We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The Great Green Power Grab (GGPG)

Statists the world over jumped for joy today when the UN released yet another report stating that global warming is due to human activity rather that cyclical solar factors.

Watching the BBC reports about this, one could be forgiven for thinking not a single scientist or logical thinker demurred from that notion. Medieval Warm Period? What Medieval Warm Period? Oh, THAT Medieval Warm Period! No, the approved experts have spoken and no heresy shall be suffered to be reported.

What particularly made me laugh was when the BBC voice over said “and the fact over one hundred governments have endorsed this report will add to its credibility.” So let me get this straight… the fact one hundred states which exercise political power over people have endorsed a report that will be used to justify imposing even more political control over people, and that makes this more credible? I wonder if the BBC would report a pro-tobacco report endorsed by tobacco companies the same way? What do you think?

68 comments to The Great Green Power Grab (GGPG)

  • Sandy P

    You really want to have some fun???

    Ask them how they’re going to stop the Poles from reversing.

    They do, and it’s getting time.

  • RAB

    Shit! You mean the Poles are going home already!
    How am I going to get my bathroom fixed! :)

  • Ham

    Expect a UN resolution to be passed against geomagnetic reversal. They may as well.

  • Nick M

    Google news was carrying a report from the likes of CNN saying that this would provide more ammunition against “global warming cynics”. Sorry me old china, I’m not a “cynic” about this I’m a sceptic.

    And if you don’t get the distinction you’re a twat.

    I’d say more but it is hard to type with hiccups.

  • Nick M

    Right hiccups over so I can spit some more bile over this utter rip-off which is already costing me money for a while – not for too long I’ve got Chinese coming.

    I’m working up to an absolute fisking of this green shite but that will have to wait. I saw that turd in a suit Millibland defending this bollocks on C4 news tonight and I almost put something through the screen of the Sony. My late great aunt had a phrase for it – “piggy-rotten-sick”.

    Well I am piggy-rotten-sick to the back teeth. Regular members of the commentariat might just recall I have something of an interest, nay obsession wrt aviation. Why do the greens (and their many shills) always pick out airlines (especially budget airlines)? They’re big on multiculturalism but they want to stop me experiencing other cultures. Sir Jonathan Porritt can carbon-trade till it’s coming out of his ears (his ears if we’re lucky) but I just wanna get on a cheap flight and see a bit of the world.

    I have never believed in weird conspiracies but I’m coming increasingly to the conclusion that our self-appointed “elite”* – just don’t want the plebs “polluting” their favoured tourist spots. There’s much more to it than that, obviously. There’s first-world self-loathing and a general feeling that technocracy is more important than technology but these bastards really wanna stop the likes of me flying.

    Well, fuck you David Millipede, fuck you sideways with a Christmas tree.

    *And I so hate that term. I grew up thinking of the likes of Sailor Malan’s Spitfire squadron as being elite. I played Elite and I never thought I’d live to see a bunch of fuckwits with qualifications in sociology and “human rights” law ever be labelled elite.

    If I continue any longer this will degenerate into sub-R-complex ranting so it’s lucky my takeaway has just arrived.

  • OliverJSM

    One word “LIARS” is what comes to my mind every time this tripe gets an airing. The week long ITN series “the Big Melt” was obvious propaganda preparation for the IPCC release of the Summary for Policy makers (note: not the main report – 1,600 pages – that’s under wraps until May). The beginning of the early evening ITN bulletin carried the following assertion “no more denials”. And they also related the claim that 90% of global warming is man made. I’m no scientist but I’m guessing that claim is probably a physical impossibility. My feeling is that they’ve gone so far over the top that their credibility will be utterly destroyed. At least I hope that’s what happens before they do too much economic damage with this crap.

  • So far as I can understand from the press – there is absolutely nothing new in this report. Moreover – the predicted temperature rise for the next 100 years (ha, ha, ha…) is somewhat LESS than the previous report of 2001.

    But it seems that a small piece of truth has infiltrated this report: it says that nothing we can do will stop the warming.

    The fat headlines do not reflect what is in the report, only the bias of the press,869983 which is business as usual.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I saw Bjorn Lomborg on the tv today, on Sky News. He was excellent: polite, sharp and persuasive.

    No wonder the Danish greens hate him.

  • Naman

    I propose that all members of the IPCC, Al Gore, and all other Global Warming advocates stop breathing; which should reduce CO2 emmissions by a significant amount and therefore restore balance to the atmosphere.

  • Brad

    Do most libertarians think we’re winning? If so, how?

    All I see is more and more Statism, more and more effecting my everyday life, and the stage set for even more.

    And the rub is this, the developed countries in Europe and America are on the verge of a several decades long payout to the boomers of tens of trillions, with a shrinking fertility rate to support it, and on the verge of slitting our economic throat.

    I sometimes think that I get a bit fevered when I contemplate the economy blowing a nut, but when I see plans of universal health etc etc (that can’t be supported with the economic growth rates we have) juxtaposed with the Green Tide that can only serve to contract economic growth, I simply see too many attacks against it. It’s just going to blow and take those who have endeavored to save down with it.

    I might as well live it up. Join the zombies, piss away my retirement, learn to love Newspeak, and watch American Idol in an endless loop on my DVR.

  • Freeman

    Perry — you are so correct, once again. Thank you.

  • From the report, (via NY Times)

    Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.

    So there was another industrial age 125,000 years ago, that produced CO2 ?

    More:

    But the I.P.C.C. is proscribed by its charter from entering into speculation…

    If that is so, then surely all it’s predictions for the next 100 years are nothing but solid fact… no use doubting it… it’s own charter says so.

  • YogSothoth

    Why settle for analyzing temperature and co2 levels over the last few decades when we can look at the last 600 million years ….

    link

    Note in particular the point at the end of the ordovician period where the climate was as cool as it is today but the co2 levels were on the order of 10 times as high as they are presently.

    If the anthropogenic global warming proponents end up being wrong (and I become more and more convinced of this as they become progressively more strident and intolerant) they are going to set the cause of environmentalism back 50 years.

  • There was also this in the NY Times story:

    Government officials are involved in shaping the summary of each report…

    So, there … you wouldn’t doubt “Government officials” would you ?

