this context means that enough of the stuff to make a noticeable difference in the price of an automobile — by noticeable I mean we’ll all at least bitch at the way prices are rising, and I think prices will rise enough across product lines (not just autos) to shut out people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

    The day when doing anything with fossil fuels becomes more and more expensive is coming quickly, clavos

    True enough, zing. I’m uncomfortable with accelerating it any further until we have developed viable options; the thing about Cap and Trade as it’s been proposed so far is that it won’t slow down the dumping of carbon into the atmosphere; it likely won’t even prevent growth in the dumping; those who need to dump will buy the credits and continue to merrily dump all they do now. Those who don’t will sell their credits to the dumpers — nothing changes, except Al Gore and his investors will get incredibly richer.

    the price of food is already on the rise because of droughts and warmer than usual conditions. And it will only get worse, and food will get more expensive and there will be even less of it

    All true, and all likely to happen much more quickly under C&T.

  • Zingzing

    “Obviously, I disagree. Based on the all-around pervasiveness of petroleum-based products in today’s world. It’s far more than just a fuel. Google it. You’ll see what I mean.”

    I know that petroleum is used in a lot of products, clavos… What’s your point? That the price of those things will rise? Hey, maybe we’ll use less of those products and the price will fall again. Again, can you show me where this horrorshow has taken place because of similar policies? Or is this all speculation?

    “I’m uncomfortable with accelerating it any further until we have developed viable options”

    We have viable options. Other nations around the world are using them while we sit around with an oily thumb up our collective butt.

    “nothing changes, except Al Gore and his investors will get incredibly richer.”

    That’s not true at all. Those companies/industries that can make the switch do so, gaining a competitive advantage and showing the rest of us various ways it can be done. It’s an incentive, and that’s what fuels innovation.

    “All true, and all likely to happen much more quickly under C&T.”

    In the short term, maybe. But in the long term, certainly not.

  • Clavos

    We have viable options. Other nations around the world are using them while we sit around with an oily thumb up our collective butt.

    Oh, well that’s different; nobody told me. What are they?

    That’s not true at all.

    I’m sorry, I don’t understand that. What isn’t true? And why isn’t it?

    It’s an incentive, and that’s what fuels innovation.

    Again, I’m sorry, but I don’t understand. What is an “incentive?” What is “it,” not asking for the definition of an incentive; I think I know, but if I don’t I can always look it up. How is “it” an incentive?

  • Clavos
  • zingzing

    “Oh, well that’s different; nobody told me. What are they?”

    nuclear, biomass, solar, wind, etc. but you knew that… sweden, for one, is projected to free from oil by the end of this decade. can you imagine a united states that didn’t depend upon oil? we could actually be a force for good in this world, rather than a nation going through the dt’s, mumbling and scratching about how we just need a little oil, if only you could spare a barrel (all the while thinking about robbing you of your oil).

    denmark gets more than 20% of its energy from wind, while the uk and germany also get large chunks of their power supply from renewable resources. germany’s had some troubles lately, but some of that can be put on the fact that they got spooked about nuclear energy after the thing in japan. the transfer away from using non-renewable sources to renewable sources isn’t going to be bump-free, but it HAS to happen, and the sooner the better.

    “I’m sorry, I don’t understand that. What isn’t true? And why isn’t it?”

    you said nothing will change except gore et al will get richer. nothing will change if we stay on the same damn road we’ve been on. things will change, and again, they HAVE to change, if we start rewarding investment in renewable energy and cutting carbon output.

    “How is “it” an incentive?”

    convert to renewable energy, have carbon credits to sell to those who don’t. you get a step ahead and you have the credits to sell. do you really not get this?

    look at history. humans have risen to this type of challenge time and time again, and someone’s always been there bitching about how impossible it all is. “the south will never survive without slavery!” etc. thing is, humanity HAS to confront this problem. even if global warming is some huge hoax perpetrated by the most mind-bogglingly huge collection of evil genius scientists and politicians (all of whom can be trusted with a secret), fossil fuels WILL run out. wouldn’t you rather be prepared for that day than sitting there, grasping your last remaining drops of oil, wishing you’d only listened?

  • Zingzing

    As for your linked article, you do realize it’s 3 years old, right? And as doc said earlier, what’s wrong with him putting his money where his mouth is?

  • Zingzing

    Even before fossil fuels run out, there will come a day when the supply is not able to satisfy the demand, and on that day, the price of oil will start a climb it will never stop, and the renewable energy will be far more attractive. The nations that have invested in and created the infrastructure for renewable energy will be good, while the others will be lost. We can forestall that day by investing in renewable energy now.

