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 If Antarctic ice continues to grow, the trickle of refugees may become a stampede, as Antarctic climate scientists, some of whom have been there for years, are forced to leave their traditional habitats.
– Breitbart’s Eric Worrall laments the impact of climate change.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Bear in mind, folks of ALL sorts who find their “assignments” to be in hostile environments, rather than…say…observing, strategizing, “consulting”, and generally overwhelming the “entertainment” budget from comfortable chairs in climate controlled, well appointed, retreats, are generally the folks who have been “horizontally promoted” to keep them a safe distance from twiddling with the knobs on the “important” machines.
That is funny. And as Saul Alinsky taught us, ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Keep it up!
Standby for the Invasion of the Penguins!
Kwak,kwak,kwak,kwak…..
Oh no! Climate…changes. (Hence the name). Oh woe are we.
Here’s my theory. (Get ready to roll eyes).
Every political extremist (leftist, rightist) is a “conservative”. Rightwing conservatives want to “conserve” traditional social values. They lament the death of the Beaver Cleaver days of the ’50’s. You know, “back when there weren’t any gay people”, (As said by Pat Boone in an interview with Bill O’Reilly).
The far left are “conservationists”. This is how they’re conservative. They pretend that EVERYTHING is a scarce, non-renueable resourse, (i.e. they live in a zero sum tribalist world) and the fact that climate CHANGES and that (gasp) species and subspecies DO in fact go extinct (as 99.9999999% of all of them already have) terrifies the shit out of them.
Yeah, never mind that “climate change” doomsday scenarios have no refutation, that even growing ice caps denotes “global warming” to them. Never mind the fact that there is NO REASON to think that if we cease and desisted all “global warming” activities, that the earth would stop warming, much less grow cooler, and never mind the fact that no one can explain why a warmer world on average would spell out doom…at all. Humans are a tropical species, which is why are Great-ape asses are naked. The earth, on average, is much warmer than it is today on average. Most of the earth’s history was spent with no ice caps at all. We’re still coming out of an ice age, and yes it is probably growing warmer on average. And…? What exactly are we terrified of, being able to grow massive amounts of food in Canada?
Unfortunately for some people, this DOES support a warming planet idea. Weather patterns have changed, so the Antarctic gets more rain. Temperatures are a long way below zero, so a little raise won’t yet cause all the ice to melt. This does NOT disprove Global warming.
Yes, but when less ice implies global warming and more ice implies global warming, some of us get a little cynical.
Yes, but the ice is of a lower quality! Not like the ice in the Ice age! It’s not as compact.
Besides, Global warming applies to the whole planet, on average. Even if some parts get cooler, if the average rises, it’s still true.
What a great theory. No matter what happens it’s evidence for AGW.
We used to call that religion.
Most “climate skeptics” are not denying climate change, the argument is about whether human contribution (and specifically CO2) to climate change makes any discernible difference or not, and the economics of whether we should do something about it. We are bombarded with “scientific” claims that climate change causes one thing or another, but scant evidence that if the human contribution to climate change didn’t exist then the event wouldn’t happen, and almost no analysis on whether the economic risks outweigh the benefits. There is little wonder naturally skeptic people call out such claims, and the only defense against them seems to be insult and derision. The article is a neat reversal of that.
Yes, but the ice is of a lower quality! Not like the ice in the Ice age! It’s not as compact.
Besides, Global warming applies to the whole planet, on average. Even if some parts get cooler, if the average rises, it’s still true
Did you leave the sarc tag off Nicholas or are you saying the last 17 years of no warming is a lie? If the latter is true I suggest you read a few more skeptic blogs with well credential scientists to balance out your intake.
Not at all, David- though I dispute that it has completely stopped. To me, the rises seem miniscule, and something to think about, though not to immediately worry about.
Indeed, for my own reasons, I am glad that conditions changed in 1998. A guy I like, who died in 1945, claimed to be a psychic, and talked about a solar cycle which would start in 1958, and peak in 1998. Edgar Cayce also made other predictions, but these were conditional on human behaviour, and have not come about.
But I do think that the weather is changing, and humans have some influence in that.
Nobody really questions global warming. It’s AGW. It’s nonsense, and clearly CO2 is not the controlling mechanism (if such a thing exists in the system) that it’s been billed as. Shady characters abound, skepticism is both warranted and generally good science.
For instance, is there less and less ice in the Arctic regions each year, or not? Now if the Arctic were also to show more ice, that would be fascinating!
Huh? Sorry, but I do, just as I question everything else. I do not deny it (haha) – I am agnostic. Ditto AGW.
But to me, none of that is the real issue – that being the-boy-who-cried-wolf thing. I am not denying there are indeed wolves out there, although I do question the presence of an actual wolf behind the actual tree at a particular point in time. I tend to question all that even more stubbornly as the tactics used to support all that are becoming increasingly questionable in and of themselves. More the pity for all of us when the real wolf comes and we’ll just dismiss it with a ‘been there heard that’. It’s called ‘credibility’ – once you lose it, you may never get it back.
FWIW, this would seem contradictory to the article which spawned this thread.
Antartica sea ice extent has increased. Volume has decreased.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Data cherry picked to support the cause.
Good info discussed here on solarcyle24; http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/board/2/global-warming-weather-discussion?q=Antartica
Also worth a look; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/