  • Nick M

    Right, takeaway demolished and other things (like bed) beckon but here’s a thought experiment for y’all. Because nobody has the slightest idea what the actual effects of GW will be (so I don’t know whether to expect to retire in a UK with a Mediterranean climate or a Norwegian one) I simply pose this question. A few hundred years back we had a hint of a cold snap in the UK which involved things like the Thames freezing. Back then folks organised a “Frost Fair” and roasted cows on the frozen river. Now, we’d have Jonny Porritt and the boys and gals of FoTE going ape about “climate chaos” I simply put this to the commentariat: is this progress?

  • mike

    Surely we can think of a better name for this political movement than a mere acronym? I think an -ism would be better as the historical precedents of fascism, communism and national socialism, give a nasty connotation (look how the left has derided ‘neo-liberalism’ and ‘neo-conservatism’).
    I propose ‘pandoomism’, with the personal noun ‘pandoomist’.

  • RAB

    I’m afraid we are being presented with a fait acompli
    That we are powerless to resist.
    Most folk actually like scare stories.
    That’s why horror and disaster movies are so popular.
    That’s why we re-cycle stuff that before we just tossed in the bin, that we paid less council tax for than we do now.We may be libertarians but the pack likes to hunt as a whole, and we “nee” sayers are the hunted.
    We all know it ends up in a Chinese landfill anyway and is hardly re-cycled at all. And those who dont are just kidding themselves!
    But! Well it will just keep on coming until we bankrupt ourselves “Doing the right thing”
    Then the economically superior Indians and Chinese announce they were only joking. And it’s free for all time again!
    Global warming is just Social fascism in a new pair of shoes. Bio-degradable of course!

  • Sunfish

    We may be libertarians but the pack likes to hunt as a whole, and we “nee” sayers are the hunted.

    Yeah, but the green bastards are all vegetarians. Vegetarian is an Arapaho word for “really lousy hunter.”

    I wouldn’t worry too much. If they get out of hand, serve them some hors d’ov^H^Horv^H^H^H appetizers and then tell them that your secret ingredient is bacon.

  • guy herbert

    What I thought was very interesting was the contrast between what the scientists responsible said and how it was reported.

    The IPCC was cautious and said thoroughly plausible things, such as that they were certain the net effect of human activity is warming.

    They did not say that all climate change is human responsibility, which is how it is widely reported – and what Perry and others are debunking.

    The really dangerous leap is not the one that says this is probably a serious problem. It is the one that says governments can and should solve it. And the corollary that they should do so in particular ways.

    It really doesn’t help that the journalists and the politicians are innumerate, for the most part.

  • guy herbert

    Jacob,

    Moreover – the predicted temperature rise for the next 100 years (ha, ha, ha…) is somewhat LESS than the previous report of 2001.

    Not in the items I read. What I saw was that the spread had diminished, with a lower upper limit and a higher lower limit, which is to say there’s more agreement now than a decade ago. Not surprising. But since it is really difficult to tell if the models are any good, “prediction” may not be the right word. “Projection”?

    I’m a skeptic, in the sense of agnostic, on the problem. What I deny is that the popular “answer” – less of the same – can be a solution. Governments forcing people to cut emissions is as much an answer to anthropogenic warming, as setting a team of city kids to name fifty root vegetables is a recipe for fruit salad. Near impossible in its own terms own terms as well as beside the point.

    While journalists and politicians are unable to comprehend the difference between quantity and rate, it is certain they will never be part of any solution even if they have spotted a problem correctly. Even that idiocy is exceeded, however, by the statement of the Indian finance minister who said he accepted the report and that governments must do something but that meant other governments India had a “right to develop” and increase its emissions. (The bank won’t give us any more overdraft and we aren’t covering the interest; we must make a few savings on the housekeeping, and by the way I deserve that Ferrari.)

  • guy herbert

    The IPCC was cautious

    Sorry, that should be:

    The IPCC spokesman was cautious

  • manual II paleologos

    Pandoomists – that’s good.

    I saw Lomborg too – he was excellent, but it’s time someone else started supporting him. The Economist, shame on you. His strength is that he doesn’t even bother challenging the science (in fact, he cautiously goes along with it), he challenges the incoherent woolly responses instead. OK, so we may be getting global warming, so what? Is it bad? How bad is it? What can we realistically do about it?

    What’s more, the pandoomists have finally got a mediocre ski season in the Alps to crow about, after all these years of resorts closing in May with two metres of snow.

  • TD

    Environmentalism is the religion of the baby-boomers. They can’t worship and lecture younger people in churches so they’ll use the media as the church and the environment as the cause.

    I still remember the 1980’s when their invented scare was global cooling. Then we had to endure their nuclear nightmare scenario and then billions were wasted on their Y2K hoax. Sceptics were ridiculed and censored, even though they were right. Now it’s global warming – and a great opportunity for states to increase power and taxation revenues from citizens.

    Meanwhile we have a rampant, murderous ideology slowly suffocating liberties that our grandparents fought hard to protect in 39-45, as well as committing murder on a grand scale. Clinton and Gore let this threat grown against the USA while attending End to Poverty rock concerts. Says it all, really.

    We truly are fools of the highest order, topped off only by the idiots that run our societies. I would in particular advise UK people to get out fast – 60,000 a month are leaving and I’m taking my family off to Australia in 2007.

    In future years historians will look back at our delusion and inability to see reality, and shake their heads in wonder, especially at the idiocy of the generation bornm from about 1946-1958.

  • “What I saw was that the spread had diminished, with a lower upper limit and a higher lower limit..”

    Actually the median “projected” temperature, and the median sea level raise were a little bit smaller.

    Governments forcing people to cut emissions is as much an answer to anthropogenic warming…

    Starting an accelerated program of nuclear power generation is the only available thing that can reduce CO2 emissions. The nuclear alternative cannot be realized unless Government lifts current bans, and helps in devising a reasonable regulation framework.

    I’m all for cutting CO2 emissions – I’m not sure it will impact climate in any discernible way, but it won’t hurt either.
    But any attempt to cut emissions by depriving us of energy will result in lower living standards and more poverty – and that will hurt us without any offsetting benefit.

  • John McVey

    As I recall from the late John Daly’s website, the main reason why global warming turned from a 100yo kook theory held to by a few into a major political football was (among other things) chiefly the push for more nuclear power by Thatcher (it was also supposedly to join in with attacks on the coal mining and coal-fired power station unions who had struck during the 70’s). Australian PM Howard just today came out and explicitly said “this proves we need nuclear power,” and quite bluntly said that the major cuts in our standards of living that ‘alternative energy’ would necessitate were just not acceptable.

