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 – Why, yes, they do lie about climate change We are responsible for emissions, we consumers. For it is our consumption that creates the emissions.
And, of course, yes this is important. For by framing the problem as being that of the capitalist bastards it’s then possible to think that if we just eliminated the capitalist bastards then we would have solved the problem. Which does rather obscure the point that if the capitalist bastards did not sate our desires then we’d be nibbling our frozen turnips by moonlight in our winter shack.
That is, the placing of the responsibility upon the fossil fuel firms removes it from ourselves. Which is the lyin’ bastardry going on here. In order to beat climate change it is us that has to change our ways.
That’s also the reason why this lyin’ bastardry is attempted. Because when presented with the actual choice – either Greenland melts and the mangrove swamps flood or you get no hot food nor crib – the actual people, us out here, are going to say bugger Greenland and the swamps.
Which is why people lie about it.
– Tim Worstall
|
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.
|
Calling carbon dioxide, a harmless trace gas and vital plant food “emissions” was a stroke of evil genius worthy of Goebbels at his worst. No-one can be in favour of “emissions” can they?
If there is great cold and heavy snow, the establishment explain it away as “a polar vortex” and holds that this cold and snow “proves” their Carbon Dioxide is evil theory, just as (supposedly) hot and dry weather also “proves” their Carbon Dioxide is evil theory. Data prove their theory and the opposite of that data ALSO proves their theory – Karl Popper would weep with rage.
How there can be heavy snow and terrible cold in the United States and ALSO in Japan and Russia – they do not explain, other than by screaming “Denier!” at anyone who points this out – and demand punishment for “Deniers”.
One must also remember that only WESTERN Carbon Dioxide is evil – the People’s Republic of China and so on, can produce as much Carbon Dioxide as they like – because this is “Climate Justice” (a variety of “Social Justice” – which motivates all leftist behaviour).
As for citing temperature figures from measuring stations that do-not-exist – yes, of course, the establishment does that. It is the “new science” you see, the computer model predicts the data – so that is what the data is (as with Covid).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc
Strong language warning.
An explanation so simple, direct, straightforward and true that a child could grasp it, but apparently, our betters do not.
llater,
llamas
Paul,
Karl Popper would but what would really get his goat is that incresingly data from computer models is presented as if it were empirical evidence. This morning on the BBC News there was talk of Ed “Windy” Millipede at some shindig in Hamburg to anounce a grand North Sea partnership for wind power. 100GW is planned. They had a commentator saying this was lots and lots. It isn’t. She also stated that compared to the UK’s current 16GW was “nearly ten times as much” (simple arithmetic says it is 6.25 times as much but that is terribly “white” of me to notice…) and in anycase the comparison is stunningly disingenuous because this isn’t just for the UK but also The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Norway…
Back in the ’80s Gateshead, where I grew-up, declared itself “Nuclear Free” and had lots of posters showing a smiling, happy sun! You know that enormous thing in the sky that doesn’t run on nuclear reactions but on Jonathan Porrit’s “Happy Thoughts”. They tried to ban the local Queen Elizabeth hospital from getting a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance scanner. That sort of antic is why they are called MRIs these days.
llamas – good.
Although I do not see much chance of us running out of hydrocarbons – unless government and “partner” corporate action produces an artificial shortage.
NickM
Yes – yes the idea behind the “New Science” that computer models can replace empirical evidence – is insane, utterly insane.
And the hatred of nuclear power, indeed anything with the word “nuclear” in the name, is also insane.
Paul,
I was going to go on about computer models but I haven’t the time right now. Maybe later and elsewhere. That’s a hint as to online things to come… But Nuclearphobia… I did physics at university and the looks I got for having a nulcear physics textbook were bizarre! It’s how the thickness of paper in mills is regulated, it’s how many cancers are diagnosed and treated, it’s how my old mechanical watch glows in the dark and how the stars shine. But Hiroshima!!! If it wasn’t for the nuking of Japan the end of World War II would have been stunning carnage. And there’s a very good chance Stalin would have also invaded from the North with, perhaps Tokyo becoming divided as a sort of Berlin of the East. The results of that would have made the Cold War rather more “interesting”.
