Politics of Global Warming

You keep coming back, saying that the skeptics have to join the discussion, but you seem to want us to compromise your way; admit that global warming is going on, that it's our fault, and that we should pay for it.

Admitting that global warming is going on is not a matter of negotiation or politics. Either it is or it is not whatever you negotiate about. It is a matter of facing physical reality. Negotiating about physical reality is magical thinking.

Same appies to whether it is or is not our fault except there is the possibility of it being only partially our fault.

What, if anything, we do about it that is a matter for negotiation. Yes, compromise will mean that you have to move away from your position. That is the nature of compromise.

Yes, compromise will mean that you have to move away from your position. That is the nature of compromise.

This is not compromise:

"... you have to move away from your position ..."

Tell me, just what is it the "Global Warming" alarmists are giving up, or compromising on?

They are like college students in protest, having surged into the collegiate boardrooms, and demanding that their requirements be met. But what do they offer as a means of compromise?

That they will let capitalists keep a portion, "a very miniscule portion", of the earnings of their industries?

Do they even bring anything to the supposed negotiation table?

Yes, compromise will mean that you have to move away from your position. That is the nature of compromise.

This is not compromise:

"... you have to move away from your position ..."

An acceptable compromise is you don't get all that you want and they don't get all that they want but both get a substantial amount of what they want.

Tell me, just what is it the "Global Warming" alarmists are giving up, or compromising on?

Nothing, if you refuse to negotiate with them. The feel good measures that are not worth the cost and the attempts to piggy back other issues on the enviroment if you do engage them.

Tell me, just what is it the "Global Warming" alarmists are giving up, or compromising on?

Nothing, if you refuse to negotiate with them. The feel good measures that are not worth the cost and the attempts to piggy back other issues on the enviroment if you do engage them.

Nothing either way then. As I suspected.

Just as you do not negatiate with terrorists, you DO NOT negotiate with statists and socialists, we have been down that road, and you can see the results right now....

Just as you do not negatiate with terrorists, you DO NOT negotiate with statists and socialists, we have been down that road, and you can see the results right now....

You negotiate with the people that you apply those labels to because the majority of the population do. Refuse to negotiate with them and the majority will sew up a deal with them ignoring you. Because the majority will be negotiating with them.

Just as you do not negatiate with terrorists, you DO NOT negotiate with statists and socialists, we have been down that road, and you can see the results right now....

You negotiate with the people that you apply those labels to because the majority of the population do. Refuse to negotiate with them and the majority will sew up a deal with them ignoring you. Because the majority will be negotiating with them.

You assume the majority buy into AGW and want to make whatever sacrifices it's proponents demand. I don't think that's the case, and the number of people concerned about the issue is declining.

It became far too obvious that, regardless of the merits of the science, the "concern" over AGW, and the demands for action, was merely more clawing for more control from the Usual Suspects.

Egalitarianism must exist in changing circumstances?

Nothing to do with egalitarianism. Proportionality and responsibility. What do you do if most of the harm from your actions is done to people in other countries and their actions have done you far less harm?

Traditionally? Americans whip out those big "We're #1" foam fingers and do a victory dance.

Hate America much?

You keep coming back, saying that the skeptics have to join the discussion, but you seem to want us to compromise your way; admit that global warming is going on, that it's our fault, and that we should pay for it.

Admitting that global warming is going on is not a matter of negotiation or politics. Either it is or it is not whatever you negotiate about. It is a matter of facing physical reality. Negotiating about physical reality is magical thinking.

Same appies to whether it is or is not our fault except there is the possibility of it being only partially our fault.

What, if anything, we do about it that is a matter for negotiation. Yes, compromise will mean that you have to move away from your position. That is the nature of compromise.

The compromise here is that both sides advocate for expanded (and improved) nuclear power generation. Bueller, bueller ...

You keep coming back, saying that the skeptics have to join the discussion, but you seem to want us to compromise your way; admit that global warming is going on, that it's our fault, and that we should pay for it.