    Although such caving in is giving the greenies more credit than they deserve, methinks they struck simultaneously too early and too late. They are too early because they have not done enough to coax people into abandoning their present standards of living. Thus any attacks on CO2 emissions will do exactly as they have done and will continue to do: lead to more nuclear power. They are too late because India and China are roaring ahead, rapidly improving their standards of living, on the back of more coal-fired power and (IIRC) are excluded from Kyoto restrictions. This was roundly and rightly seen as grossly unfair and made a mockery of Kyoto’s touted purpose.

    Think of this report as the Econazis having launched their Operation Barbarossa with the same timing problems as the real thing had (too early and there was insufficient force, yet if they left the attack to early the next year the Russian military machine would have been so much stronger), and leading to the same results for them. Still, it is hardly cause for celebration that the GW BS is still being taken seriously by politicians and used (and hence given sanction) for policy, but at least the physical outcome for the near future includes a blunting of any significant attacks on our current lifestyles. Think of this as those two bastard armies grinding each other to bits. I hope that there wont be many poor souls caught in the crossfire. Which may yet include us.

    JJM

  • Brian

    The excellent Petr Beckmann understood it years ago (see The Heath Hazards of Not Going Nuclear); he pointed out that technology and capitalism allow bricklayers and plumbers the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as readers of the New York Review of Books. This is clearly unacceptable to the elite and must be stopped.

    But he said it better than that; pick up the book if you see it anywhere and enjoy a magnificent rant.

  • Nick M

    Sec State for Education (UK):

    “Not only are they passionate about saving the planet, but children also have a big influence over their own families’ lifestyles and behaviour.”

    Or failing that they can denounce them to the NeuArbeit Gestapo.

  • Nick M

    Hat tip – M4-10. Whoops!

  • Jacob wrote:

    I’m all for cutting CO2 emissions – I’m not sure it will impact climate in any discernible way, but it won’t hurt either.
    But any attempt to cut emissions by depriving us of energy will result in lower living standards and more poverty – and that will hurt us without any offsetting benefit.

    Well, here at least, that deserves a bookmark.

    Best regards

  • YogSothoth

    Sucks being on the side of reason (rather than the side of emotion) sometimes doesn’t it? Think of how effective we might be if we could utilize their tactics, for example:

    Kyoto is Racism!

    Doesn’t make fuck all difference if it’s accurate, but you know as well as I do if that message were said often enough a significant fraction of the populace would start to regard it as true.

  • RAB

    Good quote Nick, and so very true.
    I dont have kids, but a lot of my friends do and there a lot of frighteningly po faced 10 year olds out there.
    One who comes round with his dad is constantly nagging us for smoking or putting beer cans in the trash rather than the recycling box, goes around turning lights off. After a while you feel like screaming
    “Give it a rest you prissy little turd!” but you dont do you.
    Nulab are taking a Jesuit approach to this. Didn’t I read somewhere they are preparing indoctrination packs for the little shavers which will include a copy of Gores documentary?

  • manuel II paleologos

    Well, my kids laugh whenever anyone mentions global warming on the TV. It brings a proud tear to my eye.
    Little Thomas II Paleologos even got into an argument at school with his geography teacher, asking him whether the world was going to run out of sand if he didn’t recycle glass.

    I could claim credit, but it’s really South Park I have to thank.

  • Nick M

    Yeah RAB. It’s from the same piece. The DfE are syndicating Al “internet” Gore to our state-schools.

    What I really hate about GW is the implicit idea that “technology” created this mess and “technology” sure as hell shouldn’t be allowed to even try and fix it. That the solution is more government controls and a reduction in standard of living. It’s an extension of the idea that “we’re rich because they’re poor” – meaning Africans or whoever.

    Except it doesn’t work like that does it? I’ve heard that GWB’s recent conversion to the idea of gasohol has pushed up the price of maize in Mexico and is really hurting the poor.

    I don’t buy the central hypothesis of the greens that it’s “our fault”. First off, it’s an interesting use of the term “fault” and secondly, I have a little background in the mathematical simulation of complex systems and I don’t take any of this as proven.

    GW is happening but the big question is what to do for the best about it. We are accepting a very low “standard of proof” for extraordinarily big changes to our lives. At the very least I’d just like these people to admit that they don’t know what a “global temperature increase of x degrees” will actually mean in any given locale.

    Recently the seemingly impossible happened when Anthony Blair went up a notch in my estimation when he essentially admitted that the UK hitting its Kyoto targets would make not the slightest difference because China would take up the slack in a couple of years. This new found upgrading (to “slime weasel”) didn’t last long though. Shortly afterwards the repulsive David Millipede wittering on about how we are going to hit Kyoto because UK industry is becoming much less polluting. Yes, Dave it is, because it’s shutting down. (Although frankly, I expect a five a day co-ordinator produces more hot air than a steel-worker).

    And that’s the thing really. Even if GW is true chapter and verse there is bugger all we can do about it. Of course the greenies don’t buy that because they don’t look far beyond histrionic ramblings.

  • RAB

    You rant on all you like Nick. I’m with you all the way on this one!
    You only have to look at the previous politics of Greens.
    Each and every one of them that I know, and alas I know more than seems a fair share, are to the left of Marx.
    When that poor old dog Marxism was proved not to hunt, they had to find another way to screw capitalism.
    Green was keen!
    I have a friend in San Franscisco, an old leftist hippie who is desperate to be Johnny B Good in more ways than one. If he could play guitar and sing better it would help his singer/songwriter asperations, but he also wants to be Good as in the Brit TV series the Good life, somehow not realising that it was a comedy programme and not real life.
    I love him dearly. But there’s not a lot you can do for these people but be patient.
    Like Marxism, Global warming will finally be revealed to be a crock of shit.
    But how much damage these reversalist clowns can do to the West in the meantime, is anyones guess.

  • Chaz S

    I have no problem with holding or reducing true pollutant levels, but hey…didn’t we pollute more when we were all burning wood and oil and such, and so were our industries ?

    And why are the elitists so worried about OUR ‘polluying”when nations like China and Russia could care less ?

    I didn’t realize this mea culpa was being transported from here ( US ) to you chaps across the pond….sorry you have to put up with this…however, we’ve been putting up with the likes of Al ‘I invented the inernet’ Gore for ages.

