The governments, the corporations, and the U.N. have now stolen away all of our natural rights to access all forms of life sustaining natural resources. Sustainability means absolutely nothing, when they have taken away your natural rights to survival and sustinance !!!.
The governments, the corporations, and the U.N. have now stolen away all of our natural rights to access all forms of life sustaining natural resources. Sustainability means absolutely nothing, when they have taken away your natural rights to survival and sustinance !!!.
Even a grade school child knows that it is all about the takeover of all of the worlds valuable and life sustaining Natural Resources. We all know that it is a Corporate controled, Globalist, Socialist take over of all the worlds resources !!!. We are not the corporation's, the government's or U.N.'s Property !!!, and we will not be controled as such !!!. The governments, the corporations, and the U.N. have stolen away all of our natural rights to access life sustaining natural resources,
Communists let him study and travel abroad to study in the times in which major people couldn´t travel almost anywhere but Bulgaria or East Germany...So why he´s now comparing envronmentalits to communists in this way???
Look at them, acting like climatologists have no consensus on the issue. Like it's some wishy-washy "theory" that scientists have. Why even bother to have a society of specialized experts, if nobody is going to listen to them anyways? Every time science says something that offends a religion, or strong social view/habit, it gets treated like it's some nebulous inconsistent ideology. It is not.
The general public's scientific illiteracy only results in ongoing rationalizations for inaction.
No. This is conspiracy nonsense. If you go to presentations by actual climatologists and paleoclimatologists (not politicians!), there is scientific consensus.
They are quite aware of natural warming cycles, sun intensity, gases/water in the atmosphere, ice ages, trends, etc. The science is very particular and takes account for all these obvious factors.
The scientifically illiterate public / political figures are muddling the issue, generating the illusion of some political agenda.
Yes, I mean Al Gore. I find he has brought undue political association to the issue. The public is prone to political conspiracy paranoia, and it is his fault that their level of awareness of the issue now has political tint.
The study of climate change has been going on for decades. It is a shame that public is only becoming aware of it through media sensationalism and political figures. The issue is a strictly scientific one, and as such, it must be understood on a scientific level.
Well there is a political conspiracy on climate change. But not the one the conspiracy theorists like to imagine. This is how it works in reality:
People who produce and burn coal and oil pay lobbyists to bribe politicians to sabotage environmental legislation.
Simple really, and too obvious to interest conspiracy theorists. They find it hard to accept because there is no NWO, Illuminati or "statist" dimension to obsess about.
CO2 in the atmosphere is not a fucking threat, fuck the socialists, they simply want more taxes and the sheep can be scared into doing just about anything.
OF COURSE global warming alarmist would be in favor of restricting personal freedom, if "personal freedom" means anyone can, with impunity, continue to do things that they (the alarmists) think will make global warming worse.
What is the alternative? To say "we think that the Earth is headed to hell in a handbasket because people have been exercising their freedom to burn fossil fuel by doing so, and they should stop, but we don't want to restrict anyone's freedom, so go ahead if you want to"?
You could make the same argument with things like rape, murder, child labor, slavery...
At some point we as people of the earth have to come to an agreement what is allowed and what isn't for the better of everyone. And that isn't communism. That is common sense.
The host is a Hoover Institution fellow, an organization funded by many corporations, including Exxon, with vested interests in denying climate change. Its roster of senior fellows comprises a number of former Bush and Reagan administration officials. Ironic that President Klaus equates global warming proponents with communists since the Hoover Institution people are essentially corporatist Republican party apparatchiks and propagandists operating under the guise of academics and researchers.
Tradgedy of the commons issues are fundamentally unable to be dealt with under a free market model.
People should not be convinced that global warming isnt true just because they dont like the consequences. How would the free market solve the issue, or indeed any tradgedy of the commons issue? The free market is a powerful tool but we must understand its limitations.
So true. It seems obvious to me that so many just ignore climate change and cherry pick scientists supporting them because its inconvinient to them. And the free market isn´t free, it´s a hoax to say it can ever be. Some markets can be almost wholly free but for issues like the environment you need government to step in. The tragedy of the commons is something that needs to be debated MUCH more. Just look into what is happening with the oceans. It´s an outrage but people hardly know it.
everyone who believes scientist can caluculate how much degrees warmer it is going to be in 10 or even 50 years is an ideologue. There is no computermodel that can simulate the worlds temperature in the future.Its way to complex so there is no base for Fear mongering by calling for the end of humanity in 50 years or so. He clearly wasnt talking about global warming-he was talking about the alarmist state of mind (basically fear mongering) in order to reduce peoplesfreedoms..for the slow ones.