  • Clavos

    So Sweden will be able to supply all its energy needs by the end of the decade? I’m not surprised: they tax their people the way american pols are afraid to. I have several cousins over there (In total I have several dozen relatives still in the old country) who are reasonably successful business people, making less than the $250K above which Obama wants to raise taxes, but still, they are in the six figures. Their tax rate? 45-55%. So yes, with that kind of tax income (the lowest rate for a blue collar worker can be as low as single digits, but commonly is in the teens), the Swedish gummint should have no problem achieving that goal.

    Besides the income tax, Sweden also levies a 25% Value Added Tax (VAT) on all purchases except food, some services (hotel rooms are taxed at only 12%) publications, and admissions to cultural events. Between the income and VAT taxes, my aforementioned cousins pay close to 80-85% of their annual income in taxes, so again, we could do the same here, and being a much larger country (Sweden’s population is only 9.1 million — less than Florida), we should also probably be able to cut out oil altogether, and likely even faster than the Swedes (not for nothing are we called Squareheads, most of us are dumb as a box of rocks).

    Shall we start lobbying our politicians to raise taxes to the 50% level? I’m for it, as long as everyone is raised equally, with no exceptions and no deductions, and the Kennedys would not be allowed to veto a windmill field off the Vineyard — or anyplace else, for that matter. I can live on half of what I live on now and would be glad to do it for the betterment of the country.

    Think we can get the country behind it?

    Even before fossil fuels run out, there will come a day when the supply is not able to satisfy the demand, and on that day, the price of oil will start a climb it will never stop, and the renewable energy will be far more attractive.

    Of course. But they keep finding more and developing better ways to extract previously unreachable deposits, so that day is likely pretty far in the future. on that note, I have been hearing people (usually politicians) say that the oil is running out for more than fifty years now, and it ain’t happened yet.

    As for your linked article, you do realize it’s 3 years old, right?

    Uh huh.

    convert to renewable energy

    At the present time, how much of our energy demand can we satisfy with “renewables?” 10%? 20%? Not much more than that, I’m sure.

    you said nothing will change except gore et al will get richer Yes, i did, but what I was referring to was that cap and trade will not reduce the amount of carbon being released into the air; entities currently spewing tons of it will be able to continue simply by buying someone ese’s allotment — the same amount of carbon will still be released.

    denmark gets more than 20% of its energy from wind, while the uk and germany also get large chunks of their power supply from renewable resources.

    I wouldn’t call 20% of the energy demand of a country the size of a small Texas cattle ranch a “large chunk,” zing.

    we could actually be a force for good in this world

    Yeah, but we wouldn’t; we’re too mean-spirited, selfish, arrogant, stupid, and ignorant to do it.

  • Zingzing

    “Think we can get the country behind it?”

    Are you equating their tax rate with their ability to get off oil addiction? I dunno. There’s a relation, I’m sure, but it’s not as all-consuming as you make it out to be. Could we do what Sweden is doing? Maybe, but it would take longer. I’m not blind to the problems we’d face, but I think we could do it if we wanted, and we’d be better off if we started doing something about it.

    ” it ain’t happened yet.”

    But it will, and in the meantime, it’s destroying our environment. Some things were meant to stay buried. No god planted those things for our use, it’s a waste product that we’ve converted into our destruction. It’s our global political crux, and our environmental doom.

    “At the present time, how much of our energy demand can we satisfy with “renewables?” 10%? 20%? Not much more than that, I’m sure.”

    And what was it 50 years ago? What makes you think we can’t use renewable resources better? In another decade we can have those numbers up another 20%, and a decade after that, who knows.

    “entities currently spewing tons of it will be able to continue simply by buying someone ese’s allotment — the same amount of carbon will still be released.”

    Yes, but other entities would stop, and they would become more profitable for having done so, while the dinosaurs would find their lot increasingly strenuous. Eventually, they’d evolve or die. You’re thinking short term.

    “I wouldn’t call 20% of the energy demand of a country the size of a small Texas cattle ranch a “large chunk,” zing.”

    Except it’s not the size of a small cattle ranch, is it? I know America has different challenges than other countries, but fuck, we pay farmers NOT to grow things. What if we had those farms harvesting wind or solar energy? The answers aren’t as easy as I make them out to be, but they certainly aren’t as insurmountable as you make them out to be either.

