Recap on Global Warming

Some days are warmer, some are cooler. Some years are warmer, some are cooler. Some centuries are warmer, some are cooler.

Not only does climate vary, but the variability itself is subject to change. Ten degree swings over decade have happened, and when that happens once, usually happens ten or twenty times over the following millenia. Fortunately we have not had anything as bad as that in recent millenia, but during Roman times it was substantially warmer than today, and wheat grew in what is now desert, today’s deserts were the breadbasket of Europe, and during the little ice age, it was mighty cold, and the deserts were bigger.

The Hockey stick curve (which shows climate stable until industrialization) is just phony. The climategate files revealed that those proclaiming it showed no interest in whether it was true or false. Mann delegated the key work to minor grad students, told them what the data should show, and displayed absolutely no interest in how they tortured the data to get his predetermined result. This was obvious when it came out, and confirmed by the leak of climategate files. Mann himself did not know how the Hockey Stick curve was generated, in the sense that he failed to ask, and showed no interest in, the questions raised in the Harry_Read_Me.txt file, which discusses the manufacture of the corrupted and corrupting data used to weight the proxies, and also in that Harry, a low status menial, was tasked with recreating graphs already published, implying that Mann and company had no idea where those graphs came from or what they were based on, if anything.

Mann and company vaguely hoped and sort of believed that they curves that they published were somehow derived from observations, but they did not know, and showed no interest in, what observations, and how derived.

When the Hockey Stick Curve appeared it showed the classic marks of theocratic science.

Everyone used to believe, based on extensive evidence, that climate had been highly variable in the past. And then suddenly everyone in academia changed their belief, quietly forgetting that they used to believe something complete different, without asking for the evidence that supposedly supported their new belief.

Indeed, to ask the new experts how they knew their new facts about past climate was deemed an act of harassment. To ask, was to be anti scientific, since you were showing disrespect to official science. Every academic everywhere, with a handful of courageous exceptions that were swiftly brought into line, agreed with the new line, and declined to ask dangerous and subversive questions as to what data, what evidence, brought the new line about. How did one proceed from observations of fossil trees and glaciers to a conclusion very different to that which past observers of fossil trees and glaciers had concluded? No one would tell, and no one important would ask.

When the state officially recognizes science and scientists, this tends to make scientists into priests.

In the restoration, Charles the Second created the Royal Society to keep scientists on track, which was part of his purge of the priesthood. It is a pity he did not create an inquisition to continue the purges and keep the rest of the priesthood on track.

From the Restoration in 1660, to the end of World War II, the Royal society enforced the scientific method. If you wanted respect and esteem as a scientist, you had to tell us new and interesting things, and you had to show everyone how you knew these new and interesting things from what you saw with your eyes and touched with your hands.

After World War II, Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, and you no longer have to show your work. Instead, your work must be approved by the most holy synod of mother church – in other words, must pass peer review behind closed doors. Peer Review is new. Attempts to root it in the past of science before World War II are artificial and contrived. Somehow we obtained almost all of science that matters before we had peer review, and since we have had peer review, things have started to go terribly wrong with science. Peer Review is science by social consensus, and Galileo told us that that does not work.

Global Warming is much the same religion as the Aztec state religion. Sacrifices must be made, or else the sun will not rise to tomorrow, and the priests can therefore pull strings, so that some people are sacrificed more, and others less, as with Chris Turner’s carbon indulgences.

It is not enough to stop the sacrifices though that is a damned good start. The priesthood itself must be purged, for as long as they have state power, they will continue to apply it against Trump.

The permanent government will always win over the temporary government unless purged, and the permanent state religion will always control the permanent government, unless a King places himself the head of that religion, and, armed with an inquisition, brings it into line. May Trump become God Emperor, or at least King and High Priest. And may his grand inquisitor purge Satanism from our political elite and lies and heresy such as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming from our priesthood, with holy fire.

We need to suppress Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as Castile suppressed the Old Gods of Mexico, and as the Romans suppressed Druidism, and for much the same reasons, and with much the same methods. Global Warming is not an example of science making a mistake. Science always makes mistakes, and advances because of them. Global Warming is an example of an evil priesthood and evil priests, pursuing evil goals by evil means. Scientific errors should not be punished, but evil religions need to be forcibly suppressed by centralized power and state violence, for evil religions propagate by centralized power and state violence, and thus can be suppressed by no other means.

155 Responses to “Recap on Global Warming”

  1. Cavalier says:

    I wonder if we don’t also need, in addition to state inquisitors, sonething of a thought police as well. Even when kept away from state apparatus, some ideas are simply too dangerous to be allowed to survive. Rousseau should have been shot, for instance. Likewise, Lenin, when the Kaiser had him. Marx. Locke. Etc.

    If seems to me that the aristocracy spent enough time thinking thoughts produced by guys like Locke that when it came time to put down the rebels their worldview had been subverted such that they could not muster the will to put up a fight.

    When somebody threatens to burn down your castle, shoot him on the spot. Robespierre.

    Spiritual sovereignty, something something.

    Anywho, sure global warming is a farce, etc. etc., but do we not nevertheless want to transition to nuclear and solar as much as possible?

    • peppermint says:

      > some ideas are simply too dangerous to be allowed to survive

      people don’t hold stupid ideas because they are infected with a virus, they hold stupid ideas for reasons. We need to ensure that there isn’t any incentive to assert retarded things. The left, conversely, needs to ensure that saying true things is heavily disincentivized.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        In private saying “let’s all put on masks and gather explosives and meet up at the bank vault at 0300” is a crime – the very act of coordinating to commit a crime is a crime.

        Public protestation of progressive principles are public attempts to coordinate to commit similar crimes with plausible deniability.

        It’s a destructive idea – but not a stupid one since it’s zero risk to hold and proclaim the idea and potentially high reward if you do manage to coordinate a mob. Any ideas that cast doubt on the validity of the system of property rights should absolutely be illegal to express.

        • peppermint says:

          okay, so the feebs have been busting people for conspiracy based only on talking shit for so long you think that’s the definition of conspiracy.

          Consider that stupid ideas aren’t zero risk to hold. There’s more to it than if you think stupid things, and aren’t a genius, you’re going to make stupid decisions that impact your personal life. Presenting something as retarded as communism in a forum where people are permitted to disrespect the principle that all souls matter has a 100% chance of causing bad feels.

          We had our hands nailed to a stick and couldn’t effectively fight back memetically, we wouldn’t fight back physically, so we lost. Now we’ve won through memes when the enemy has all the physical force, and you want to ban memes. That isn’t thinking ahead. That’s because you don’t like where the memes are headed, because you’re already secretly a traitor.

      • Cavalier says:

        “people don’t hold ideas because they are infected with a virus”

        Ideas are _precisely_ like viruses.

        https://youtube.com/watch?v=YzOGcTvoSUs

        That is why we can talk about them as memes, which are little idea-units like genes are little DNA-units. That is why we can talk about the evolution of ideas, or about memetic descent (from Christianity to Progressivism to Neoreaction).