Actually you are a douche. And rather stupid if you think, CO2, the building block of plant life is going to kill us all. Go watch a disaster movie if you enjoy fantasy.
I do believe they are overplaying the whole idea of "deep permanent statist temptation in western culture". It´s obviously a swipe at the left and "big government".
Fact of the matter is some issues have to be dealt with on a higher level. Individuals wont change behaviour because of something a scientist says until it affects them. And with climate change, it could be too late then. Now, I think there are more environmental issues being marginalized because of co2 but still..
But consider the goal there...the idea of an entire planet of human beings, with all their flaws, free will, whims, wants, habits and hangups--as a collective group changing their BEHAVIOR. The way we progressively live our lives...as you said "because of something a scientist says". It's lunacy.
If we are to change the planet it will be through an offensive, active means...not the opposite.
You bring up an important point. You´ll never get everyone on board for something as huge and vague like climate change. I feel like focus is taken away from real environmental problems that can be seen with the eye, like the plastic in the oceans for example, or the overfishing of the oceans.
Not saying that we should not monitor climate change and develop renewable energy (oil and coal will run out eventually) but I wonder why focus has been only on climate change as of late.
That's a fair question. The reason is that climate change has the potential to alter biomes and cause mass extinctions. Granted, as you said, it isn't as concrete and visible as other environmental problems, but this is more all encompassing, while those target more specific ecosystems. (Though I'm not saying that they're not huge problems by any means).
Well yes and no.. The trend of overfishing is by all means a very dangerous one. It´s already causing huge problems in coastal Africa. The plastic levels in the seas is adding to the overfishing problem in terms of it killing fish and other marine life. And that´s without taking into account the potential poisonous aspects of the plastic when it´s more or less dissolving into the water. Again not going against climate change, just would like to see other topics in the environment debate
The answer to your question is found in the video we are commenting on. Focus is not on the more visible (and more easily named, blamed and corrected) issues because there is no money or power in problems once they are solved.
The money and power comes in the PROCESS of "solving" problems (which really means not doing anything or making it worse). African poverty and disease is another great example of this.
All we hear is "if we just gave more money..." while actual solutions are ignored.
[continued @ Thealazor]...Just as with Africa, the people who claim to be truly concerned with the environment ignore practical solutions to the things they call problems.
The video I linked to discusses a very viable solution to any sort of global warming threat...something much more plausible than 6.5 billion people changing their behavior . Yet people don't want to hear it--Because they are not concerned about the environment. They are concerned with telling people what to do.
I am not an anarcho-capitalist libertarian or a voluntaryist. These are both opposed to all government involvement.
I am a minarchist libertarian. I believe in only the minimum government necessary to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. I'm a fan of the Constitution because this document generally does this.
But I am in favor of laws that criminalize the use of force or fraud against peaceful people.
Exactly, you "believe" in only the minimum amount of govt needed to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. It doesn't matter if there another viable role for govt, where the evidence has shown that govt intervention and/or laws are needed.
And your belief is that it is moral for govt to intervene anywhere that "the evidence" has shown that laws are "needed." In other words, if forcing others to live as vegetarians would save lives, you would advocate such govt force. You believe that the ends justify the means.
My basic assumption, which I don't accept on faith, but instead see as a self evident axiom, is that each individual owns his or her own body and life. This assumption gives rise to our rights which govt must defend.
Well, yeah, thats the point. If it appeared that that was necessary to the point of trumping individual rights, then yes, I would advocate that. Of course individual and property rights are of primary importance, and any legal system, including our Constitutional one, must weigh those considerations, but they can't always trump violence, disease, slavery, tyranny, theft and social conflict when "society" feels the need to respond to those.
You seem to contradict yourself above. I'd like you to clarify.
You say both that you would violate individual rights if it were necessary to protect an individual (from him or herself?) yet you also state that individual property (and other?) rights are of primary importance...
Neither of us wants "violence, (snip) slavery, tyranny, theft and (violent?) social conflict" to be legal.
