18 Sep 2014

Climate Change Activists Move Goalposts Yet Again

Climate Change, Shameless Self-Promotion 57 Comments

My latest IER post. An excerpt:

In the present post, I’ll walk through yet another example of this phenomenon, in this case a recent ThinkProgress article that complains that GDP (Gross Domestic Product) isn’t a good metric when it comes to the debate over climate change. As we’ll see, when confronted with very compelling arguments that the IPCC reports and leading computer models do not justify the aggressive government intervention that the people at ThinkProgress seek,[1] they don’t dispute the point. Instead, they rattle off all sorts of reasons that the IPCC is essentially wrong, because the computer models used in the IPCC reports leave out important details, and because the standard cost/benefit approach to judging policy recommendations doesn’t work when it comes to climate change.

All of this should make innocent onlookers very suspicious. For years, advocates of heavy restrictions on energy use and individual liberty have cited the IPCC reports in their proclamations that “the science is settled” and that only “deniers” could possibly dispute the need for immediate and strong government actions. Now all of a sudden, the leading advocates are changing their case mid-stream, implicitly admitting that the weight they originally put forth on the IPCC reports will no longer give them the conclusion they want.

57 Responses to “Climate Change Activists Move Goalposts Yet Again”

  1. Mike M says:

    Given enough time, then entire Global Warming …errrr … Climate Change proposition is being revealed for the fraud that it is. At its core it is nothing but a power grab and plunder. Human beings never seem to evolve in this regard. There is always a self anointed elite group trying to live at the expense of a larger group and within that larger group there will always be useful idiots to help facilitate.

  2. Major.Freedom says:

    After the wall came down, the environmental movement became a refuge where a lot of commies sought to manifest their anti-capitalism.

    Truth is absolutely not and never has been their goal.

    • Robert says:

      Environmentalists are communists? MF you’re turning into a parody of yourself. Your comments are starting to read like a satire of libertarian fanaticism.

      • Richie says:

        Refute it.

        • Robert says:

          Refute it? Is it not exceedingly obvious that Soviet communism and environmentalism have little in common? Environmentalism do not want either workers or the state to seize the means of production and the Soviet Union had a terrible environmental record.

          • Ben B says:

            Yes, that’s the point. To make it seem that environmentalism has nothing to do with Soviet communism.

            With a track record like the Soviet Union’s, why would any communists want to be associated with it? On the other hand, it’s possible that communists saw environmental alarmism as a new way to justify state control of the means of production.

          • Tel says:

            Is it not exceedingly obvious that Soviet communism and environmentalism have little in common?

            Hmmm, perhaps I can reveal the obvious (might take a few posts):

            It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce.

            Green economic policy places value not just on material wealth, but on the things which truly make life worth living — our health, our relationships, our communities, our environment, and building peace and justice throughout our nation and the world. We aim to maximize our quality of life with a minimum of consumption. We aspire to less “stuff” but more happiness. We propose a shift away from materialism to help people live more meaningful lives as we save the planet from climate change and ever-larger mountains of waste. We need to acquire the ability to distinguish between need and greed.

            In both cases they talk about protecting the little guy from the winds of change and too much materialism. What they really offer is top down solutions, co-opting the government monopoly on violence to impose lifestyle decisions, by force, onto others.

          • Tel says:

            We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

            For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

            Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

            Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

            Both groups pretend to speak on behalf of women in general and to act in favour of some community of women (not community in general mind you). Divide and conquer; identity politics; find someone with a grudge, nurture that grudge and offer a new system whereby these people will be able to enhance their powers.

          • Tel says:

            The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

            Cruelty to animals is repugnant and criminal. The mark of a humane and civilized society lies in how we treat the least protected among us. To extend rights to other sentient, living beings is our responsibility and a mark of our place among all of creation. We call for an intelligent, compassionate approach to the treatment of animals.

            We reject the belief that our species is the center of creation, and that other life forms exist only for our use and enjoyment. Our species does not have the right to exploit and inflict violence on other creatures simply because we have the desire and power to do so. Our ethic upholds not only the value of biological diversity and the integrity and continuity of species, but also the value of individual lives and the interest of individual animals.