        Ideas, like viruses, cannot replicate without a host. Ideas, like viruses, are transmissible from person to person. Ideas, like viruses, do lateral gene transfer as well as vertical gene transfer.

        An ideology is a cluster of memes. It influences the behavior of the host. It affects the Darwinian fitness of the host. It has an evolved immune system to dangerous memes. Moldbug talks of this, about modern-day progressives’ are perfectly inoculated against the symbols and ideas of National Socialism. Neoreaction is reasonably well inoculated against the symbols and ideas of Progressivism. Interestingly, Progressivism no longer has evolved defenses against monarchy.

        Sometimes people deliberately become infected in order to display high status. Poz in the neg hole. Quite often, in fact. But why did the French aristocracy spend their final decades toying with the ideas that would destroy their entire society? What possessed them to do so?

        Something dark and evil. Something that spent Jim’s oft-cited “golden period” of freedom of thought incubating and evolving and infecting its enemies, namely the aristocracy. Something we cannot keep away from the levers of power forever, for sooner or later it will infect important people and our new Ancien Régime will fall.

        The old Ancien Régime’s white blood cells failed to attack liberalism. Liberalism mutated into Progressivism (or maybe always was). Progressivism’s white blood cells are failing to attack Neoreaction. Our new Ancien Régime must not fail in this way.

        • Alfred says:

          The enlightenment memetic virus ‘we are all equal’ is nasty but explicitly targeted and countered by nrx/dark enlightenment which also offers alternatives such as patriarchy. Climate apocalypse viruses are perhaps tougher because even if you debunk specific climate lies like CO2 and hockey stick curve, Every Warm Day is a confirmation of climate change theory.

      • viking says:

        -we’re not actually sure of that leftism might be caused by that mouse cat type virus certainly seems suicidal

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “We need to suppress Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as Castile suppressed the Old Gods of Mexico, and as the Romans suppressed Druidism”

      The religion of Carthage and Rome’s purging of it would fit this much better.

  2. Chris B says:

    Your narrative on Science TM is not plausible. In fact, it seems like a romanticisation for rhetorical purposes.

    Also, note that your reference to Galileo is a key example on this. What was Galileo’s theory? That the sun is at the center of the universe – is this true? no. So why was it an issue? politics. The claim of being able to remove politics is pure politics. There is no politically free science.

    • jim says:

      Galileo did not speculate about the such vague and difficult to define enormities as “the universe”. He talked about what we now call the solar system. And the sun is indeed at the center of the solar system.

    • peppermint says:

      yes, the sun is the center of the then-known universe. It was a political issue because the ruling religion believed that its cosmology was dogma, and at any rate it can’t allow someone from outside the hierarchy to talk shit.

      The solution to letting people outside of the hierarchy talk shit is to let them do it anonymously on the chans and then claim that the best posts were literally written by Kek.

      • Chris B says:

        Yes they did let him put out his ideas. He only got the inquisition when he openly presented the Pope as an idiot and engaged in theological conflict.

        @Jim
        “Galileo did not speculate about the such vague and difficult to define enormities as “the universe”” you’re scrambling. It was a political and theological conflict, and he was wrong ultimately. What is more, his theories could not be proved according to your standards that “you had to show everyone how you knew these new and interesting things from what you saw with your eyes and touched with your hands.”

        • jim says:

          On the ptolmiac system, venus should not show phases. Venus showed phases, therefore it is going around the sun, or the sun is going around it.

          Similarly, the moon, like earth, had mountains and plains, therefore chance are all planets are somewhat similar, the earth just one more.

          So Galileo could, and did, show how he knew these interesting things from what he had seen with his eyes.

          The mountains of the moon and the satellites of Saturn do not prove that Copernicus was right, rather than Tycho, but they are certainly suggestive.

          • Chris B says:

            You should try playing the devils advocate and researching the affair from the Catholic side, you might find this narrative smelling rotten.

            • jim says:

              Yes, the Church was arguably right to suppress him, but that does not make him any the less a great scientist and an authority on what the scientific method is and should be.

              • JRM says:

                The irony of this discussion is that the Church was reacting against Galileo for hierarchical reasons (along with the arrogance of presuming that not all knowledge was derived from Sacred sources).

                The putative reason the Church persecuted Galileo was b/c Jesus Christ would not have been born on a mere planet revolving around a more powerful sphere, but that Jesus would have been born in the center of the Universe, b/c He was that important.

                So, we are dealing with authority and dissent, and I think today’s neo-reaction might have advised persecuting Galileo as well.

                The problem with basing your society on science, as appealing as the notion is to educated and inquisitive souls, is that it isn’t a fully firm foundation, rather, is always open to edits and revisions- and change is usu. resisted by Authority.

                Hence we now have an “official” science, unchanging (they hope), that posits racial equality, gender fluidity, and man-made climate change.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, scientific method dangerously undermines authority. But the scientific method gave us science.

                  Galileo was undermining authority, but he was not undermining authority in order to grab power, therefore a lesser threat.

                  What the restoration did was create official approved science that was authorized and required to use the scientific method. Clearly this worked and gave us the scientific and industrial revolutions.

          • pdimov says:

            The geocentric model was patched up enough that it predicted the movement of the planets very well. It wasn’t data or observations that made Galileo prefer heliocentrism, but first metaphysical principles. Namely, the principle that Earth is just a planet like any other and not special.

            And the church, while not objecting to natural science, did object to natural scientists crossing over to metaphysics.

        • Stephen W says:

          The newly invented telescope showed you the phases of the other planets, with these and trigonometry you can triangulate how far they are from the sun compared to Earth (astronomical units).

          • chris says:

            @jim says:
            November 18, 2016 at 11:43 pm

            “Galileo was undermining authority, but he was not undermining authority in order to grab power, therefore a lesser threat.”
            Are you sure about that? Who was his sponsor, why was he kicking up such a fuss when many in the Church appear to have been patient and open to discussion? He seems to have gone out of his way to be a dick. (hint, look at Florence and the Medici.)

  3. redd says:

    if you’re right, then you’ll be vindicated within a few decades. no need for executions or whatever. what exactly are the evil goals? gradually converting to renewables via emissions frameworks with no enforcement mechanisms? if you’re right, then everyone could get back to pumping oil out of the ground once temperatures stabilized if it was still cost-effective.

    • peppermint says:

      Faggot, the plan was that you and your butt-buddies would confuse Whites who are worried about the existence of their race and the future of their children into voting for slavery and death.

      And it almost worked.

      Politicized science is a political weapon and has a political goal. Pretending it doesn’t have a political goal means pretending it isn’t politicized science. That means you’re getting a blanket party when the God-Emperor doesn’t disavow the concept.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      “What are their evil goals?”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

    • jim says:

      if you’re right, then you’ll be vindicated within a few decades.