Admitting that global warming is going on is not a matter of negotiation or politics. Either it is or it is not whatever you negotiate about. It is a matter of facing physical reality. Negotiating about physical reality is magical thinking.

Same appies to whether it is or is not our fault except there is the possibility of it being only partially our fault.

What, if anything, we do about it that is a matter for negotiation. Yes, compromise will mean that you have to move away from your position. That is the nature of compromise.

The compromise here is that both sides advocate for expanded (and improved) nuclear power generation. Bueller, bueller ...

Definitely part of it.

The compromise here is that both sides advocate for expanded (and improved) nuclear power generation. Bueller, bueller ...

Definitely part of it.

When that starts we can talk about the next part; it's waste of time to do so otherwise.

When that starts we can talk about the next part; it's waste of time to do so otherwise.

It will be a part of dealing with nearly every problem that faces humanity.

India bans its airlines from paying EU carbon tax

The 27-nation EU has said the carbon tax will help it achieve its goal of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and that it will not back down on the plan.

Unfortunately, the EU has declined to specify how collecting a tax on airline travel will reduce EU-wide CO₂ emissions by 20% ...

Climate Fund Seeks UN-Style Diplomatic Immunity

The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of UN-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates.

There is just one problem: it is not part of the United Nations.

[snip]

According to an official of the US Treasury, which strongly supports the existence of the GCF, the full extent of the immunities still remains to be worked out by the fund board, although the wording of various UNFCCC resolutions indicate that immunities like those held by the UN are clearly envisaged.

No subpoenas, no tracking funds, no accounting, no audits, no criminal prosecution for stealing billions of dollars, please ... move along, nothing to see here, no criminal activity involved, please just go away while we stick it to you one more time ...

Oh, wait, it's for science! No, wait, it's just more Dhim politics as usual.

India bans its airlines from paying EU carbon tax

The 27-nation EU has said the carbon tax will help it achieve its goal of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and that it will not back down on the plan.

Unfortunately, the EU has declined to specify how collecting a tax on airline travel will reduce EU-wide CO₂ emissions by 20% ...

Probably because imposition of such a tax will not reduce CO₂ emissions.

No subpoenas, no tracking funds, no accounting, no audits, no criminal prosecution for stealing billions of dollars, please ... move along, nothing to see here, no criminal activity involved, please just go away while we stick it to you one more time ...

Oh, wait, it's for science! No, wait, it's just more Dhim politics as usual.

Isn't that how the Church used to work in Medieval times -- the priests were exempt from civil and criminal jurisdiction, and answered only to the Church heirarchy... and "God"?

Welcome to Environmental Theology. "Kneel and pray, heretic, for your carbon apostasy!"


"Oh, shit! Run for your lives; it's the Carbon Inquisition!"

Lowly Scribe: "How exactly do you determine if the accused is guilty of carbon heresy, your Holiness?"

Grand Inquisitor AlGore: "We weigh them down with carbon credits and plunge them into a flaming pool of 130 octane avgas -- if they float, they are guilty -- and if they sink, they are innocent...."


"Hmmmm, is that the smell of SATANIC FOSSIL FUEL we detect?"

...Isn't that how the Church used to work in Medieval times -- the priests were exempt from civil and criminal jurisdiction, and answered only to the Church hierarchy... and "God"?...

Theory and practice are two different things, and were so even then. Say, Thomas Becket and a few others come to mind easily. From a jurisdiction they might have been exempt, but not from a punishment.

...Isn't that how the Church used to work in Medieval times -- the priests were exempt from civil and criminal jurisdiction, and answered only to the Church hierarchy... and "God"?...

Theory and practice are two different things, and were so even then. Say, Thomas Becket and a few others come to mind easily. From a jurisdiction they might have been exempt, but not from a punishment.

I suppose the occasional "turbulent priest" was dispatched in such a manner, but AFAIK, the various Inquisitions never answered to civil authority (or anyone else's) for their heinous crimes.