  • Chaz S

    I have no problem with holding or reducing true pollutant levels, but hey…didn’t we pollute more when we were all burning wood and oil and such, and so were our industries ?

    And why are the elitists so worried about OUR ‘polluying”when nations like China and Russia could care less ?

    I didn’t realize this mea culpa was being transported from here ( US ) to you chaps across the pond….sorry you have to put up with this…however, we’ve been putting up with the likes of Al ‘I invented the inernet’ Gore for ages.

  • veryretired

    The key to the GW edifice is the motive that undergirds it, and many other facets of the collectivist mentality—the potential to totally politicize more and more areas of life.

    It is important to understand that nothing else matters to the collectivist, statist mentality than being correctly in line with the latest collectivist doctrine. It doesn’t matter if there will be negative economic consequences, social disruptions, loss of liberties, waste of resources, or anything else.

    All these are just grist for the mill—indeed, the more problems there are generated, the more “social crises” that can be found, the more stridently will those responsible blame anyone on the other side of the debate, and demand even more extensive powers to solve all the new problems that the “wreckers” have caused. (Those familiar with 20th century soviet history will recognize that latter term)

    There is that great scene in “Zhivago” when he is with the red partisans, and the commander and the commisar are debating whether or not he should be released. The commisar says, “As the military conflict winds down, everyone will be judged politically.”

    In other words, even if you were a courageous fighter, if your political opinions aren’t sufficiently loyal to the cause, you’ll become the enemy.

    Lonborg is a perfect example of that attitude in this controversy, or the reaction to him is—he was a “good green” until he dared question the collectivist orthodoxy, then he became the enemy. The attacks against him now are hysterical and utterly vicious because he questioned the idea that enormous statist programs are the only acceptable response to possible climate changes.

    I’m with Instapundit on this one—when private jets and limos are outlawed, I’ll believe the sincerity of the tranzis. Yeah, that’ll be the day. (Throw in five star hotels and award banquets and I’ll really be impressed)

  • From what I saw of the “experts”, they were talking of a number of factors including “human activity”. That can include animal husbandry of particularly flatulant species (methane is far more warming than CO2) or even the change in biomass.

    It was interesting that the tone from the publishers was more equivocal and you could almost detect that they had backpedalled a little, if only to go up another, near-parallel path.

    Of course, BBC TV news lept on it and immediately blathered on about CO2 and flights.

    With the indoctrination of kids it may well be that the Sociofascists have really found their “Little Green Book” with the sayings of Chairman Gore. Coming Next: The Green Guards. “Carbonist Roaders” denounced and paraded through the streets with dunce’s caps on. “Poverty is Wealth”. Miliband will architect the “Great Creep Forward” which will be to cast all our books and clothes into furnaces to cut down on fossil fuel emissions.

    To me we need to expose the true intentions. We need to challenge the Statists to come up with green initiatives that do not require more monitoring (e.g. Miliband’s “carbon credit card”), more taxation (AFD) or more regulation/restrictions (enforced recycling).

    I can imagine (dream) of when Hazel Blears is finally cast into the depths of Hell where she belongs, the wretched creature will start chuntering on about if the hellfire is sustainable or has scrubbing technology on the flues. The Evil One will laugh manically – Of course not, I control them!

    If they really want to do some good, why don’t they send round the DVD “Who killed the electric car?”!!!

  • RAB

    Just to be on the safe side
    everytime I fly
    I go out and shoot a cow first.
    My carbon footprint erased at a stroke!
    My local dairy farmer is getting a little pissed at this.
    But luckily he doesn’t know it’s me.

  • Apopleptic

    The IPCC is such obvious consensus nonsensus balls.

    Every senior school student gets asked “show me how you worked it out” – not these parasites.

    “Some very important people all agreed the sky is falling in, so we’re going to tax you more”

    Give me a break.

    They should wear stripy jumpers and masks.

  • ChrisV

    There are a number of questions here that are getting conflated. They are:

    1) Is anthropogenic climate change really happening?
    2) Would such a problem be inescapably collectivist in nature?
    3) If so, should collectivist solutions ever be applied to such a problem?
    4) Is a collectivist solution necessary in the specific case of anthropogenic climate change?

    I tend to think (1) is close to beyond doubt now. The latest IPCC report, which tends to use cautious language, calls it “very likely”. Naturally hostile groups, such as the Bush Administration and even some petroleum companies are coming on board. Information on RealClimate about the Medieval Warm Period and data from hundreds of millions of years ago are available here and here.

    (2) seems common sense to me, although no doubt some of the more crazed anarchists on here will find a way to disagree. The atmosphere is not private property and I can’t see any way to make it private property. Therefore it is subject to “tragedy of the commons” problems, which is what global warming will be if it really does exist.

    (3) I also agree with. If a problem is collectivist, it requires a collectivist solution. One example of a collectivist solution that everyone except anarchists agrees with is national defense. To invent another example similar to global warming, suppose various industries were emitting into the atmosphere trace quantities of a chemical which was toxic above a certain concentration. If quantities of this chemical in the atmosphere were getting dangerously high, what would you propose to do about it.

    (4) is the one I’m not so sure about, but I am leaning towards this one being true as well.

    Skeptics should do some thinking about which of (1) to (4) above they actually object to. A lot of skeptics I have argued with in the past simply don’t like the result (i.e. that we should use government to solve global warming) and so switch their attack indiscriminately between any of the above. This is arguing in bad faith, or at least looks like it, so doesn’t help the credibility of skeptics.

    Also, on a tangent, an earlier commenter wrote this:

    “…. billions were wasted on their Y2K hoax.”

    On WHOSE Y2K hoax? I don’t think you can blame that on collectivism. The Y2K scare was an example of a successful media hype campaign run by vested interests within the industry.

  • the other rob

    In what can only be a marvellous coincidence, on Friday evening Paramount Comedy chose to air the classic “Manbearpig” episode of South Park.

    I’ve always loved the moment when Stan says to Al Gore “Stay away from us, asshole! I was nice to you because I felt sorry for you, because you don’t have any friends! But now I see WHY you don’t have any
    friends! You just used ManBearPig as a way to get attention for yourself because you’re a LOSER!!”

    It reminded me why I’ve always loved those guys’ politics.