      Been vindicated already. In 1998 the warmists made a bunch of prophecies that spectacularly failed to come true. Not only were they unphased by this predictive failure, they were, and are, not particularly interested, issuing new prophecies of doom without hesitation and without any recollection of the previous prophecies of doom.

      • pdimov says:

        You could say that vindication is ongoing, as no prediction so far has hit the mark. They have a perfect record.

      • lalit says:

        Prediction is the only way to tell if someone is worth listening to. You can’t predict, then I have no time for your theories regardless of whether you and I are ideologically aligned. You predict things successfully, then I will consider everything you say worth examining, regardless of whether we are ideologically opposed.

        Prediction is where it is all at, Baby!

  4. Steve Johnson says:

    “We need to suppress Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as Castile suppressed the Old Gods of Mexico, and as the Romans suppressed Druidism”

    The religion of Carthage and Rome’s purging of it would fit this much better.

  5. Heraker says:

    The Chinese are not under Harvard’s sway. What do the Chinese think of global warming?

    • Anonymous says:

      Crossposted your question to Spandrell’s blog.

      • coyote says:

        the chinese are officially upset that Trump is anti-global warming- lolz. they were counting on us selling them all our coal so THEY could burn it.

    • Orthodox says:

      Global warming slows the developed economies. China and India are going nuclear and got concessions of technology transfers, In 20 years, China will make all the solar panels.

      So countries such as China see no upside from abandoning climate deals now. To add to the benefit, it’s possible the leftists still in charge in Europe might slap the US with tariffs or something, allowing Trump to really blow up the global trade system. Then it is lights out for China, they won’t catch the West for another century or more, if ever.

    • pdimov says:

      CO2 emissions are a good measure of industrial output. The Chinese like the fact that their competitors are stupid enough to cut their emissions and hence industrial output.

  6. Brian says:

    Hey Jim, what’s the best book(s) on Charles II and his role in establishing the Establishment? Preferably from an alt-right friendly perspective. I know you take him as a kind of ideal, and I’d like to bone up on the details.

  7. Glenfilthie says:

    Welp, if you wanna pile on shit house science, and the gay urban beekeepers and rooftop fig farmers that indulge in it, I will go along. Will you be lecturing on you your scholarly theories about the evils and villainy of vaccinations too, Jim? Perhaps our ignoratti emeritus, Professor P-mint will care to elaborate?

    Nice glass house ya got there, by the way. Be a shame if anything happened to it….

    • peppermint says:

      this is the reason xkcd guy needs some social consequences https://goatkcd.com/1357/

    • John says:

      First graph is good. Not sure how accurate the data is. I don’t understand why climate change denial is considered so obviously right by many. I understand sun spots, volcanoes and other things effect global temperature too, but obviously emitting colossal amounts of CO2 is going to have a non-zero effect somewhere in the environment. Is it a hangover of the Republican Party being the traditional party of big business and therefore dismissive of environmental destruction? Maybe now the Democratic Party seem to be becoming the new party of big business, white support for looking after the environment won’t just be limited to cosmopolitans interest in leftist signalling.

      • jim says:

        The question is, how large an effect and will the results be good or bad for man.

        The long established and long known answer, overturned without real explanation, was minor and beneficial effect.

        Warm periods used to be known as “Climactic optima” For example “The holocene climactic optimum” – during which the arctic ice cap completely melted in summer, something we have been much promised, but have not seen, and in truth are unlikely to see. And Greenland was forested with big trees.

      • pdimov says:

        “I don’t understand why climate change denial is considered so obviously right by many.”

        People who know a bit about the topic consider “denial” to be the null hypothesis that has held its own spectacularly well against the models that attempt to disprove it.

        People who don’t, see the obvious attempt to associate global warming “denial” to Holocaust denial by using the same word, and the obvious attempt to switch from “global warming”, which is disprovable by looking at a thermometer, to “climate change”, which is unfalsifiable. So they don’t need to go into details, because they can recognize lies and liars.

  8. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Most kings and would-be kings of the past were not constitutionally stopped from mustering their natural ally (and rival) which is the aristocracy, as in the U.S.. The culprit is Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 for the federal state, and the culprit is Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 for the _states_.

    A.J.P.

    • peppermint says:

      I don’t have the constitution memorized. Please quote instead of just citing.

    • peppermint says:

      Section. 9.

      1 The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

      2 The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

      3 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

      4 No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

      5 No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

      6 No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.

      7 No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

      8 No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

      Section. 10.

      1 No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

      2 No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

      3 No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        “No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility.”

        Thus outlawing affirmative action, which makes being non-Asian a hereditary noble status.

  9. guest says:

    That’s why “global warming” was dropped in lieu of of climate change, a much broader term that can encompass everything and nothing.

    Notice how during Obamas first term he used global warming almost exclusively, then i guess it ended, and he shifted to using climate change in his speeches. If someone were to go through his transcripts, we could even determine the exact date when global warming ended…

    Obama did it, he ended GW, what a prezzy!

  10. urquhart says:

    ESR made the same point about variability somewhere. Another Great Flood of 1862 would be damn expensive, and it didn’t take any anthropogenic climate change to get the last one.

    I find it tough to separate good climate/energy policy from personal attachment to internal combustion. Too easy to convince myself that what I want to believe is in fact true.

    • peppermint says:

      q: why isn’t the Earth at the black body temperature of an object with a surface area 4πr² (r=6400km) and exposure to 1.3kW/m² on πr² of that?

      a: the thin blue line

      q: does CO₂ absorb wavelengths not absorbed by other atmospheric gases?

      a: yes

      q: does that mean that exponential increases in CO₂ should cause linear increases in temperature?

      a: yes

      q: wouldn’t that increase the amount of water in the atmosphere as more gets taken up from the 70% of surface oceans, causing massive flooding in the river cities, while the ice caps melt and flood the coastal cities?

      a: sure why not

      q: and that will cause runaway water absorption into the atmosphere, following which, since water is lighter than the other atmospheric glases, it will escape into space, and the whole world will become a desert?

      a: i guess that follows

      q: even if that has a 1% chance of happening, wouldn’t you stake the existence of your people and the future for White children on saving all of humanity? All it will take is to shut down the coal plants and replace them with nuclear power…

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      esr made a number of posts flirting with NRx, then got sucked into Rabid Puppies, then suddenly and mysteriously stopped posting anything about politics, anything interesting, or really much of anything at all.

      I guess he’s on our side now, but feels himself in danger.