But what I want to know is, do you advocate laws that only protect people from themselves?
Lets say you live in a very rural area, noone around, except one neighbor right across the street from you. One morning, you wake up and there is a dead body in your neighbor's yard, on his property. He tells you he killed the man in self defense but was scared to call the police, but is ready to do it now. He calls and the police arrive.
You've known your neighbor for years, and you know he is a very responsible man, not someone you think would ever commit murder. Now, first of all, would you agree that, since we have a case of violence, some independent authority needs to investigate the case, and that may mean going onto your neighbor's property?
As long as the police are required to get a warrant from a judge based on sworn probable cause, I agree that there needs to be govt authority to conduct such investigations.
But if my neighbor is really reasonable, as you have presupposed, there will be no resistance to such an investigation.
I also sympathize with the neighbor's fear of the police. There is a lot of police brutality and abuse out there. Power corrupts.
We have to have police, but we also need to keep them on a short leash.
But reasonableness is not a standard by which your neighbor lets the police in. As you said, and I assume agree with, an independent judge appointed by either the people or a govt looks at the evidence and makes a ruling. Your neighbor either complies or faces the consequences of non-compliance.
But lets say hes not 100% reasonable. After years of listening to Glenn Beck, hes developed some paranoia about the govt. He holes up with his gun and refuses to let them on his property.
You would agree that your neighbor must be handled. Even if you know your neighbor well enough to recognize that his action may have more to do with his paranoia about trusting the "black helicopter/UN ruled" govt than guilt. Shouldn't the authorities do something, most likely something involving violence?
As long as a warrant is obtained, I agree that the authorities should check out the crime scene.
If, in the one in a million case, someone refuses to honor a legal search warrant, then the govt has many options, the worst of which is to set up some kind of stupid confrontation like they did at Waco, TX or Ruby Ridge. Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested without killing them by infiltration and trickery.
I'm in favor of peaceful civil disobedience when our govt does immoral things. Aren't you?
Of course I'm in favor of peaceful civil disobedience. And I even find myself not condemning non-peaceful disobedience, since it often stems from a source (see Ron Paul 9/11 discussion during Republican debates). But still, I think you've hit right on the point there. The govt needs a warrant to carry out their activities. There is a check & balance that only the govt has, that only an institution of laws will transparently follow.
But now that you've agreed that the citizen must give up some his rights, as long as the govt follows a transparent check. Now lets say a jury finds him guilty based on the evidence presented; you agree that the citizen loses his right to freedom. He's proven a threat to society and society reacts by locking him up. By the way, I hope you had a good holiday.
Conservatives have been telling people what to believe, how to feel, how to act, and all that kind of shit for centuries. Vaclav Klaus, as a conservative politician has done this too. Of course when conservatives encounter something they don't like, anything they don't like, they call it "communist". Klaus is just a fucking hypocrit, that's all.
I don't think he's saying global warming is a hoax, he's just saying the consequences of dealing with it could be said to be "similar to communism" in that it requires certain regulations on human activity.
I agree with this in principle, but of course using communism as the comparison was red meat for the wingnuts.
Klaus is a very intelligent man, i've really come to admire him ever since the speech he made within the european parliament. i know what he is hinting at here, its strong government control. As the first prime minister and first president of a former soviet nation he understands what happens to a nation when the powers that be expand their power influence and authority. the justification for that is irrelevent and always unjust. we all need to get turned on to politics or it could turn on us
definition of communism: a societal status where the working class has power over the means of production. That's MORE individual freedom than anything else. This man does not know what he is talking about
The problem is that no nation-state ever appropriates pure Marxist communism. It almost inevitably becomes an oppressive, totalitarian, authoritarian system.
that's true and I agree those states are not progressive. I like to think that the most successful form of communism achieved so far is actually in the form of profit-sharing. It is a practice that empowers the middle class and I would like to see more of it.
The truth is, that we're just not sure. I don't know about you, but I only have one planet to live on. Not being sure about the causes of global warming is a great reason to think green. We have a lot more to lose by being reckless than by being careful, wouldn't you say?
Until you ask at what cost the politicians will demand in the name of green. Then you have to stop think and ask the question what the true motivation is and whether the solutions will work to improve the environment or the political position of the government over the people at the cost of our standards of living and our liberty.
have you checked it out , have you heard about sun spot activity and that green land was once green, global temperature always fluctuates and co2 follows warming not precedes it why are 30,000 scientists against this scam
Q1: When, and in what court, was this lawsuit filed?
