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]

Samizdata quote of the day

Who knew that China was being funded by the Koch brothers?

- WUWT? commenter Alphaeus responds to the news that the Heartland Institute’s anti-climate-alarmist publication Climate Change Reconsidered has been published, in Chinese, by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

16 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Nick (nice-guy) Gray

    Read a report that Polar bear numbers have gone up! Don’t tell Mr. Gore! It might just be that shrinking ice caps means they are concentrating existing small numbers, so the numbers simply seem to be increasing.

  • jerry

    The AGW crowd IS NOT going to give up on this.
    The whole global warming
    ( climate change now, so that they’re covered either way
    - temp up / ‘we’re not doing enough, we need more money
    - temp steady or down / see, it’s working we need more money to continue the fight !!) scam is their best shot at a world tax – with the usual exemptions leaving only the ‘rich’ western countries paying and China, S.A. et al screaming ‘we’re broke and need to be exempted from this !
    Just watch

  • JohnB

    It’s all about data being used to achieve an overall goal.
    China does build around one new coal-fired power station a week.
    As, differently, in the West, presented ‘facts’ are only stepping stones.

  • Paul Marks

    There is a broader matter here….

    The effect of “enviromental” taxes and regulations is to help push manufacturing (and so on) to China. Goods are manufactured in China (the manufacturing process producing lots of C02 – often more C02 that was being produced by the Western factories that were shut down by the “environmental” taxes and regulations)and then shipped back to the West (the transport producing yet more C02).

    When challenged that their “environmental” taxes (such as “Carbon Trading”) and regulations were leading to MORE (not less) C02 being produced the establishment elite (such as the editor of the Economist magazine – and I heard him say it on the BBC Radio Four “Any Questions” programme) reply that the Chinese government should be paid (by Western taxpayers) to reduce Chinese C02 production.

    It is all madness – and the next stage is clear.

    Western consumption (not just production) will be attacked – we need lower living standards (dramatically lower living standards) in order to be “environmentally sustainable”.

    Hence our dear friend “Agenda 21″ (pushed by “Common Purpose” and so on) – stuff that was dismissed as “paranoia” and is now just a normal part of national and local government work. And of international government work – not “World Government”, “world governance” (which is quite different……).

    And, yes, the Koch brothers are opposed to all this stuff.

    “What Is Wrong With Kansas?” sneer the Marxists – asking why the “working class” votes for the Republican “capitalists” in Kansas, “against their interests”.

    Well, my dears, perhaps ordinary people in Kansas do not vote for you because they know it is YOU (not the Koch brothers) who wants to make them poverty ridden slaves.

  • Laird

    Wait, don’t the Koch brothers fund everything evil in this world? Why should this one be a surprise?

  • Mike

    Look, regardless of what you guys might want to pretend to yourselves, scientific evidence doesn’t depend on political opinion. There is a vast amount of evidence in favour of Global Warming being a factual thing, and the majority of that evidence is in favour of the fact that it is man-made. Further, the vast majority of scientists who actually understand the topic believe in it.

    Yes, there are studies which “prove” otherwise, but they are almost all, oddly enough, funded by big corporations with a vested interest in continuing to pollute the planet and zero interest in what happens to our grandchildren. and are generally not widely accepted. Being a libertarian doesn’t mean you have to lose the ability for critical thought. Further, whilst science is often funded by the government it is not run by the government.

    It is unusual for an academic to outright lie about their discoveries (and, yes, that probably does include most of the anti-Global Warming scientists, but there are far less of them than the media coverage would suggest), and if the vast majority of the scientists in the field agree on something it is probably true. I know this because I am a scientist, and I certainly wouldn’t lie about something like this, for the government or for big business.

    I’m not saying “Global Warming is absolutely happening and definitely man-made”, but what I am saying is that it’s almost certainly happening (even the anti-Global-Warming lobby accepts that now) and highly likely to be man-made. Further, the consequences of not doing anything about it are far too severe to just ignore it, and it is never going to be resolved by the free market because the people responsible for the pollution aren’t the same as the people who will suffer from it, either geographically, temporally or in terms of wealth.

    Also, China can no more be trusted on this than anyone else (for one thing, China isn’t Communist for any reasonable definition of the word, certainly not any more), because they have a vested interest in being able to industrialise in the way that we did, which is by pumping out lots of Carbon Dioxide. And, even if the West stopped polluting entirely, China and India’s natural development would be enough to ensure Carbon Dioxide emissions continue to rise for a long time, so there is simply not going to be any option but to limit their emissions eventually.

  • Let us posit that Global Warming is man-made. (In the Seventies the science was equally settled that a man-made Ice Age was on the way. Strangely, the cure for that was also going pre-industrial.)

    Just why are so many people insistent that warming is a bad thing? I’d certainly prefer a bit more warmth to another ice age.

  • Mike

    Ellen: That is an extremely ill-informed statement, because the effects of Global Warming are not simply “everyone gets 5C hotter”. Aside from sea-level rises (which will flood many low-lying islands and, potentially, even several major cities), climate patterns will change, leading to widespread droughts in Africa and other places, not to mention the extinction of large numbers of animal species.