  11. viking says:

    wow I think you have to go by science reaction is based on reason alt right as well, HBD informs us about minorities women and the cultural feedback into the biological, its also the argument [not that the left gives a rats ass about logic] against most things leftist capitalism being a big one.
    That said i think the science is not settled and a very good case for whatever warming etc is happening is solar weather which predicts another interregnum soon. If we are wrong and its man made warming and real theres still an excellent case for all sorts of case by case defences as we go rather than nationalizing the energy.
    even beyond that we can go to the fuck you argument as in people first or the west has already donr its bit
    what we dont want to do is give in to their argument that science is on their side we are winning that argument with the people and it should be continued unless we are provd wrong then fall back to others meantime we are white people this is not a hard problem to solve and make money on that should be pursued thrift is a virtue who knows what use carbon deposits might be put to in the future if we can find an alternative

  12. CanSpeccy says:

    Global warming theory is not all crap. There are good people who make models and think their models tell something about the future. The trouble is, the process has been politicized. Jackasses like Al Gore tell you that questioning the non-existent scientific consensus makes you the equivalent of a raaaacist, or worse. The silly twat actually said that (http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/).

    Naturally such political interference distorts all kinds of things including the judgment of government research granting agencies, the media coverage of climate science, and the way the educational/brainwashing establishment treat the subject.

    Then there’s the general bureaucratization of science. Unless you are a multi-multi-millionaire able to finance yourself, you don’t get to be a scientist without being a supplicant before Government or industry.

    That means almost total top-down dictation of the scope of research by government and industry, which in turn, means that research appeals to fewer and fewer of those able to make any real contribution.

    • pdimov says:

      Models that are predicated on the assumption that historical temperature increases are caused entirely by CO2 are crap. Which, until recently, meant all models.

      • CanSpeccy says:

        Many factors affect climate in some degree, and that has been known for ever.

        Here (https://web.archive.org/web/20040616112508/http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh2.html slow server), for example, in a 2003 article, by James Hansen that provides estimates of the effects of various climate forcings including greenhouse gases other than CO2, ozone, black carbon, reflective aerosols (large cooling effect), forced cloud cover change (cooling effect), land cover change (cooling effect) and changes in solar output.

        I’m not saying the models are good or bad, I’m just saying that having had something to do with a number of top climate scientists including people such as Professor Singer (a skeptic and winner of the US national medal of honor for devising the satellite instrument for measuring tropospheric temperature) as well as James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth and others pro and con, I believe that these are, for the most part, sincere and highly competent people. But mere competence and sincerely in no way prove that they are right about this, that or the other.

        You may say that the warmists are prejudiced, that they have an agenda, etc.. But that is true every scientist with any balls from Galileo, to Newton, to Mendel, Einstein, Neils Bohr …..

        The problem is not that these people are prejudiced, that they try to dress up the data to prove their case, but that there are fools and liars like Al Gore, who have made the “scientific truth” a matter of political correctness.

        • jim says:

          James Hansen does not know anything about climate empirically and is not interested in learning anything about climate by empirical means. If you attempted to discuss with him how he knows the various facts about climate that he piously asserts, it would be like asking the Pope how he knows that God is three and God is one.

          If you asked him what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is, he will probably tell you that it is worse than we thought, without however giving you a number for what we used to think it is and what we now think it is, as if you had asked the pope to give a number specifying the sinfulness of adultery.

          The problem is not that he is prejudiced and has an agenda. As you say, everyone is prejudiced and has an agenda.

          The problem is that what he is doing just is not science. It is preaching the sinfulness of man who has sinned against mother earth.

          • CanSpeccy says:

            “James Hansen does not know anything about climate empirically and is not interested in learning anything about climate by empirical means. ”

            Um, well, he would dispute that, as in his 2013 paper:

            Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms

            James E. Hansen andTaro Takahashi
            J. Hansen1, A. Lacis1, D. Rind1, G. Russell1, P. Stone2, I. Fung3, R. Ruedy4 andJ. Lerner4

            Published by the American Geophysical Union

            Summary
            We study climate sensitivity and feedback processes in three independent ways: (1) by using a three dimensional (3-D) global climate model for experiments in which solar irradiance S0 is increased 2 percent or CO2 is doubled, (2) by using the CLIMAP climate boundary conditions to analyze the contributions of different physical processes to the cooling of the last ice age (18K years ago), and (3) by using estimated changes in global temperature and the abundance of atmospheric greenhouse gases to deduce an empirical climate sensitivity for the period 1850–1980. …

            • jim says:

              And reading those papers, does he give you some actual numbers for the climate sensitivity? x Degrees centigrade * log CO2?

              What is his value for x?

              • Canspeccy says:

                He gives a value o 3 to 4C per 4 watts m-1 CO2 forcing.

                • jim says:

                  Wrong units.

                  That is not climate sensitivity.

                  For no one really knows how much forcing in watts per square meter CO2 produces.

                  Climate sensitivity is the answer to the question “If you increase atmospheric CO2 by a factor of e, how much do global temperatures rise.”

                • pdimov says:

                  It’s “if you double CO2, how much do temperatures rise”, because response is logarithmic.

                  I say that the answer is approximately zero.

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  “For no one really knows how much forcing in watts per square meter CO2 produces.”

                  Agreed. But hHansen is assuming (I think) 4 watts m-2 for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2.

                  That seems as likely to be wrong as anyone else’s belieff.

                  My contention is not that Hansen is right but that if he is wrong, he is sincerely wrong, which is his right to be.

                  Further, I believe that skeptics should avoid becoming bullying, dogmatic, propagandists. In particular, they should avoid stirring up a kind Reds versus the Blues rivalry among the masses who know nothing whatever about the subject but apparently feel entitled to assert not only what they don’t know on the subject but to declare their ignorant assessment should be the basis of far-reaching economic policy.

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  “Wrong units.”

                  They may not be your preferred units, but Hansen can no doubt provide a conversion to your units should you want it. What I believe hie is saying is 3 to 4C per doubling of the preindustrial concentration, which can be converted to your units if you want.

                • jim says:

                  No, they are the wrong units. His number is like the pseudoscientific babble one hears on Startreck episodes, or during the Challenger inquiry.

                  During the challenger inquirty, a bureaucrat was questioned about the fact that he had signed off on a report saying the Challenger would explode in cold weather, and had ordered the Challenger launched in cold weather. His response was similar to this and to Startreck science.

                  Also, recollect Jacques Derrida: “The Einsteinian constant is”

                  It is babble, because the forcing in watts per square meter is not a well defined observable or predictable quantity.

                  If you want a bunch of fudge factors, like aerosols or CHGs, you convert them all to watts per square meter so that you add them up, but this is all model dependent, it does not wind up as a prediction that outsiders can judge for sanity.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Agreed. But hHansen is assuming (I think) 4 watts m-2 for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2.”

                  That’s a bit odd. Why would he assume that and then cite degrees per 4 watts m-2, instead of directly citing degrees per doubling?

                  The input to his models is temperature, not watts per m^2. It makes no sense to go through W/m^2 first using an assumed (made up) value.

            • pdimov says:

              The title and the summary you quote are for a 1984 paper, not a 2013 one.

              http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/warming_papers/Hansen_etal_1984.pdf

              It gives ~4 degrees per doubling.

              • jim says:

                Is that so? Glad to hear it because I have been searching for that number.