    “Uh huh.”

    And 3 years on, he’s still not a carbon billionaire. Gore’s a man willing to risk his fortune on what may be humanity’s survival on this planet. If he was in it for the money, he’d invest in oil. He’ll die long before his investments really pay off, and I hope to gawd that they do.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    It suits the anti-Gore narrative that cap and trade shouldn’t do anything to mitigate environmental damage and should render everyone except a few (mysteriously and suddenly evil) investors worse off.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, C&T has been demonstrated to cut emissions, create jobs, reduce energy bills and generally do a whole bunch of positive things denialists claim it won’t.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Doug:

    I haven’t forgotten you and will get round to responding to your 26 and 27, possibly tomorrow, more likely Monday.

  • Zingzing

    Very good, doc. How can you deny it, clavos? It’s good for us now, and it will be good for us in the future. Economically, scientifically, everything stands to gain except your politics… And I hardly think you’d let that stand in the way exept upon some retarded principle. This is real progress, and not just for other people, but for you as well. Accept it. Down is up, the left is right. Even if you don’t agree on global warming, you must know that renewable energy is the future. You and people with your opinion on this will have to give in no matter what, so why not now?

  • Clavos

    And 3 years on, he’s still not a carbon billionaire.

    Because we haven’t instituted it yet. Once it starts, he will be — and he’ll make so much money he’ll be able to continue his profligate use of 20 times as much energy just in his Nashville house than the average family of four consumes.

  • Clavos

    Meanwhile, in the real world, C&T has been demonstrated to cut emissions, create jobs, reduce energy bills and generally do a whole bunch of positive things denialists claim it won’t.

    Doc, the “report”you linked to is written and issued by the very company that is running the C & T program in the states named, it’s propaganda, not proof.

  • Clavos

    Except it’s not the size of a small cattle ranch, is it?

    It’s pretty small, it’s less than a thousand miles long by 300 wide, which makes it about twice the size of Florida, with half as many people. I have a lot of relatives there, and have visited a number of times; it’s pretty small — it’s biggest town, Stockholm, has a population of about a third of Miami’s — that’s small.

  • Clavos

    Obviously, I was talking about the wrong small country in # 62. Sweden is bigger than Denmark, but still very small.

    Denmark is, according to the CIA World Fact Book, less than twice the size of Massachusetts (but with fewer Americans, thankfully). Its population is 5.5 million, much less than Florida’s (19 million, per 2010 census). The King Ranch in Texas, is 1289 sq. mi. Denmark is 16,600 sq. mi., Florida is 58,500 sq. mi.

  • Clavos

    Even if you don’t agree on global warming, you must know that renewable energy is the future.

    zing, i wasn’t arguing against renewable energy, just Cap & Trade, especially when carbon consumers (and competitors to the USA) on the order of China and India have no intention of adopting a similar program.

  • Zingzing

    But it’s not a small cattle ranch, so let’s pretending it is. Compare it to new jersey then, and tell me about the possibilities. (I have relatives in the region as well, and have visited, and yes, it is small, but so what? Your knowledge of petroleum products and Scandinavia is not unique, clavos…)

    ”Because we haven’t instituted it yet. Once it starts, he will be…”

    But he’s still not, right? And what do you object to if he does (for the third or fourth time)?

    ” it’s propaganda, not proof.”

    It’s data. Do you think they’re just making it up?

  • Zingzing

    65 was for 62

  • Zingzing

    China is actually the biggest investor in renewable energy, as I guess they had better be. India would do well to catch up, and they know it.

    How do you think we’ll ever wean ourselves off of fossil fuels if we keep up your fantasy that they’ll last for long enough?

    (And the king’s ranch, although large, isn’t Denmark, nor Sweden, nor any other place. Is it having any problems?)

  • Clavos

    So, zing: are you prepared to junk all the millions of fossil fuel powered vehicles worldwide? Don’t forget that those include every aircraft in the world, as well as all the railroad locomotives and every ship in the world, too. Then there are places like Florida, where because of a lack of any other source, we generate our electrical power by burning dinosaurs as well.

    However, speaking of a lack of resources, I AM puzzled as to why no one is attempting to sink turbines just offshore of Florida’s east coast to harness the power of the world’s largest ocean current, the Gulfstream, which, here in South Florida, is a mere three miles from the beach. There’s an enormous amount of water that has been flowing northward 24/7 for millenia at 3 to 5 knots, and yet I’ve never heard of anybody even trying to harness it.