Q2: How does the global scientific community organize a hoax?
(Hint: there's a reason you're gonna find those tough to answer)
Re: "have a think about this"
I've read the abstract of DOZENS of journal articles on the topic, as well as the last two IPCC reports (summaries and parts of the main body). I've "had a think" - have you?
I've watched "The Man-made Global Warming Hoax". It's the usual deniers spouting the usual junk - sounds really compelling to a scientifically ignorant audience. But how would it fare before real scientists? Which leads me to:
Q3: Why do deniers rely on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, instead of the peer-reviewed journals, to argue their killer scientific cases?
Q4: Why is the global scientific community not convinced by that documentary?
look up lord monckton on glenn beck; he destroys the global warming hypthesis with actual research from MIT..did you also know that at least prior to the present cooling phase we are in, that the ice caps on mars were also melting as well as the moons of jupiter and saturn?
Did you read my posts? I've followed the peer-previewed work and read the IPCC reports. I've read the judgments from NAS, AAAS, ACS, AMS, WMO/IPCC, NASA/GISS, NOAA, EPA, USGCRP National Assessments, etc. etc.. I've followed the scads of (industry promoted) denier arguments.
But HOLD ON, you say - the (non-scientist) Lord Monckton on the (doofus) Glenn Beck's TV show (TV show!), has "destroyed" what the global scientific community accepts, using "actual research from MIT" (oooh - actual!).
Do I know the silly denier ice cap/solar system "argument"? Of course. Do you know that the radiative forcing from solar irradiance is a full order of magnitude less than from CO2? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you're clueless what that even means. Question: do you think the world's scientists reached their consensus without pondering "I wonder if we should consider the sun's influence?". If Monckton "destroyed" this with "actual research from MIT", why are the world's scientists not convinced?
When typical citizens, who could barely pass their one or two high school science classes, think they're in a position to better judge something as complex as climate change than the global scientific community - based on misinformation from the tens of millions spent by multinationals (whose revenues surpass the GDPs of many 1st world nations) on free market orgs, bogus websites, PR firms, campaign contributions, and lobbyists - then the nation is doomed. The sheep can be led anywhere.
yes, actual research, for everythign else is computer models projecting what they think could be, whereas this research is empirical(actual); it illustrates that the more energy that is coming in(i.e due to increased sunspot activity), the more that goes out, contrary to what al gore's models suggest, which are not empirical..Lord Monckton is a climate expert and was the science advisor for margeret thatcher; al gore won't debate him, and this research is not his either
1) "contrary to what al gore's models suggest" - Al Gore doesn't have models.
2) "which are not empirical" - Data is empirical, but analyzing it properly, for something this complex, involves many judgments with potential errors. This isn't simple like "the model predicted 4 seconds, but the measurement was 50 seconds." Several issues have been raised about Lindzen's paper, but none of them published yet (the paper is just a few months old) to my knowledge. Time will tell if this stands up.
3) "Monckton is a climate expert" - classics at Cambridge, journalism diploma, worked newspapers and think tanks before advisor. No science credentials at all. Made some silly comments on the show (unclear if he even understood Lindzens paper)
4) "science advisor for margeret thatcher" - False, economics and policy adviser
5) "Al Gore won't debate him" - Hence Monckton is right, Gore and AGW are wrong
6) You ignored my questions, and the ones to tonythatjesusloves where you jumped in
Even Milton Friedman knew that environmental regulation was needed due the problem of claiming property of air space and bodies of water since these tends to drift into other people's property.
If I own a piece of property which has a section of river on it, I don't right to dump crap into the part of the river that runs through my property because the whatever I put into the river will drift and eventually end up in other people's property. Same principle applies to air pollution.
Whether CO2 is a pollutant or a greenhouse gas is an important distinction.
Then the question is what effect CO2 has on climate. The estimates still vary hugely from barely detectable to catastrophic.
The question of whether there is warming or not is another question again. The planet has warmed and cooled throughout its history. Therefore logically there are other causes of climate change other than human activity.
Nobody denies that there are other factors, the meaningful scientific consensus is that humans have dramatically altered the course of the planet's climate change.