                That means that today in 2016 it should be two degrees warmer than in 1950.

                Does anyone think it is now two degrees warmer than in 1950? I believe the current estimate is that it is now about 0.5 degrees warmer than in 1950.The fudge factor is supposedly that the ocean is sucking up all the heating and once the ocean warms up, then we cook.

                • pdimov says:

                  According to the same article, CO2 forcing alone without the positive feedbacks supposedly multiplying the effect would yield 1.2 per doubling, so 0.6 since 1950. Interesting coincidence.

                  Although I still think that the coefficient is less than one.

        • pdimov says:

          The fact that they corrupt (“harmonize”) historical data to show warming when there is none is definitely a problem, because everyone uses this same data when building their models. And GIGO. At the moment it’s not clear whether anything in climate science can be trusted. It will be a long time before anybody will trust it. Not until every year stops being hottest year ever, for one.

          • CanSpeccy says:

            Data fiddling seems to be a real problem in this field. The reason is suggested by Scott Adams’ comment on vote fiddling during the US election just over. If you are a technical expert involved in managing vote counting systems and you think Trump is the new Hitler, you will have no compunction in stealing his votes.

            I think we have the same psychology at work in the climate business. The warmists (who may after all be right, Just as it is possible that Trump really will grow a silly mustache and become the new Hitler) feel morally obliged, therefore, to fudge the data to save the world.

            The fact that Trump (the new Hitler) is against them only makes the warmists more determined to do whatever it takes to insure that we all freeze in the dark.

  13. Zach says:

    Ancient proxies are very doable, yet completely lacking in the literature.

    The question is, if ancient proxies are discovered to your satisfaction, and they show us that global warming is true, what should anybody do about it?

    • CanSpeccy says:

      If proxies are doable, but absent from the literature, that probably means that people have had a look and lost interest because they do not portend imminent catastrope, as the politically correct, or should we say the scientifically correct, paradigm asserts.

      But if any new source of evidence reveals that we are closer to disaster than many assume then we would obviously do something to avert the danger. Fortunately, that is not too difficult, although it would be costly: cloud seeding, to boost cloud cover, space-based solar shields maybe, carbon capture, and much higher carbon taxes than currently planned by Canada (C$50.00 per ton, or about US$37.00 per ton, which is equivalent to about $6.00 a barrel of oil), which would hasten improvements in energy-use efficiency, and adoption of alternative energy.

      • Zach says:

        Very possible. This should be the only thing that matters at this point IMO.

        Everything else is just fluff.

      • pdimov says:

        Many assume that disaster can no longer be averted, so it’s not clear how we can be closer to it.

        • Zach says:

          Well, I only ask because really, what difference does it make? Warming or no warming… if nothing can be done, and this seems like a likely thing, then we should just stop it all, and move on to real problems.

          • pdimov says:

            Nobody knows for sure, and even if we knew, it pays political dividends to pretend to not know. The line is, we should cut emissions even if there’s a small chance that this would help, because the stakes are so high.

            What usually happens is that the recommended solution is implemented, things either improve, in which case the solution is credited, or don’t, in which case even more of the solution is implemented. In this case the scheme broke down because the solution was resisted long enough for our lying eyes to detect things “improving” on their own.

            • CanSpeccy says:

              I don’t see things improving. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is rising at an accelerating pace, which means that ecosystem disruption is occurring at an accelerating pace. Among the consequences is an increase in crop yields (relative to what they would have been even if there is no warming, especially dry land crops), which probably means more people, which means more wood burned for cooking in the Third World, which means more CO2. There is thus a positive feedback at work here, which should be combatted. For example, by encouraging use of natural gas for cooking in the Third World, which is much more energy and CO2 efficient.

              And as I indicated above, there is now very good evidence that CO2 is making us stupid, especially in office buildings in urban areas.

  14. CanSpeccy says:

    One of the disastrous consequences of the bureaucratization of science is that once it has been laid down on high what questions are a priority, the real scientists are prevented from pursuing their intuition.

    Thus, for example, the hysteria about carbon dioxide and climate warning has distracted attention from other major effects of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, one being the disruption of the biosphere (http://canspeccy.blogspot.ca/2015/11/carbon-dioxide-part-ii-rising.html), the other being a major effect on human cognition (http://canspeccy.blogspot.ca/2015/11/carbon-dioxide-part-iii-induced.html).

    The impact on the biosphere includes a clearly observed increase in global primary production, meaning, among other things, better crop yields, more food, more people.

    The impact on cognition includes a subtle but severe instupidation to which people in urban areas working in offices such as the White House and the Pentagon are particularly susceptible.

    • pdimov says:

      > http://canspeccy.blogspot.ca/2015/11/carbon-dioxide-part-iii-induced.html

      Heh. You should measure the average CO2 in your room. Humans exhale 40000 ppm.

      • CanSpeccy says:

        “You should measure the average CO2 in your room. Humans exhale 40000 ppm.”

        I have. In my air conditioned office CO2 ranges between 700 and 1100 ppm.

        The point you make about CO2 in exhaled air raises obvious and interesting questions. But your assumed answer, which you do not state, is probably wrong.

        At least I wouldn’t put money on the following very carefully conducted studies by scientists at Harvard and at the US Lawrence Berkeley National Lab being wrong.

        Satish, Usha, et al. 2012. Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance. Env. Health Perspect. 120:1671–1677.

        http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104789/

        Allen, Joseph G. et al. 2015. Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments. Environ. Health Perspect. Adv. Publication.

        http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/10/ehp.1510037.acco.pdf

        • pdimov says:

          “In my air conditioned office CO2 ranges between 700 and 1100 ppm.”

          Whereas the level in the atmosphere is 400 ppm.

          “But your assumed answer, which you do not state, is probably wrong.”

          My assumed answer is that the atmospheric CO2 level does not affect your performance because (a) the indoor CO2 level is much higher and (b) CO2 in the air you inhale is much higher still as part of it is what you just exhaled, and 40000 >> 400.

          • CanSpeccy says:

            “My assumed answer is that the atmospheric CO2 level does not affect your performance because (a) the indoor CO2 level is much higher”

            You miss the point that if you double the average ambient concentration, then you increase both the urban concentration and the indoor concentration over what you would otherwise have had.

            Your assumption that any psychological effect of CO2 is via alveolar and blood concentrations may be wrong. I think it is.

            • pdimov says:

              “You miss the point that if you double the average ambient concentration, then you increase both the urban concentration and the indoor concentration over what you would otherwise have had.”

              That’s kind of obvious. The question is how strong would the effect be. Doubling to 800 ppm at the current rate would take, what, about 150 years? 100 years if we assume a somewhat exponential increase. And you would be able to negate 100 years of emissions just by working outside as currently you already do have 900 ppm in your office. If you do nothing you’ll get 1300 ppm, which would decrease your cognitive performance from -15% to… -45%? That’s -35% from the current baseline. Not insignificant, not end-of-the-world problematic. Plus you could, I don’t know, go green and use plants.