  • guy herbert

    ChrisV,

    (1) Yes, of course. But the trouble is how much and how does it work. The man-made effects may be a small or they may be a large component of current changes. They might be the critical pressure necessary for climate to find another attractor, and that’s scary.

    (2) Is a shared problem the same as a collective one? Is it true that climate change (in a particular direction in a multidimensional phase-space) is a problem for everyone? And is it the same size of problem for everyone? And how does it compare with all their other problems?

    Though they’ve lined up to say that carbon use is a lethal threat to humanity and we must all make changes now to deal with it, I don’t see Red Green Ken, the reborn mayor of London, or the cabinet doing anything about cancelling the CO2-spewing monster that is the 2012 Olympics. They have other priorities, choking private traffic out of London and punishing the owners of large cars disproportionately, for example.

    (3) No. Or Britain would have a National Food Service. We all need to eat. Non-collectivist solutions (or strictly speaking multiple voluntary collective solutions) solve that shared problem just fine.

    The suggestion is better posed as, some classes of externality require collectivist solutions. That may be true, but I doubt it is provable. In practice it tends to be deduced from an assertion that a particular collectivist solution will deal with externalities.

    “X will fix Y” is not the same, except in politics, as “Only X will fix Y”. And, except in politics, some theory of how something can be done, and how it will work is generally thought needed before asserting it will work.

    Experience of collectivist fixes in dealing with externalities is not encouraging. Collectives ignore new externalities that aren’t part of the plan, whereas private actors adapt and reprioritise.

    (4) I very much doubt it. Were there some way of collecting, I’d bet a good deal that they will make things worse, and give you odds-on that they cause vast unnecessary suffering.

  • guy herbert

    …when Hazel Blears is finally cast into the depths of Hell where she belongs…

    They will hold a “welcome home” party, possibly including an award ceremony.

  • Jacob

    ChrisV,

    1) Is anthropogenic climate change really happening?
    2) Would such a problem be inescapably collectivist in nature?
    3) If so, should collectivist solutions ever be applied to such a problem?
    4) Is a collectivist solution necessary in the specific case of anthropogenic climate change?

    Suppose it’s yes to all four (it isn’t, see Guy Herbert’s comment above).
    To (4): what would be that collectivist solution ? We need to check it’s details, it’s cost, it’s potential unintended consequences, it’s projected benefits (if any).

    All solutions proposed so far (Kyoto) are awful and useless.

    As I said above, nuclear power seems to be the only currently available method to reduce Co2 emissions. To implement this, a collective action – government action is requiered, to establish a reasonable regulation framework.
    What is being proposed by the greens is useless (as far as CO2 reduction is concerned) and mightily harmful to our welbeing.

  • ChrisV

    guy:

    Maybe I should have been clearer about what I mean by a collectivist problem. The problem of everybody needing to eat is solved by the agency of private property, which enables efficient distribution of resources.

    By a collectivist problem I mean one which involves something that cannot be made private property. The atmosphere is the clearest example. It’s not a question of “proving” that a collectivist solution is the only one; as with national defense, if it’s clear that a solution is necessary, the onus is on anyone opposing a collectivist solution to provide an alternative method.

    By the way:

    Though they’ve lined up to say that carbon use is a lethal threat to humanity and we must all make changes now to deal with it, I don’t see Red Green Ken, the reborn mayor of London, or the cabinet doing anything about cancelling the CO2-spewing monster that is the 2012 Olympics. They have other priorities, choking private traffic out of London and punishing the owners of large cars disproportionately, for example.

    This is the “yes, but x once flew on a plane, so he’s a bad man” argument, the most pathetic of all skeptic arguments. This is the equivalent of answering a herder who points out the original tragedy of the commons problem with “OK, why don’t YOU remove all your cattle from the field then?”. The answer is: because it wouldn’t fix the problem and would hurt them. Tragedy of the commons problems don’t have an indivdualist solution unless you make the commons private property so there is incentive to preserve the resource. It’s as simple as that.

  • veryretired

    Recognizing a common problem does not automatically mean that coercive, statist solutions are the only appropriate response, which is the fundamental assertion, in any and all cases, of the collectivist position.

    Is the earth warming? Of course it is—it has been since app. 1800 when the Little Ice Age ended.

    The key question is—does this routine fluctuation in global climate, which has occurred many times in the past, and will occur repeatedly in the several billion years left in the life of our solar system, mandate that all individual rights and liberties are forfeit to the political expediencies of another “lifeboat” crisis”

    Notice how the demands for acquiescence in this alleged emergency, and a never ending list of other crises, are always couched in terms of impending armageddon, avoidable only if individual, personal choices and freedoms are set aside, and everyone pitches in under the direction of those who know just what to do.

    And “just what to do” is always shut up and do as you’re told.

    Perhaps, if there was much of any track record of careful, successful, collectivist action in history, one could be a bit less dubious about the current crop of emergencies, and the current demands for increased state powers to confront these deadly threats.

    But, and it’s a great big, honking but, the history of the last century, which functioned under the sway of several very elaborate collectivist doctrines, is one of unrelenting oppression and slaughter, from enforced famines to enforced abortions, from gulags to camps to mounds of corpses and mountains of skulls.

    Collectivist action is NOT the same as cooperative action. It is an enforced obedience to the dictates of the state. And, in this unfortunate reality, that state is often run by little more than a mafia gang of thugs who managed to could grab control of the capital and proclaim themselves the champions of the people. (See Venezuela for a current example)

    Crichton wrote a rebuttal to much of the hysterla of the global warming alarmists, using a novel as the structural skeleton, but only because it was a convenient format to present the contrary arguments.

    Like Lonborg, he has been relentlessly attacked, but not refuted.

    Even so, it is not the disease, but the arsenic being prescribed as the cure which is the true problem. GW is not the danger to liberty and individual rights—endless state control of every aspect of economic and social life under the guise of “saving mankind” is the true fate worse than death.

    This is, in political terms, the same story as the repeated failed prophecies of the 7th Day Adventists.

    Every time the prophet, starting back in the 1800’s, predicted the end of the world, and everybody got all ready, and it didn’t happen, then he would retire to his study and scrutinize the scriptures again. And, lo and behold, he would find another clue he had missed before that put the date a few more years in the future, and the whole scam would start over again.

    As the civil rights movement says, “keep your eye on the prize”. In this case, it’s the liberty for you and your family to live, work, and play as a free people, without having to ask some commisar for a permit every time you wanted to pass some wind.