One last thought. Pierre and Marie Curie refined huge quatities of pitchblende in a shed at their home in suburban Paris and they won Nobel Prizes. I attempted to replace the guttering affordably on a Grade II listed building in Cheshire and the planning wazzocks threatened me with chokey.
NickM: There was somebody on an alledged science programme on the wireless a week ago who refered to 20C as being “ten times hotter” than 2C. Not a 20C *difference*, but 20C itself.
jgh,
Well, it would be an 18C difference but your point is noted. It is certainly not “ten times hotter” in any meaningful thermodynamic sense. Certainly not considering what Celsius has as it’s two fixed points! But forget thermodynamics and Josiah Willard Gibbs* and his Grand Cannonical Ensemble – 2C and 20C is the difference between me wearing a coat outside or not.
*Possibly the greatest theoretical physicist hardly anyone has heard of…
NickM – computer models say what the people who programmed them want them to say.
It is as simple as that – and to confuse computer models with scientific data, for example with real temperature measuring stations, is insane.
And, by the way, Tim Worstall seems to be a victim of this propaganda himself.
The “choice between Greenland melting and…..” – what evidence is there that Greenland is melting?
Where is the evidence that is less ice and snow in Greenland than there was in, say, 90 years ago?
Why assume that Greenland is “melting”?
Is it because the computer model says so?
Paul,
A massive problem is actually the advance of technology. It makes comparisons difficult over time. This is a huge issue with anything computer realated where the technology has advanced at an exponential rate over several decades*. OK, not an issue with studying things as they are but a huge one if someone is looking at change over those decades. Another issue is of course that everyone is modelling global warming. Not the extremely unsubtle assumption there. And finally… Global warming studies get funding because it is seen as a problem. No warming or even warming which is either neutral or positive kiss your research grant adieu! So what if your model doesn’t fit the narrative? Tweak it! That is why every alarmist article about this will contain the phrase, “models show…”. Note the plural.
*Ballpark figure here… Give me (yes, me) about USD 15,000 for the parts (a coupla grand extra to rewire the house – this is gonna be at least a 4kW machine, probs more) and about a month and I will give you a supercomputer (by the standards of about 20 years ago). I’d love to do it for the sheer Hell of it. It would be utterly awesome. It will fit under a desk (just).
NickM
A computer model produces what it is programmed to produce.
Natural science is about observation of the physical world – actual observations, empirical data. NOT the “New Science” of treating computer models as if they were empirical data.
You know all this.
computer models say what the people who programmed them want them to say.
In the best of cases.
Paul,
I think that is pretty much what I said.
I’ve said this before here.
In 40 years of skiing, usually in the same weeks of the year (school holidays, so when I was a kid and later as a parent), the snow line has climbed and the snow gotten thinner.
Snow making equipment is enormously expensive, the cost is borne by the tourists who buy lift passes.
40 years ago – none.
30 years ago – a few, on low slopes, used at the end of the season.
20 years ago – more, higher, running for most of the season.
10 years ago – running every night the weather is cold enough, some at 2000m up.
Are all the resorts in the conspiracy? If a resort didn’t need snow makers, they could not buy them, pass the savings onto the tourists and make so much money because everyone would go there.
2 years ago, in the middle of February, it was raining at 2000m. That’s April weather.
Yes, this is anecdotal, but everything I’ve seen supports this. Lower resorts close because there isn’t enough snow. Mid-altitude resorts have shorter seasons.
This tells me that the climate is warming. “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes.” Isn’t that what’s going on here?
What a crock. Climate happens, it changes all the time.
It’s currently -2f here. Warmest day for the week. We hit -28f earlier this week. This has been a cold cold week here, in a historical sense. Global cooling? Naw. Weather.
I used to run big snowmaking machines – old Hedco units – in my youth. They’re expensive, to buy and to operate. So is insurance for ski areas. As the insurance premiums grew, running ski areas became less profitable, and so anything that might expand the season on the front or back was a winning idea. Making a foundation of snow can almost double a season. Thus, lots of snowmakers running full tilt any time it’s cold enough to freeze the droplets makes the difference between bankruptcy and profit.
Just to show that I’m not wacko:
https://www.stormskiing.com/p/the-only-problem-with-claiming-that