...Isn't that how the Church used to work in Medieval times -- the priests were exempt from civil and criminal jurisdiction, and answered only to the Church hierarchy... and "God"?...

Theory and practice are two different things, and were so even then. Say, Thomas Becket and a few others come to mind easily. From a jurisdiction they might have been exempt, but not from a punishment.

I suppose the occasional "turbulent priest" was dispatched in such a manner, but AFAIK, the various Inquisitions never answered to civil authority (or anyone else's) for their heinous crimes.

Some did, others did not. Spanish Inquisition was a department of Spanish monarchy, hence a part of the state apparatus. Roman inquisition also was a department of the theocratic papal state.

100 mln (million?) will die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate - report

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

As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA.

It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.

More than 90 percent of those deaths will occur in developing countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries in 2010 and 2030. It was commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing countries threatened by climate change. ...

"Fork over the Global Warming cash, or we'll kill 90 million of your people, ... or something."

Climate change 'may shrink fish'
Fish species are expected to shrink in size by up to 24% because of global warming, say scientists.

Researchers modelled the impact of rising temperatures on more than 600 species between 2001 and 2050.

Warmer waters could decrease ocean oxygen levels and significantly reduce fish body weight.

The scientists argue that failure to control greenhouse gas emissions will have a greater impact on marine ecosystems than previously thought. ...

Researcher have Time machines.

"OMG Swim for your lives! It's a Not so Great White shark!"

Climate change 'may shrink fish'
Fish species are expected to shrink in size by up to 24% because of global warming, say scientists.

Researchers modelled the impact of rising temperatures on more than 600 species between 2001 and 2050.

Warmer waters could decrease ocean oxygen levels and significantly reduce fish body weight.

The scientists argue that failure to control greenhouse gas emissions will have a greater impact on marine ecosystems than previously thought. ...

Researcher have Time machines.

"OMG Swim for your lives! It's a Not so Great White shark!"

Fish species are already shrinking in size due to rampant overfishing but, hey, now we can blame it on something else ... and, of course, if the trend continues, it will absolutely confirm every dire prediction of Climate change.

Michael Mann Suing NRO and Mark Styen for Defamation Re: Global Warming

National Review Online (NRO) is currently running an ad/article explaining that Professor Michael Mann, the creator of the highly questionable "hockey stick" graph that global warming alarmists latched onto to pummel the entire world with dour warnings about the effects of man-made CO2 emissions on life as we know it, is suing NRO and Mark Steyn for defamation of character:

Let me recap: A lawsuit has been formally filed by Professor Michael Mann against National Review and Mark Steyn. You know Mann: The Penn State academic and self-proclaimed (and bogus) Nobel Peace Prize awardee best known, famously and infamously, for the "hockey stick" graph that allegedly proves that recent years were the hottest on record for more than a millennium.

Of course, he is also known for the scandal about embarrassing e-mails, pried out of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

According to Thomas Richard at examiner.com,

The suit is based on articles written by different authors at different times and can be found here, here and here.

Hansen’s NASA GISS – cooling the past, warming the present

The Climate of Gavin: How GISS Have Changed The Temperature Record Since 2008

I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.

However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today’s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.

image32.png

Alterations to temperature record 1881-2008

It must be remembered that these are only changes made by GISS since 2008. As I pointed out, prior to 2008, other adjustments of about 0.03C had already been added to the numbers originally declared just a few years earlier. These adjustments must, therefore, also be added on to the adjustments made since. ...

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

100 mln (million?) will die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate - report

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

As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA.

It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.

More than 90 percent of those deaths will occur in developing countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries in 2010 and 2030. It was commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing countries threatened by climate change. ...

"Fork over the Global Warming cash, or we'll kill 90 million of your people, ... or something."

How many people will die because we've banned DDT?

All those who wish to keep the DDT ban should feed themselves to the mosquitoes first.