            Protecting the exploited, what better cause could any political movement support? In every case the result is government control over people’s lives. This is the best explanation I have seen so far:

            At first, that mass was supposed to be the industrialised proletariat. But, when working people were enfranchised, they often turned out to have troublingly conservative opinions. The needy politicians then turned to immigrants and other minorities. Annoyingly for them, some of these groups were equally unwilling to play the part allotted to them. So Lefties began to cast the net wider, searching for people who could be relied on not to contradict the official line: oppressed colonials, Palestinians, black South Africans. Sadly, these groups, too, refused to be either unconditionally grateful or politically correct.

            I sometimes wonder whether political neediness explains the popularity of the animal rights movement: here, finally, is a constituency that can be relied on never to gainsay its self-proclaimed champions. Passive, predictable and in need of protection, animals are the perfect political prop.

            http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100285268/francois-hollande-like-so-many-left-wing-elitists-despises-the-poor/

            • Robert says:

              Come on Tel, is that the best you can do? Both environmentalists and communists are against exploitation, over-production and support women’s rights, so they must be the same? You really have to do better than lumping all non-libertarians together as one.

              Its silly that I have to say this, but communism and environmentalism are different ideologies with different beliefs and different people. The Soviet Union was not an environmentally friendly place, in fact it had a terrible environmental record. Your attempts to mash them together are just silly.

              • Tel says:

                The Communists were never genuinely interested in Women’s rights, certainly not the right of women to have self determination. Nor were they interested in worker’s rights for that matter, these were merely ploys to gain power. Once the central authority was established, women and workers were treated as fodder for the state and nothing more.

                While the workers in capitalist countries were getting new cars, air conditioned houses, better jobs, computers, phones, music, art, entertainment… the workers under communism were bashing away in their low tech state run factories, going back to their grey box state owned apartments to listen to the same state propaganda on their radios.

                Similarly modern environmental organisations such as the EPA, and various green local government departments don’t really serve the environment, they serve to obstruct with endless complexity of regulation that serves no one. The environment is yet another noble cause to provide self justification and a reason to tell someone else how to live their life.

                Central planning fails every time it is attempted, you would think modern environmentalists would learn from the poor track record of communism. Any environmentalist who genuinely understood this lesson would be campaigning to shut down the EPA, which is yet another central planning bureau. Instead, they all look up to the prospect of getting jobs at the EPA by proving loyalty to the cause.

                They might not be smart enough to figure out they are communists, but they are doing the exact same things.

              • Anonymous says:

                http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100064423/on-the-anniversary-of-climategate-the-watermelons-show-their-true-colours/

                First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

                All the key points at work:
                * declaration of “exploitation”.
                * demand wealth redistribution.
                * environmental policy is merely a means to an end, not really about helping the environment.

                Stalin said it best: “useful idiots”.

              • Tel says:

                http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100064423/on-the-anniversary-of-climategate-the-watermelons-show-their-true-colours/

                First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

                All the key points at work:
                * declaration of “exploitation”.
                * demand wealth redistribution.
                * environmental policy is merely a means to an end, not really about helping the environment.

                Stalin said it best: “useful idiots”.

              • Anonymous says:

                One of the founders of Greenpeace gave up on the group because political activism overtook any scientific reason.

                http://greenspiritstrategies.com/why-i-left-greenpeace/

                Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

                [ … snip … ]

                The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.
                The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

                The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

                We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

                Note the methodology documented here: start a campaign of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, then push for government intervention and bans. Government does not operate by nonviolent persuasion, these bans are bans are backed up by the gun and the threat of prison. Nothing peaceful about Greenpeace.

              • Tel says:

                One of the founders of Greenpeace gave up on the group because political activism overtook any scientific reason.

                http://greenspiritstrategies.com/why-i-left-greenpeace/

                Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

                [ … snip … ]

                The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.
                The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

                The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

                We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

                Note the methodology documented here: start a campaign of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, then push for government intervention and bans. Government does not operate by nonviolent persuasion, these bans are bans are backed up by the gun and the threat of prison. Nothing peaceful about Greenpeace.

              • Tel says:

                https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/socialism-masquerading-as-environmentalism/

                More links and quotes showing the parallel with socialism and environmentalism. I know you will work hard to misread the whole lot and not notice what they are saying, but most people do get it.