              • CanSpeccy says:

                By 2050 the preindustrial co2 concentration may be doubled. So no, we’re not talking 100 – 150 years, we should be thinkg 30-35 years, and we should assume any adverse cognitive effects of c02 in the pre-industrial through twice pre-industrial concentration may already be kicking in.

                Remember, the rise in CO2 concentration worldwide, is exacerbated in urban areas. There is s marked CO2 dome over Washington DC, for example. Take into account the effect of poorly ventilated offices (mine has a low occupancy per square foot) and we could already be witness to a significant decline in cognitive performance in departments of the US Government.

                Certainly the effects of rising CO2 on dry econsystems have kicked in, with greening around the southern edge of the Sahara.

                When you talk of reductions in cognitive performance, you evidently have not read the research papers I linked to. There you will find the effects are not general, but highly selective, and may not affect performance on an IQ test for example. Rather the effects is are strategic thinking and effective information gathering.

                • jim says:

                  Measure the CO2 in your room. It is not twice the outdoor level, but many times the outdoor level.

                • pdimov says:

                  “By 2050 the preindustrial co2 concentration may be doubled.”

                  I’m talking about doubling today’s 400 ppm to 800 ppm, not doubling the preindustrial one. You reading of 700-1100 is based on 400.

                  “When you talk of reductions in cognitive performance, you evidently have not read the research papers I linked to.”

                  No, I only skimmed them until I got to the relevant numbers. 15% increase in time for 945 ppm and 50% increase for 1400 ppm. Which incidentally means I’m wrong, this means 13% decrease and 33% decrease in performance, correspondingly.

                  “… we could already be witness to a significant decline in cognitive performance in departments of the US Government.”

                  That’s truly a tragedy. Imagine what a higher-performing US Government would be able to achieve both in the country and in the world at large!

                • jim says:

                  That does sound rather alarming. My suspicion is that scientists are always required to find that CO2 is evil, but I do not know enough to so casually dismiss the research.

                  But we exhale air that about forty thousand parts per million CO2, so it seems mighty strange if a thousand parts per million in the air we inhale could make a difference.

                • pdimov says:

                  CO2 does appear to lower my cognitive performance, but I have no papers and studies to prove it, so I may be wrong about it. 🙂

                • jim says:

                  In an enclosed room, CO2 levels often reach about 20000 parts per million, when they approach forty thousand parts per million, definitely affect cognitive performance.

                  But it would seem a little odd that a thousand parts per million would make a difference, when it takes around thirty thousand parts per million before we notice the difference.

                • pdimov says:

                  “But we exhale air that about forty thousand parts per million CO2, so it seems mighty strange if a thousand parts per million in the air we inhale could make a difference.”

                  Yes, that’s also what I said upthread.

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  “Measure the CO2 in your room. It is not twice the outdoor level, but many times the outdoor level.”

                  Depends how well ventilated is your room. In the city where I live, ambient is usually close to 500 ppm while indoors values range from 700 to 1100 ppm. That’s at the threshold for reported cognitive effects, so another 100 ppm in ambient could have significant cognitive effects.

                • peppermint says:

                  Is the reason for these inane posts that you’re in a room with a closed door?

  15. Inquiring Mind says:

    I asked this question before.

    Where is Global Warming aka Climate Change on the Social Justice totem pole?

    Let’s say, hypothetically, that President Trump’s instinct is that Climate Change is bunk, but he goes along with it, embracing it, claiming that the only way forward is to limit population growth in the per-capita resource-intensive U.S., and that requires building the US-Mexico border wall?

    What does the Cathedral love more, belief in Climate Change or Open Borders? Were Trump to embrace Climate Change and to argue that the way forward is to restrict immigration, how would that work out? Would the Climate Warrior James Hansen say, “Yes, Climate Change is a serious problem but not quite that serious that we cannot have Open Borders.”

    Or is the Left triangulation resistant if not triangulation proof? That some excuse would be made? But suppose combatting Climate Change and Open Borders were demonstrably in contradiction? Which would they reject and which would they defend?

    Remember the eugenics was a Progressive project until the Austrian Colonel gave it a bad reputation. If Trump is Hitler, could he embrace Climate Change and give it an equally bad reputation?

    • Steve Johnson says:

      The Cathedral has lots of win conditions.

      Deprive white men who produce things of the ability to produce things (in the current package, climate change – in the past package, unionism (there’s a longer explanation there), alternative packaging – communism).

      Deprive white people of the ability to reproduce by destroying the proper relationship between men and women (feminism).

      Deprive white people of the ability to reproduce by endangering their children (section 8, mass immigration, anarcho-tyranny in schools where suspension rates are equalized by race).

      Deprive white people of the ability to reproduce by making it too expensive to have (high investment) children (section 8, mass immigration, expensive child regulations like car seats that only apply to white people).

      Any of these is genocide of badwhites and so success. None of them can be compromised.

      Things that can be compromised – air quality regulation with reasonable goals (no one wants to breathe the air in Beijing), water pollution with reasonable goals (no one wants the Cuyahoga River to be on fire), preservation of scenic national parks. Problem is progs have such a stranglehold on the information organs that no one is likely to actually believe that any environmental regulation has succeeded. All the good stuff is done – all that’s left is poison.

      “But suppose combatting Climate Change and Open Borders were demonstrably in contradiction? Which would they reject and which would they defend?”

      They simply ignore the contradiction and call you names if you point it out – note that they do this already.

      • pdimov says:

        “They simply ignore the contradiction and call you names if you point it out…”

        Exactly. Leftists care not about logic, only about winning against you.

    • CanSpeccy says:

      The SJW’s should love global warming, since rising CO2 concentration is subject to positive feedback via increased crop production, faster Third World population growth, and hence, a greater influx of illegal Democrat voters to the US.

  16. Dan says:

    I don’t worry much about the global warming extremists, because the weather is totally immune to their rants.

    The risk is some kind of punitive tax or carbon credits regime, but even Democrats don’t have the stomach to impose huge costs. Repubs certainly won’t go along. Obama didn’t raise taxes much during 8 years.

    The left can spread apocalyptic global warming predictions far and wide, but blizzards will keep happening in winter same as before, the seasons will pass same as before and none of their apocalyptic predictions will come to pass. They’ve been doing this for 25 years and I can’t for the life of me perceive any difference in the weather. Civilization was supposed to have ended years ago.

    I actually feel like the weather is a great target for leftists to direct their unhinged rants because mother nature is totally deaf.

    I am reminded how Obama laid perfect plans to make tons of airy proclamations in Copenhagen while DC was wrecked by a blizzard at the same time. Great times!

    • pdimov says:

      The nice thing about “global warming” from leftist point of view is that since CO2 is global, this gives them a moral justification to cripple industry anywhere in the world.

      As for mother nature being deaf, this has never stopped them.