    ‘Tis a puzzlement…

  • Clavos

    zing,

    Here’s something of interest regarding the IEA’s recent energy forecast.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Doc, the “report”you linked to is written and issued by the very company that is running the C & T program in the states named, it’s propaganda, not proof.

    By that criterion, every annual report of every corporation in the world is also propaganda. Would you care to address the data rather than disparage the source?

  • Clavos

    By that criterion, every annual report of every corporation in the world is also propaganda.

    Don’t know about the rest of the world, but in the USA they pretty much are, yes.

  • Clavos

    If you make the decision to invest in a company solely on a review of their annual report, you’re taking a pretty good risk…

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    At least reading the damn thing ought to give the investor a better idea of the degree of risk.

  • Zingzing

    “So, zing: are you prepared to junk all the millions of fossil fuel powered vehicles worldwide?”

    No, but it’s time to start phasing them out. What with china and India demanding more and more cars… Have you been to china? I’m sure you are aware that you can stare directly at the sun there, given the amount of pollution.

    “Don’t forget that those include every aircraft in the world, as well as all the railroad locomotives and every ship in the world, too.”

    I’m pretty sure that railways can be run other ways, as seen in Japan and Seattle. That said, I’ve seen more than a few electric trollies come off their lines, which is no fun for anyone. But you’re right in saying that aircraft and ships are going to have to be run on gas, at least for now.

    “Then there are places like Florida, where because of a lack of any other source, we generate our electrical power by burning dinosaurs as well.”

    In the sunshine state? For shame.

    “However, speaking of a lack of resources, I AM puzzled as to why no one is attempting to sink turbines just offshore of Florida’s east coast to harness the power of the world’s largest ocean current, the Gulfstream, which, here in South Florida, is a mere three miles from the beach. There’s an enormous amount of water that has been flowing northward 24/7 for millenia at 3 to 5 knots, and yet I’ve never heard of anybody even trying to harness it.”

    If you’ve had the idea, I’m sure someone’s working on it. They should be.

    As for your linked article, I’m sure there is more oil down there to get at, but there’s an end game, and since it’s pretty obvious that burning that shit isn’t healthy, we should look at other ways to create energy, and only use oil for things we can’t power in other ways. Even if it’s pulled out of the ground here, we don’t control it anyway…

  • Dr Dreadful

    Doug, regarding your Pacific islands:

    In such a vast and complex system as the global climate and biosphere, of course there are going to be unforeseen effects. Some things are not going to happen quite as predicted.

    Just because some coral islands are growing, this does not make the news good. The habitat of living coral is, as you know, confined to within a few metres of the ocean surface. As sea level rises, so will the coral, taking root on the bones of its dead antecedents.

    Unfortunately, like a Jenga tower, there is always a tipping point. Coral is under pressure from multiple effects of climate change such as increased ocean temperature and acidity. Entire reef systems in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and elsewhere have died over the last few years.

    Despite your protests to the contrary, you are cherry-picking. You’re saying, “Look, the alarmists predicted this would happen and it hasn’t!” Many of your sources are regional, some are disputable, some you’re treating as a foregone conclusion (flood frequency doesn’t seem to be increasing now therefore it never will), and all are just tiny parts of the big picture.

    The bottom line is that we are seeing a whole raft of stuff that we would expect to see if warming caused by fossil fuel emissions was happening.

  • Deano

    Perhaps this little missive
    from the World Bank might enlighten…

    Keep in mind that while the GOp politicos are hip deep in Denial, the money men that run the world are not. The insurance industry is scrambling to get a solid forecast and read on the impact of global warming and what they are estimating is scaring the hell out of them…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Deano –

    But that doesn’t matter. Everythign that most of the rest of the world knows about global warming is contrary to American conservative dogma, therefore everybody else must be wrong. Thou shalt not question conservative dogma – don’t know know that yet?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Besides the World Bank, the European Environment Agency also just published a detailed report that documents the effects of climate change that the continent is already experiencing and will continue to experience.

  • pablo

    Is that the same World Bank Deano that we will pay our carbon taxes to?

  • Igor

    There are no carbon taxes, but it makes a lot of sense to impose a cap-n-trade system which gives industries an opportunity to prepare for the future and a reason to do it. Carrot and stick both.

  • pablo

    Sure Igor, whatever you say.

  • Igor

    Cap-n-trade of sulphur emissions has almost eliminated acid rain. At a relatively modest cost of about a billion dollars.