      • Mike M says:

        Robert,
        Major can speak for himself but I believe his uses “commies” as shorthand for collectivists. The environmental movement is collectivist at its core. Yet similarly, socialism is for the people, not the socialists. Environmentalism is for the people, not the environmentalists. Case in point, Al Gore. The poster child leader of the Global Warming crowd. Yet his lifestyle produces a carbon footprint in one day that exceeds mine for probably one year.

        But you see, sacrifice for the greater good is for the unenlightened masses, not the elite.

        • Robert says:

          I can never understand some people’s obsession with Al Gore. It seems any time anyone wants to criticise environmentalists, they mention him for some reason. I can’t undetstand why, its not as though he’s the leader or king of environmentalists. He’s just some guy who made a film. There’s plenty of other, better advocates who do have sustainable carbon footprints.

          To say environmentalists are collectivists is to miss understand the term. Sure they acknowledge that we all share the one planet and must live together. But they are not collectivists on the same level that Communists are/were. They still see a role for the free market and emphasis voluntary co-operation.

          • Ben B says:

            Yes, I agree here. I have many friends who are environmentalists, but who also advocate voluntary cooperation and not state intervention when it comes to protecting the environment.

            • Mike M says:

              Ben that may be but your friends are not the ones who have been appointed at the “leaders” of the movement.

          • Mike M says:

            “They still see a role for the free market and emphasis voluntary co-operation.’

            No they don’t. They only see commands and mandates via government action. They are collectivists because they put the group ahead of the individual. The subordinate the individual to the collective good as they define it.

          • Mike M says:

            He’s more than a guy that’s made a movie. He is one of the mains faces of the cause and ironically a hypocrite on the matter.

          • Bob Murphy says:

            Robert, do you remember that Al Gore won 1/2 the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on raising the alarm on climate change? I admit that some right-wing talk radio guys are not exactly Socrates when it comes to their discussion of climate change, but give me a break. There’s a reason they focus on Al Gore.

            • Robert says:

              Sure he was influencial a few years ago, but that doesn’t explain why almost every time someone criticises environmentalism he is mentioned. I mean there’s more than one person in the movement.

              • Impatient says:

                He was
                VP for 8 years
                -won more votes and nearly became president
                -made an influential movie shown in schools
                -wrote dreadful best selling books
                -is frequently interviewed and quoted
                – has not been disowned by any major environmentalist activist group that I know of

                He’s the face of the thing.

          • Tel says:

            They don’t really support voluntary cooperation. By their actions they support top down regulation:

            * ban fracking.

            * ban pipelines.

            * high minimum wage (so called “living” wage)

            * strong anti-trust regulation (government supervision of industry).

            * more banking/insurance/financial regulations (as if there weren’t enough already).

            * energy & carbon regulations.

            * ban nuclear power.

            * strong connection with the UN (international top-down regulatory body).

            * all sorts of anti-lobying and political regulations.

            * control of land use, regulating farmer’s use of their own property.

          • Tel says:

            OK, if you don’t want All Gore as your environmental figurehead, how about Naomi Klein? Another trendy lefty champaign socialist, now jumps on the Global Warming bandwagon, and comes right out with it and says capitalism is to blame, because ordinary people can’t be trusted with the freedom to trade with each other.

            Not only does she not practice what she preaches, it would be impossible and self contradictory for anyone to attempt to do so. She just finished decrying the evils of austerity, and now she is decrying the evils of consumption. I doubt she would even notice the contradiction.

            The condiment bowls at your local sushi bar are deeper, and more thoughtful. She is, however, very good at sensing the mood and giving people a serve of what they want to hear… in this case the environmental movement are just looking for any exuse to blame free trade, so Naomi obligingly sells them a book.

      • Ben B says:

        MF: Many communists turned to the environmental movement as a way to bring about State control of the means of production.

        Robert: What?! [All] environmentalists are communists?!

      • Major.Freedom says:

        Robert, please learn how to read.

        I did not say that environmentalists are communists.

        I said the environmental movement is where communists sought refuge after the wall came down. They latched onto it because of its anti-industrialization and collectivist core.

        Logically, to say A is a part of B, is not equivalent to saying B is entirely encompassed by A.