      • pdimov says:

        “… to cripple industry…”

        Or impose taxes.

        • Cavalier says:

          Definitely. It’s a critical component of world government. Want the recipe?

          Deindustrialize the world hegemon.

          Privatize the hegemon’s security forces, and outsource its military operations to PMCs.

          Establish legitimacy and necessity of global carbon tax.

          Precipitate global economic crash, making sure to pulverize the Federal Reserve.

          Establish NWO government on carbon tax, using it to employ the now-unemployed PMCs.

          Solidify your power by forcing a new currency standard upon the world, backed by the new-and-improved World Reserve.

          Congratulations, you are now the New World Sovereign.

          • CanSpeccy says:

            The economic trashing of the West is being done quite straightforwardly and profitably by offshoring jobs and exporting capital and technology along with the jobs, all of which is contrary to David Ricardo’s theory about the advantage of free trade.

            Environmental protection is going to be far more of a challenge for China than for the US, so the US should push the environmental agenda to the max.

        • CanSpeccy says:

          Carbon taxes should not affect industrial production in the West. Not if they are applied intelligently, i.e., with a countervailing duty on imports from places without an equivalent tax. In fact, such a tax would place the First World at an advantage with the Third World inasmuch as its industry is, or should be, more energy efficient, and therefore less hampered by the carbon tax.

          Also, it seems short-sighted to obsess so much about the issue of CO2. It doesn’t really make a lot of sense changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere without really knowing what one is doing. Further, it is really not such a great technological challenge to achieve huge increases in energy-use efficiency, and hence cuts in energy use. And in fact, by creating an environment favorable to energy use efficiency the West creates an economic environment where it should be able to out-compete the less technologically advanced Third World.

          • pdimov says:

            “Further, it is really not such a great technological challenge to achieve huge increases in energy-use efficiency, and hence cuts in energy use.”

            You think?

            • CanSpeccy says:

              “You think.”

              I invite you to think.

              Converting coal fired power stations to natural gas, for example, a process already well under way in some jurisdictions.

              Think, for example, about the energy efficiency of a gas powered car (about 15%) and the efficiency of a cool vehicle like this (about 50% from natural gas well (via a combined cycle turbine electrical generator) to wheel):

              http://litmotors.com/

              One could suggest lots of other areas of development. Won’t happen overnight but it will happen in time because saving energy saves money, and the West, which consumes the most energy per capita, has the greatest opportunity to save money through increased energy efficiency.

              • pdimov says:

                One could suggest many things, and one could also assert that those many things are both economically beneficial and not a great technological challenge, in which case I would suggest that one should by all means pursue that approach – using one’s own capital.

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  “I would suggest that one should by all means pursue that approach – using one’s own capital.”

                  I have an electric car!

                  Not for environmental reasons but because it’s a cool car, i.e., an example, of energy efficient (relatively speaking) technology that is superior to the old technology — at least in the view of some car buyers.

                  I estimate that if the power is generated from natural gas by a combined cycle turbine, the well to wheel efficiency (i.e., energy or carbon emissions) is about twice that of a gasoline powered car.

                • pdimov says:

                  I’ve nothing against electric cars, I also think they’re cool.

                  But to think that we can replace today’s gasoline-powered car fleet with electric cars without burning gigatons of coal is a pipe dream. It just can’t be done. Not even, I suspect, with nuclear power.

                  Of course nuclear power is practically illegal, which should tell you what is more important, killing industry or killing emissions.

                  I’m not sure about natural gas, as I haven’t researched it, but there are geopolitical implications there re Iran and Russia.

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  “But to think that we can replace today’s gasoline-powered car fleet with electric cars without burning gigatons of coal is a pipe dream. It just can’t be done. Not even, I suspect, with nuclear power.”

                  I think you are wrong.

                  There are believed to be far greater reserves of natural gas than of oil. Therefore, to convert cars to electricity you just convert coal fired power plants to gas and build more gas plants. That way you achieve efficiencies from gas well to wheel of around 50%, versus only about 15 to 25% for gasoline powered cars.

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  Also, concerning the powering of an electric car fleet, throw out your clothes drier and replace it with a heat pump model, which does not need outside venting and so will not cover your yard with fluff.

                  The average household saving in power is around 1000 kwh year-1, which will propel an electric car six to seven thousand kilometers.

                  Trouble is, the cheap heat pump clothes driers you can afford are made by a Russian-owned company in Turkey, whereas the American-made models are mostly if not all much more expensive. But if demand picked up, that should change.

                • jim says:

                  If you were actually serious about reducing carbon, rather than reducing technological civilization, would legalize nuclear power.

                  A tax on carbon is in practice not a tax on carbon but a tax on insufficient holiness. Thus grants power to those that intend our destruction. We need to kill them that we may live.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Therefore, to convert cars to electricity you just convert coal fired power plants to gas and build more gas plants. That way you achieve efficiencies from gas well to wheel of around 50%, versus only about 15 to 25% for gasoline powered cars.”

                  This article says 29% vs 14%.

                  https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/

                  This assumes a pipeline.

                • pdimov says:

                  “There are believed to be far greater reserves of natural gas than of oil.”

                  Miles per gallon oil and miles per gallon natural gas are not the same, so you need some constant factor here.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Teslas are awesome. The only problem is that they’re always and forever plugged into Skynet.

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  “This article says 29% vs 14%.”

                  Could be right. I will read the article. At least I have the same 2:1 ratio.

                  I took the efficiency of the turbine generator to be 60%, and the efficiency of the battery/motor combination to be 90%, for a combined 54%, which leaves 4% for line losses.

                  However, there is also energy consumed in drilling the well, making the steel pipe to carry the gas, gas lost to leaks, etc., which would bring the overall efficiency well below 50%. Similarly with my estimate of the efficiency of a gasoline powered car, there are costs I did not include for drilling, refining and distribution of the oil.

                  So, yes, you numbers are probably quite close to the mark.

          • pdimov says:

            “Carbon taxes should not affect industrial production in the West. Not if they are applied intelligently…”

            “In fact, such a tax would place the First World at an advantage with the Third World…”

            Even if we ignore the fact that the people currently pushing the carbon tax agenda might not exactly have these goals of yours in mind – or, in fact, have the exact opposite goals – there’s also the problem that all this implies that you have reliable data about the CO2 output of the Third World (and, more importantly, India and China.)

            Which kind of means that you’re the world government.

            • CanSpeccy says:

              “Even if we ignore the fact that the people currently pushing the carbon tax agenda might not exactly have these goals of yours in mind”

              Well if Trump comes around to the idea, we won’t have to worry about an ulterior motive, will we. I don’t see why a carbon tax would require it. Either China levies a tax on all those dirty coal-fired power plants or they don’t. Sure there may be some fiddling of books, but in that case the US could label China a CO2 tax manipulator and stick a tariff on everything the export. That will almost certainly be necessary, anyway, if jobs are going to be repatriated in a significant way.