    Further, due to the effect of the Gulf Stream, it is quite likely that a sufficiently high temperature rise will make much of Western Europe and the Eastern US colder, due to fresh water in the seas disrupting the flow. So, it really is not as simple as “it gets hotter, that’s brilliant (and, frankly, I doubt it’s that great if you live in the Sahara dessert anyway).

  • jdm

    Well, the insinuation that (people working with/for) big corporations don’t have grandchildren, coupled with almost certain and highly likely assertions have convinced me. We’re all doomed.

    Unless. Scientists, such as yourself, are given full and complete worldwide control over all human activities to allow or not as you see fit. In our best interests, of course.

    So, I’m curious. What are the things that you’re doing to show the way? I’m sure you don’t fly anymore. Nor use any engines. Of any kind. Grow your own food. All of it. Well, perhaps you’ve accepted oranges as gifts but only if they’ve arrived by sailboat. Being a newbie at this, I can only guess at all the activities you’ve curtailed or started so as to save the planet and set a Good Example for us all. Please.

  • Mike

    They do have grandchildren, yes, but I would imagine said grandchildren will be quite happy to live in a screwed-up world with lots of money. Money tends to make problems like that a lot less of an issue….

    And, this is not a moral argument, it is a factual one. I don’t care whether or not you think we should do anything about Global Warming, I am simply arguing that it is happening and is likely man-made. I don’t care what you want to be true, but believing that something obviously must be true because it is convenient for you to believe it is the height of idiocy.

  • Mr Ed

    The Great Langdale Valley in Cumbria, England was once covered by a glacier. That part of the planet warmed up, and so it is now a lush hay meadow with eroded mountain peaks on either side. Had the planet not warmed up, it would be as hostile to human life as large chunks of Greenland.

    Never trust a ‘scientist’ who does not live by honest trade; government corrupts, and government funding corrupts absolutely.

  • Laird

    No one disputes that the climate is constantly changing; that’s what it does. What is in dispute is whether, overall, it is warming or cooling (the latter seems more likely to be the case right now; see http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2013/06/05/cooling-looms-earths-true-climate-calamity) or that human activities have any significant impact on it (there is NO evidence that such is the case, only conjecture “supported” by demonstrably flawed computer models). What is clear is that the putative scientists proffering this theory have falsified data, refused to submit their models to independent review, and generally vilified dissenters. They are (or were, anyway) making a grand living and enjoying public adulation from this scam. Of course they’re protecting their gravy train for as long as they can.

    In the past the earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now, without any human involvement. At times the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been as much as 20 times higher than it is now (plants thrive under those conditions; they’re essentially starving today) without any adverse effect on the planet. Believing the humans can have a meaningful impact on the climate of an entire planet, when almost all of the greenhouse effect is attributable to water vapor and solar activity, is simply hubris.

  • Mike -

    The medieval warm period was warmer than we are today. They were exporting wine from England. The Roman warm period was warmer. The Cretan warm period was warmer. And during the early to mid-Holocene, the climate was warmer still. The arctic ocean may have been free of ice during the summer. During the mid-Holocene, the Sahara was green. You can trace the drying-out in the history of Egypt.

    British paleontologist Richard Fortey describes the landscape of Australia 20-35 million years ago, during the Oligocene and Miocene, as being “as rich as Amazonia, green and moist, with trees and ferns in profusion.”[12] Today much of Australia, an area the size of the continental United States, is desert and bush and supports only 22 million people compared to 300 million in the U.S. — Paul MacRae

    If all you will allow yourself to see is catastrophe, then all you can see is catastrophe. The Gulf Stream may go away, and England freeze? It didn’t in the Holocene. A giant flaming meteor may hit and destroy all life on earth? Came close 65 million years ago. Frankly, we will get far greater worldwide benefits by cataloging asteroids and learning to deflect them. If nothing else, it’s easier and cheaper than hacking industrial society back to the Roman age.

  • jdm

    Well, thanks for responding, Mike. As expected, you didn’t answer my questions. I will assume then that you use oil and products derived from same, machines with engines that burn oil, devices that burn fuels for heat, products shipped from other countries, electricity, etc, etc.

    In short, I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who keep telling me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis

  • w

    The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report”
    2013-06-15
    The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and was published in May 2013 through Science Press. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.

    To clarify the fact, the Chinese Academy of Sciences is now making an official statement as follows:

    Firstly, the translation is organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and published by Science Press as a product of science communication aiming at introducing diverse academic arguments.

    Secondly, neither the translation nor the publication represents any views of the Chinese Academy of Sciences or its affiliations on related issues.

    Thirdly, it is earnestly called upon by the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the general public not to accept and disseminate any misleading information related to the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

    http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201306/t20130615_104625.shtml
    http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html

  • JohnB

    When I watch a TV weather forecast I am often struck by the seeming desire of the presenters (and the scientists they represent) to be prophets rather than scientists.

    Science is great. Observation of events, presenting possible theories and critical assessment of those theories and the data is great. Honest observation and critical thinking.

    Just because we don’t believe in God anymore doesn’t mean our prophets have to pretend to be scientists. :)