        Here is some advice: The next time you see or read something that you perceive to be off the wall, make it a habit to read it again and then again once more to help ensure that your clearly misfiring and short circuiting reading comprehension processing is better able to comprehend what it is your eyes are receiving.

        • Robert says:

          MF don’t pretend your comment was anything other than a slur on environmentalists. You accused them of being liars and infiltrated by communists.

          In your world someone is either a freedom loving libertarian or an evil liberal, communist who wants to control people at the point of a gun. In the real world things are not so black and white.

          For all your insults, you are the one who doesn’t understand what you are talking about. Communists were very pro-industralistion unlike environmentalists who take the opposite approach. Likewise Communists are collectivist in class terms, whereas environmentalists see all humanity as one.

          In short your silly red scare is just that, silly nonsense.

          • Reece says:

            MF pointed out that you misread his comment. That’s clearly true.

            Rather than admit you were wrong, you are going further down this path: “In your world someone is either a freedom loving libertarian or an evil liberal, communist who wants to control people at the point of a gun.”

            Do you seriously think that MF believes everyone except for libertarians are communists? After he implied he doesn’t even think that all environmentalists are communists? Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just making this up?

          • K.P. says:

            Ever hear of a “Watermelon”, Robert?

      • Rick Hull says:

        As far as MF being a parody of himself, it’s not clear that “Major.Freedom” is the same commenter as “Major Freedom” (whom I haven’t seen recently). Perhaps Bob can shed some light.

        And whatever happened to “Captain Freedom”?

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Extreme environmentalism is attractive to authoritarian “progressives” for the same psychological reasons as hip Marxism. Keynesianism is an additional component of the replacement of Marxism after it’s failure. The Neocons have roped in the conservative lifestyle folks with the “progressive” mission of making the world “safe for democracy”.

      When the facts change, the authoritarians reformulate their missions. What do we do about it, sir?

      • LK says:

        No, roddis, Keynesianism has had a long history of opposition to communism. Keynes saw the General Theory as a refutation of Marxism and shunned communism. He even opposed the UK Labour party policy of limited nationalisations in the 1940s.

        In short, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Woosh.

          Hint: Hitler was anti-communist as well.

          Roddis said Keynesianism was a replacement for authoritarianism after the failure of Marxism. Keynesianism gave new life to the ancient ideology of government control of people’s economic lives.

          That is not saying Keynesianism IS Marxism, or that Keynesianism and Marxism support one another.

          • LK says:

            When your definition of “authoritarianism” is any system where a government exists, you might as well say that Mises’s classical liberalism was authoritarianism and just gave “new life to the ancient ideology of government control of people’s economic lives.” lol

            ” Keynesianism is an additional component of the replacement of Marxism after it’s failure.”

            And not to mention that is factually incorrect.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        I realize that Keynesians have been opposed to communism BECAUSE COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK AND IS TOTALITARIAN. Keynesianism accepts the failure of communism. Keynesianism is communism’s more practical replacement which still allows the advocate plenty of opportunity to run society.

    • LK says:

      Environmentalism as a political movement existed long before communism collapsed, not to mention in M_F’s bizarre conspiracy theory world, no leftist can ever sincerely believe their viewpoints.

      No, says M_F, it’s all a Marxist conspiracy.

      • Ben B says:

        LK,

        MF used the word *became* which implies that he believes that environmentalism existed before the collapse of communism.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Ben B, I really am starting to believe that LK’s ideology is warping his ability to even read the English language. You understood full well the argument I made, and yet LK and Robert are reading it totally incorrectly.

          • LK says:

            There is no error: you think no economic/political opponent can ever sincerely believe their viewpoints. This is the hallmark of an irrational, conspiracy theory view of the world.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        And it’s untrue that all environmentalists are leftists or authoritarians. Libertarians believe in strict liability for pollution. However, the authoritarian implications of left wing environmentalism are psychologically attractive to those once attracted to Marxism and socialism in its various formulations.

        Further, have you ever found a Keynesian “progressive” who demands an end to the Detroit Public School system and funny money loans for houses which has caused (along with the drug war) suburban sprawl out to 28 Mile Road? How serious are these folks anyway?

        Also, let’s not forget:

        The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.

        http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/06/keyness-remarks-in-german-edition-of.html

        • Samson Corwell says:

          Libertarians believe in strict liability for pollution.