              • pdimov says:

                “Sure there may be some fiddling of books…”

                China’s official statistics are already unreliable, and that’s before they have a strong outside economic incentive to falsify them.

                If you think that the CO2 stats will be correct when them not being so means billions or even trillions in profit…

                As for the third world, it doesn’t even have unreliable stats.

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  OK. then have an across the board import tariff. That’s needed anyway, if you want to see the jobs come back. Then add some for the lack of a real Chinese carbon tax, pending the development of instrumentation (maybe satellite-borne) or ground-based inspection procedures to establish emissions by land area.

                • pdimov says:

                  Cutting CO2 emissions is a luxury good. Only rich countries can afford it. And even some of the countries that think of themselves as rich will find out that they, or rather their poorer citizens, can’t afford a substantial cut.

                  If the actual goals of cutting total emissions by 30% or more in a few years are implemented, the result will be a worldwide depression.

                  You’ve seen the chart of China’s emissions, right?

                  http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCP2014/PNG/fig_08_Top_FF_emitters_abs_300.png

                  Do you think it likely for China to cut by 30% or more?

                • CanSpeccy says:

                  “Do you think it likely for China to cut by 30% or more?”

                  If Chinese by the hundreds of millions continue moving from the country to the city, no. But China could go a long way to curbing the growth of its emissions, e.g., by continuing the switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, and from gasoline to electricity for automobile propulsion.

                  In the West, cutting emissions means lots of investment in new technology, which will stimulate the economy.

                  The real challenge is to promote energy efficiency in a way that allows the market to work without stupid or stifling government involvement. That means a carbon tax.

                  Here’s what warming skeptic Prof. Ross McKitrick has to say about carbon pricing:

                  “a well-designed and properly implemented carbon tax would at least be superior to all the other forms of climate policy we’ve witnessed in the past few decades.”

                  http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ross-mckitrick-drop-all-this-carbon-tax-boosterism-they-could-easily-do-more-harm-than-good

                • jim says:

                  A carbon tax is a knife held at the throat of technological civilization.

                  Carbon taxes, as actually applied, are politically applied, taxing sins called out by the priests of warmism, rather than actual carbon. They thus constitute a funding mechanism for a priesthood that intends the annihilation of the human race.

  17. CanSpeccy says:

    The problem with the CO2 debate is that there is extreme polarization on both sides, with the warmists convinced they are saving the world from criminal industrialists driving the world toward a runaway greenhouse disaster, and the anti-warmists convinced that the warmists are criminal globalists intent on the destruction of the West.

    There is probably some merit in the arguments of both sides. But the preconceptions of both parties create a toxic environment for any serious evidence-based discussion of the issues involved.

    Warmists need to realize that Al Gore and the media have largely destroyed their credibility. The anti-warmists should understand that there is a scientific issue in there somewhere and it has significant social implications that deserve rational consideration and, as is prudent, rational ameliorative measures.

    • jim says:

      No it is not that there is something to be said on both sides.

      Read the climategate files. Warmism is a religion, not science, and it is an evil and dangerous religion. Its preachers make very large amounts of money by shaking down businesses, for example Chris Turney’s carbonscape. Instead of passing the hat around the congregation, the preacher threatens to send the congregation to destroy a business unless paid off.

      Religions of this kind need to be forcibly suppressed, like the worship of Moloch.

      This is not a debate between two interpretations of the evidence. Discussion of the evidence occurs only on the skeptic side. There is real climate science, and there is an evil religion wearing the robes of science.

      The problem is that the theory that you need to suppress western technological civilization in order to keep the oceans from rising and drowning us all offers the same opportunities for profit as the theory that you need to sacrifice children to ensure that the sun keeps rising.

    • pdimov says:

      We’ll see if anyone implements, or tries to implement, your ideas of intelligent carbon taxing that benefits the first world at the expense of the third world.

      Or even says that it’s worth trying to implement them.

      • CanSpeccy says:

        “We’ll see if anyone implements, or tries to implement, your ideas of intelligent carbon taxing…”

        Some in France are, apparently, considering it: a countervail against the USA.

        http://www.orrazz.com/2016/11/former-french-president-nicolas-sarkozy.html

        • peppermint says:

          That’s a good argument, but not for the position that carbon dioxide is an important pollutant.

          I think the most important pollutant that’s getting blown over our border is mudblood, which is carried by these feral animals that, since we evidently can’t do anything about at the border, need to have their populations controlled in other countries. There are of course other pollutants more important than carbon dioxide, but carbon is focused on simply as a weapon of economic warfare.

          • CanSpeccy says:

            A weapon that can be turned to Western advantage.

            Energy efficiency saves a lot of money as well as reducing carbon emissions. Energy constitutes 8% of US gdp, which means one could profitably spend a great deal (and perhaps much more than at present) on energy efficiency R and D. And once you have the technology, you can sell it to China.

          • Cavalier says:

            Indeed.

            They wring their hands about an invasive species of lobster decimating European lobsters, including and especially through interbreeding, but apparently Whites deserve no such protection from the tree-hugging Save the Rainforest initiatives or the human rights advocates or the anti-poverty crusaders. The White race, the sole unprotected endangered species, assailed from all sides, anywhere and everywhere dispossessed from its ancient habitats, and forced to pay for it. The golden goose killed, the cow milked to death, the sheep sheared into oblivion.

            In terms of ecological disasters, the immediate immanentization of the worst possible global warming prophecy doesn’t even come close.

  18. Robert says:

    You guys should check out Art Robinson. When the global warming thing was really cooking he went around to a bunch of scientists and got them to sign basically a “global warming is bullshit” thing. He’s a great guy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_B._Robinson

    • CanSpeccy says:

      True believers all!

      I guess old Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), who claimed in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion would cause global warming, died rich after shaking down the coal miners of his day.

      Has it not occurred to you that signing petitions is not how scientific issues have traditionally been decided? Petitions and scientific consensuses are the Al Gore approach. It does matter how a many TV weather men or actual scientists sign a petition. What matters are the facts.

      • jim says:

        Svante Arrhenius was a lukewarmer, not a catastrophist.

        He predicted moderate and beneficial global warming.

        Which is, in fact, what we have been getting.

      • Robert says:

        Agree, but the facts are in dispute, that’s why we are talking about this, and Art was simply trying to prove that “global warming” was not unanimously believed within the scientific community.

        The fact is that nobody really knows.

  19. Test says:

    Jim, how often do you check your spam folder?

    Any hints on what’s getting me put there?

  20. Alrenous-test2 says:

    Jim, how often do you check your spam folder?

    Any hints on what’s getting me put there?

  21. […] If given the slightest opportunity, the monkeys will ruin everything: […]

  22. Cheimison says:

    The state is the worst religion ever. It is incapable of doing the right thing. Pursuing anything worthwhile through bureaucracy is beyond folly, it is crime and ought to be met with violence. The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head.

Leave a Reply