    What did you think this was about—big faceless corporations? You are the target. The crosshairs are right between your shoulder blades.

    As usual, it’s a shot in the back.

  • ChrisV

    Recognizing a common problem does not automatically mean that coercive, statist solutions are the only appropriate response, which is the fundamental assertion, in any and all cases, of the collectivist position.

    OK, great. Suppose for a minute, hypothetically, that global warming really was a huge problem and that great swathes of the human race would die if it weren’t fixed. How would you suggest we go about fixing it?

  • Pa Annoyed

    ChrisV,

    I appreciate the attempt to open a dialogue. Warmers and sceptics ought to do that more often. As it happens, I’d object on all four points, but on such a topic a diversity of opinion is both expected and desirable (from a scientific point of view, anyway) so I don’t have a problem with anyone believing/saying otherwise. (Just on imposing their beliefs and solutions on unwilling unbelievers.)

    1) Climate change is really happening and some part of it is anthropogenic, but nobody really knows whether it is a significant part. There’s quite a lot of scientific evidence to say it isn’t, and that the anthropogenic component is tiny (which I can talk about if you like, although there are many other sources that can do it better), but there is so much we don’t know about the climate that I wouldn’t feel happy betting $5 trillion (or $38 trillion to fix it if it needs fixing) of other people’s money – not to mention a large pile of human misery and poverty – on such a judgement, which is what the Greens want us to do. However, we still have time to decide.

    The IPCC and RealClimate are as politicised and money-driven as the worst of their opponents, and there are a lot of honest scientists who are not funded by or dependent on the coal, oil, and gas industries (except to the extent that we all are for our quality of life) who are sceptics on the basis of the science. There have been ocasions when they have been caught out telling lies and falsehoods, although that is by no means the case on all their arguments. I’ll admit the layman has no easy way of telling that, short of becoming something of a climate scientist themselves, but I’d ask them to accept that allowing scepticism about even scientific orthodoxies is a fundamental principle of science, no matter who is paying. Science is not a democracy of ideas, it is a meritocracy; and anyone who uses “consensus” as an argument is not being scientific.

    2) I would question first whether it is necessarily that much of a problem. Life is adaptable, and warm, wet conditions are generally better for productivity. Most plants are adapted for higher levels of CO2 anyway, which have been the case for by far the majority of Earth’s history. Again, there are arguments both ways, but a lot of the costs are calculated on the basis of people just sitting there waiting for it. If there really is a problem, why can’t people just move to sunny Siberia? That’s a flippant answer to a complicated issue, but I’m more inclined to trust individual human ingenuity than I am massive government-run social engineering projects.

    As for whether it is inescapably collectivist in cause, I’d argue that carbon sequestration technologies provide a means for individuals to reduce the problem independently of everyone else. So, technically, it isn’t entirely collective, although there is obviously a strong element of it.

    3) Should collectivist solutions ever be applied to such a problem – yes. Should collectivist solutions be applied to all such problems – no.

    Solutions are often a balance between competing evils where there is no option available that we like. We don’t like nationally organised defence, but we like being occupied by the armies of fanatics and dictators less, and we don’t have another solution. If there were no dictators or expansionist ideologies in the world, or if local ad-hoc action had been shown to be sufficient, I might think differently. If AGW was definitely true, and definitely going to be universally a worldwide disaster, and there was definitely no other solution that had been shown to be feasible the enviromentalists might have a case. But that’s a lot of extremely dubious ‘if’s.

    4) Should collectivist solutions be applied to this problem – no. No, no, NO! For the reasons given above, and many more!

  • Pa Annoyed

    “Suppose for a minute, hypothetically, that global warming really was a huge problem and that great swathes of the human race would die if it weren’t fixed. How would you suggest we go about fixing it?”

    Hypothetically…

    Embark on a major push for nuclear power, using more modern schemes like IFR (also here and here)

    Dump Iron salts in the Southern Ocean. This will trigger giant blooms of plankton and algae, which are currently iron nutrient-limited, which form Calcium Carbonate which gets deposited on the ocean bed.

    Pump sulphur particulates into the upper atmosphere.

    Carbon sequestration/mineralisation technologies.

    And so on…

    Human ingenuity, in other words, not totalitarian social engineering.

  • ChrisV

    Pa Annoyed, thanks for the post. I think I agree with most of what you said, but disagree on the extent of things (e.g. the relative credibility of the IPCC vs skeptic scientists).

    I’ll admit the layman has no easy way of telling that, short of becoming something of a climate scientist themselves, but I’d ask them to accept that allowing scepticism about even scientific orthodoxies is a fundamental principle of science, no matter who is paying. Science is not a democracy of ideas, it is a meritocracy; and anyone who uses “consensus” as an argument is not being scientific.

    True in theory, but in practice an argument used by scoundrels; creationists and the like. Most people, if they were to debate an experienced creationist on evolution, would lose the debate. I think it’s reasonable that if I am to disbelieve a majority scientific opinion, I will need reasonably clear evidence of why they are wrong. Appeals to authority have their place – without them the world would not function.

    Of course I don’t believe something is definitely true on the basis of a consensus – just that it is more likely than not.

    Jacob:

    To (4): what would be that collectivist solution ? We need to check it’s details, it’s cost, it’s potential unintended consequences, it’s projected benefits (if any).

    All solutions proposed so far (Kyoto) are awful and useless.

    As I said above, nuclear power seems to be the only currently available method to reduce Co2 emissions. To implement this, a collective action – government action is requiered, to establish a reasonable regulation framework.
    What is being proposed by the greens is useless (as far as CO2 reduction is concerned) and mightily harmful to our welbeing.

    I agree with all this. I am not a supporter of Kyoto. However, I do think governments should be doing all that is reasonable to switch from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and that petrol should be taxed heavily (with a corresponding decrease in personal income tax). Some level of basic research funding into improving the performance of things like solar energy might also be warranted… and so forth. Nothing cataclysmic, but still collective action.

    I agree that the extent of the problem of global warming is still unknown, but some action should be taken now to hedge our bets. Data will be clearer in a couple of decades, and if it turns out that severe change is on the way, it will be too late to start phasing in nuclear power and so on.