          This doesn’t make one an environmentalist. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Relying strictly on torts is hardly enough. But here is a better question where is the cut off point? Your statement is totally vague. Are you going to hold power plants responsible for the damage done by rising sea levels? What about the mother who smokes in her house with her toddler? How do you deal with crappy air quality created by car exhaust in a city? Smog? And please don’t say the problem is caused by “poorly defined property rights” or that privatization would solve everything, because neither is true. Private property doesn’t create some sort of bubble that separates you from the rest of the world. Property rights are themselves externalities in a sense because they exist in the world with everything else.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            The problem is caused by poorly defined property rights.

            The problem is caused by poorly defined property rights.

            The problem is caused by poorly defined property rights.

            Of course, there would probably be fewer pollution belching cars if the road builders didn’t have eminent domain to use and suburban sprawl wasn’t subsidized and induced by funny money loans.

            There, I said it.

            • Harold says:

              Having identified the problem, can you suggest solutions to some of the examples listed by Samson? How are we to get someone to own the atmosphere so they can be liable for damages?

              I suspect that if someone did own the atmosphere, they would be charging for CO2 to off-set future costs from climate change.

              • Impatient says:

                Deduct it from what you owe me for oxygen. Prices are going up by the way.

              • Samson Corwell says:

                It’s not even that, Harold. It just strikes me that the libertarian view relies on a sort of “bubbleness” in the idea of property, a view which really doesn’t pan out. The atmosphere, much like the Internet, the airwaves, wildlife, the great wonders of the world, space, and the oceans, isn’t really a “public atmosphere” as opposed to a “private atmosphere”. It’s simply the atmosphere. There is nothing in the idea of property itself that points to anything about pollution, contract, trespass, or whatever. The deductive view is simply navelgazing, with libertarians using it sneak in their own policy preferences (i.e., planes flying 30,000 feet in the air as committing ” trespass”).

                Their solution really isn’t even new. Anti-pollution activists have trying to get the right to sue polluters since the 50s, but what differentiates libertarians is how they view this approach. But in the end there is still some kind ban.

              • Harold says:

                I think there is something in it. Lots of tragedy of the commons problems disappear when someone owns the resource. The problems that remain are different ones.

                The atmosphere is the commons now. We all benefit from the oxygen for free, and benefit from the ability to use it as a free dump. I guess it only needs someone to homestead it. Or possibly arrange to buy everyone’s share from them in return for a fee for using it – be that as a source of oxygen or a dump for CO2.

                SInce it seems impossible to arrive at such a position, it seems the closest we can get in practice to what a “free market” would arrive at is to let everyone breathe for free, but charge them for dumping CO2. Before anyone mentions breathing, all CO2 from respiration came recently from the atmosphere so would attract no charge.

            • Samson Corwell says:

              Just wave those hands, Roddis. Handwave the problems away with strings of empty words.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        LK,

        Everyone believes in conspiracy theories.

        It is just that progressives and other statists tend to display an ability to perceive conspiracies only in the capitalist sphere, whereas they just call conspiracies in the state sphere something else.

        I on the other hand know the darn definition of conspiracy. Look it up yourself. Everyone believes they occur. Well, everyone who isn’t brain damaged.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        LK,

        And I also refuted your mischaracterization of my argument concerning leftist ideology. I never claimed leftists cannot be sincere. You are lying about what I said.

  3. John Becker says:

    Bob,

    Have you heard of Judith Curry? I heard of her on Econtalk and she does a really good job of poking holes in the science behind global warming alarmist claims. She is a climate scientist with a PhD from the University of Chicago.

    http://judithcurry.com/

  4. SolaVirtus says:

    I am often as alarmed at the proposals and conclusions of mainstream environmentalists as you all seem to be. But I will say, where physics is concerned, it is nearly inevitable that with enough power generation, someday we simply MUST cause changes in the earth’s temperature. Whether it will be cooling because we are extracting large amounts of heat, or heating because energy sources are always inefficient, some changes will eventually come (if we advance past the dangers of destroying the planet with nukes or something). It is thermodynamics and it cannot be done away with.

    What to do about it is another question altogether, of course…

Leave a Reply