  • Of course I don’t believe something is definitely true on the basis of a consensus – just that it is more likely than not

    Like, say, racial intelligence? Until well into the 1960’s the view that white people were simply inherently smarter than black people was clearly the opinion of the vast majority of white people, including educated people. It is only very recently that the absurdity of that view has become widely accepted and indeed the majority view.

    Consensus, even overwhelming consensus, is a very bad guide indeed to truth. The clincher for me, being entirely god-free myself, is the fact the vast majority of people in human history have believed in invisible magical entities.

  • Pa Annoyed

    ChrisV,

    I sympathise with your position. It would be relatively easy for me to give some simple, understandable explanations as to where the IPCC line was dubious, but they’re equally easy for an IPCCer to respond with some of the complications I was leaving out – giving the impression that I was trying to deceive. And you are correct about the parallels with creationism – evolution is sufficiently complicated and subtle, and sufficiently badly taught in schools, that most people have little idea of what the theory says or what the evidence for it is. They have some vague notion it has to do with fossils, and they are very easy to bamboozle.

    There is no royal road to truth – if you want to know, then you simply have no alternative but to sit down and study it.

    I accept that many people will buy the IPCC’s line, like I accept that many people will believe the preachers and priests they have been brought up to trust from an early age. I consider it a genuine failure of science: that early science lessons have taught the results and not the methods, and this has led to science being seen as the new priesthood. Citing Gallileo and the church funding of Creationists is easy but simply the wrong approach, and discredits the argument against them. A true scientist would respond to Creationism not by trying to silence it, but by explaining how and why we know it is wrong. Where did daylight come from on the first three days? (The sun was created on the fourth day.) When astronomers look at galaxies millions of light years away, was the light we see created mid-flight? Why are there two (arguably incompatible) creation stories in Genesis? How are people unable to tell good from evil morally responsible for their actions, and do they realise the story is about the virtue of unquestioning obedience to authority over judging for yourself? How did an omnipotent, omniscient God fail to foresee these events, and indeed initially wander around unable to spot the guilty couple hiding in the bushes? Creationists have answers to such questions, but their complexity raises doubts.

    AGW is harder to explain, because it requires more significant background knowledge, and isn’t simply a matter of plain common sense.

    Why did they refuse to publish the data and algorithms used to reconstruct the past climate in the “hockey stick” graph presented in the 2001 assessment? Why is it that when their methods were reconstructed and it was found that they had used an invalid statistical method (I looked at it myself and yes, it was definitely incorrect), and incorporated a type of bristlecone pine whose growth was already known not to be temperature-related, did they spend several years denying and obfuscating the truth? Why is it that even after the National Accademy of Sciences eventually published a report stating that the statistics were bad and should in future be checked by professional statisticians, the bristlecones shouldn’t be used, and the conclusions they drew suspect, does the current assessment rely on studies using bristlecones, the statistical methods and data used to generate them are still not published, and there is barely an acknowledgement of a problem having occurred?

    How is it that Phil Jones of the (government funded) Hadley climate research unit that generates one of the main series measuring global temperature responded to a request for data with the following:
    “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

    The Kiehl-Trenberth radiation budget (which is standard in the field – look at figure 7 near the end) calculates that total greenhouse warming is the result of about 324 Watts per square metre of energy radiated back from the sky, which it is also well-accepted warms the Earth by about 33 degrees C. This is natual and necessary and is the reason the Earth isn’t a ball of ice. That means each extra Watt gives about a tenth of a degree warming. The extra warming due to a doubling of CO2 is calculated to be a little under 4 Watts per square metre. How come the IPCC are predicting anything from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees of warming as a result? And how come the known differences in heat input between summer and winter, and poles and equator, which both give sensitivities of about 0.1 degrees per Watt, also don’t match the IPCC’s 5-10 times higher figures? (There are theories, but nobody has any hard evidence that they’re true other than that global warming doesn’t work if they’re not.)

    This comment is getting very long and I could write a whole book on the subject, so I’ll stop there. I suspect it’s a waste of time anyway, since you’ve less reason to trust me than the UN’s billion dollar funded scientists. But I’m not asking that you believe me, I’m asking that you accept that the scientific debate maybe isn’t over. That’s a rather different request.

  • Nick M

    ChrisV,
    Lose the debate with a creationist? Hmm, interesting. Perry is right, science doesn’t proceed by consensus and it never should. It’s not about pleasing the crowd, it’s about getting the right answer (or at least the best you can manage). It may tangentially be about other things (like landing that well-endowed chair*) but that is not what it should be about.

    I have hated the recent press releases on GW which have basically stated that “the dehate is over”. In science the debate is never entirely over. The door to the citadel of truth must always be left slightly ajar because sometimes very big surprises happen.

    This is not to say that we should be endlessly debating the germ theory of disease or the atomic hypothesis or exhaustively test every perpetual motion device some crank drags into a physics department (yes it happens, frequently) but we should keep open minds.

    I’m quite a fan of Popper on philosophy of science. I like his idea of falsifiability (not the final word he envisaged but a very handy heuristic) and if I’ve ever had a madcap scheme or idea I just love it if people try and knock it for six. I’m from the c’mon if you think you’re right enough school of science.

    Not only do I think the GW advocates haven’t proved their point to give me a level of confidence in their idea sufficient to support things which will severely impinge on the standard of living of everyone I think in seeking to close down the debate they are behaving distinctly unscientifically.

    My other major objection is I think this is just a massive shill for the greens. The fact that nobody on the AGW advocacy side is prepared to even consider solutions more sophisticated than building windmills and going on holiday less is soul-destroyingly awful for a techno-fetishist like myself. They want less technology. Are these really scientists? Can you hear that? That’s the sound of Nikola Tesla developing high angular momentum in his grave. That’s why I think it’s a shill for the greens. Real scientists would be pushing for cash for all the new toys Pa Annoyed mentioned (and more), not a retreat to some rural idyll and a discount on a Prius. Real scientists steal fire from the gods. This lot just want to let themselves be bitch-slapped by Gaia.

    Plus Ultra People! I wanna see Titan before I die.

    *Ohh err missus, chase me chase me, and much other sub-Benny Hill innuendo.

  • Nick M

    Pa Annoyed,

    Your last post came up while I was typing. I wouldn’t have bothered posting if I’d seen it first. That was bloody good.

    …that early science lessons have taught the results and not the methods, and this has led to science being seen as the new priesthood.

    Exactly! With the added effect that going against true science is cool and a bit rebellious?

  • Pa Annoyed

    Real scientists would be pushing for cash for all the new toys Pa Annoyed mentioned (and more), not a retreat to some rural idyll and a discount on a Prius.

    Reminds me of something I read recently on another blog.

    Even more amusingly, the paper is filled with a lot of completely off-topic comments that indicate that Hansen et al. are unable to focus on rational thinking. When I was reading one of the last sentences, I started to laugh loudly. Hansen et al. criticize the “engineering fixes” of the global climate recently discussed by Paul J. Crutzen, the 1995 Nobel prize winner for chemistry, and Ralph Cicerone, the current president of the National Academy of Sciences. Hansen says that these fixes are “dangerous” because they could diminish the efforts to reduce the CO2 emissions.

    That’s very funny because this is, indeed, exactly the purpose of these papers – to propose more efficient methods than the most stupid method you can imagine for the hypothetical case that we would ever need to regulate the global climate. The papers are indeed intended to diminish the role of the most uncultivated proposals how to fight with the hypothetical “climate change”. As Hansen explains, that’s exactly his problem with those papers. ;-)

    By no means a scientific argument against AGW, of course; I just found it amusing.

    (In case you didn’t know, James Hansen is a major proponent of AGW and a contributing author of the IPCC 2001 report.)

  • YogSothoth

    Pa – yep, exactly. I wonder what the overlap is between such people and the set of people who are pissed off that communism got its ass so resoundingly handed to it by mean old capitalism? I don’t know of any libertarian types that don’t understand that change is needed but we are deeply suspicious that Kyoto is nothing more than the japanese word for ‘Das Kapital’.

    Who among us wouldn’t like to see more nuclear power? Who doesn’t just *hate* knowing that every time you fill up your car, you are putting money in the coffers of our enemies? It’s the fucking sleight of hand we see being employed that irritates us so.

    Talking about “consensus” with regard to science – what do you think the consensus was with regard to the notion that the passage of time is absolute and not relative to the observer before Einstein? These “scientists” should be ashamed of themselves.

  • Pa Annoyed

    what do you think the consensus was with regard to the notion that the passage of time is absolute and not relative to the observer before Einstein?

    I think that consensus is a valuable tool for prioritising effort, but that it is no substitute for evidence and elegance of explanation. One can equally well put forward cold fusion as an example the other way. I think it was Sagan who said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” You can quite validly say that not being of the consensus is good reason that the sceptics have to present very solid arguments and evidence, that needs to be examined with suspicion. You can’t say things like “the debate is over”, that their supposed funding sources mean their arguments can be dismissed unexamined, or that it is in any way right to silence them or deny them a fair hearing. The correct response, of course, is to teach everyone enough climate science that the ordinary person can see how wrong they are, without any need to call upon authority. That’s hard, but is nevertheless the only real answer.

    I don’t have a problem with anyone taking the consensus as a default position, even when I know it’s wrong. But if they consider the issue important enough to take action over (whether just as an influence on their voting, or more “direct” activism), then they have the responsibility to check their facts and understand the basis of any controversy.

  • Nick M

    Pa Annoyed,

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Sagan might have said that, but I think it originated from David Hume.

  • YogSothoth

    Pa – Yes, that’s where I am exactly. It would be nonsensical to declare the position opposite to the concensus as the default or starting position, it that “the debate is over” jazz I object to.

    By the way, what does ‘Pa Annoyed’ mean? Are you annoyed in Pennsylvania or a disgruntled father or ?

  • Pa Annoyed

    I wondered when someone would get round to asking that… :-)

    It is a play on words and an expression of how I saw myself differing from the views I see being expressed here. My belief is that society is a self-organising structure, and as such it tends to be self-similar on all scales; individual, family, neighbourhood, club, community, nationality – a “social fractal” if you like – and that as such, the character of government reflects the character of the society it rules. Tribal families lead to nepotistic and corrupt governments. Laissez faire families result in more liberal types of government. But the government I fear most is the “angry patriarch” which characterises the controlling, totalitarian government. (A bit of a simplification, but I could spend hours explaining it. Try reading up on Hayek’s similar concept of catallaxy.)

    Because the government reflects the society, I do not care about what government ministers get up to. I watch what society does, what it believes. As society swings and drifts, so does the government, or it gets replaced. It is why revolutions so often lead to new rulers just like the old – if they are not already so being part of that society, the laws of scale invariance soon force them into the mould. Even in totalitarian states, what matters is not that the dictator dictates, but that everyone else (or at least a sufficient number) are prepared to be dictated to. Dictatorships are characterised not by the man at the top, but by all the people at the bottom who follow him. For that reason, I do not fear governments in the slightest; I fear the people, I fear everyone. And isn’t that the very definition of a paranoid?

  • watcher in the dark

    No doubt life on earth is unfolding as it should but be warned, good people, that whatever the outcome of all this hot air is:

    You will be taxed soundly, and you will be informed what to think.

    All good socialists/statists will be heartened by this news and the gloom of our impending doom will be tinged with a smile of self-satisfaction.

  • Midwesterner

    I watch what society does, what it believes.

    While I do watch the Sunday morning talking heads to find out what has happened, I also try to keep track of the product and priorities in Hollyweird. The shows and movies that are hot (or not) say a lot about where the general population is at. Look at what sells in entertainment this year, and you can make a pretty good guess at what will be selling in politics next year. The inverse also holds pretty well.

  • Midwesterner

    Oops. That wasn’t very clear. By inverse, I meant what doesn’t sell … , not that politics predicts popularity. Politics follows popularity.

  • Andy

    I’ve got a good idea. Why don’t we wait until it’s clear that something is wrong and then decide what to do. Oops it could well be too late then, but in the meantime we can write stuff on the internet.

    Honestly guys, if you believe all this stuff is true then do something constructive about it instead of watching South Park and posting stuff to an internet site that is only read by people who agree with you.

  • Andy, go back and re-read what I wrote. I am not saying there is nothing wrong with the climate, I am saying that there is nothing we can do about it because it has very little to do with human action. Thus allowing quite literally billions of people to be impoverished by preposterous green regulations “just in case” is complete insanity. Such a course of action serves the interest of people whose only objective in life is controlling other people.

    The constructive thing we do here is point out the sheer inanity of the green world view and hopefully convince people sitting on the fence that in spite of the majority view in the media it really is ok to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.