Thankfully science is not a political discipline where majorities and consensus is not the determining factor. Science has a long history of politically motivated group think eventually overturned with evidence. The scientific method purpose is to thwart majority, consensus, group think, politically driven conclusions in favour of the evidence.
Lets leave the consensus building to the politicians and judge the science on the evidence.
That's my point. If the vast majority of the scientific community is in consensus (as they are for evolution and gravity) then it's generally best to act on their claims. And the idea that "we" should be the judges of "the science and evidence" is horribly illogical. Between the scientific consensus of some of the most brilliant thinkers on the planet and plebeians saying "but what about the sun? It's warm" the question of what to act on is obvious.
If you have to reach for a majority decision that's evidence enough that the science is taking a back seat. Evidence does not enable dissent without reason to refute the evidence.
Scientists are uncertain that climate change is being caused by CO2. Less uncertain that we are in a warming period.
Scientists are people who are not afraid to state what they don't know. Politicians try to convince us that they not only know, but that they are the solution, and that therefore we need them.
Compare the Wikipedia articles "Scientific opinion on climate change and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and then assert that there's any real dubiety in the scientific community. Before you lavish your adulation on a few lone dissenters, remember, there were scientists advocating phlogiston theory after the discovery of oxygen, and ether theory following the advent of relativity, and there are still biology professors who reject evolution.
The purpose of the cannons of scientific practice is to eliminate human error (intentional or not). The modern (since Galileo) physical sciences have basically no history of politically based group-think. Scientists are generally conservative - not accepting the new until it's been proven in the crucible of repeated intense scrutiny, and not rejecting the theories that have survived that trial until new evidence compels them too. That's VERY different from politically motivated group think.
Re consensus: You're right that evidence is always the final arbiter. However, there is no "Pope of Science". Humanity's current scientific understanding of anything is EXACTLY the collective judgments of the world's scientists knowledgeable about that topic. When evidence "overturns" an existing consensus, what does that mean? It means EXACTLY that there's a NEW CONSENSUS. So when asked about ' humanity's current scientific understanding", scientific consensus is EXACTLY the determining factor.
Science has a frontier that is in constant contention. The core of scientific knowledge is more certain and corresponding less contended. Climate change is on the edge of what we can call knowledge. We should expect constant changes in what we think we know until the science develops.
In the meantime politicians are distorting the process and forming, funding, and using "consensuses" to further their own agendas.
"We should expect constant changes in what we think we know until the science develops."
That may be true, but nevertheless it would be prudent to undertake certain modest, progressive measures towards remedying the problem given that an overwhelming majority of current experts prognosticate a potential catastrophe in the relatively imminent future if the problem is ignored. Again, neither I, nor most climate change proponents, are advocating anything radical, baleful, or authoritarian.
Taxation? Radically increasing energy generation methods and costs? - reductions in standards of living.
Restrictions on land use/ property rights?
The problem is that the politicians have taken over the green agenda. They will inflate it and use it to further their agenda not yours. They are not restrained by limitations of evidence and do not suffer the restraint of uncertainty. The evidence is in the solutions they endorse as to their motivations.
Establishing and enforcing industry standards for mileage; implementing tax disincentives for the generation of excess carbon emissions (or, alternatively, subsidizing industrial modernization); investing in the construction of non-fossil fuel-based energy sources; penalizing industries which do not re-forest areas that they cultivate. All to be executed within a reasonable time-frame of years, if not decades, in order to allow for capital reallocation, etc.
You're quite right about the distinction between settled science and research frontiers, and that the understanding of climate processes has many areas of active research. However, with each passing decade of intense scrutiny, the understanding about this issue grows, and the uncertainty in the core position (humans are driving the recent global warming - toward harmful consequences) diminishes (witness the increasing confidence with each IPCC report).
It's now at a point where every esteemed scientific org on the Earth accepts this core position about human driven global warming. Though many aspects of this topic still have large uncertainties, its central contention is now essentially settled. It would be a shocking, Nobel worthy discovery if some other process were eventually concluded to be "the real primary cause." That has NOTHING to due with any political agenda; that's coming straight out of the scientific community.
That confidence must be born out in the predictive ability of the models not in the (nobel winning) quality of the construction of those models as they are based on uncertain assumptions that may prove to be false.
Currently they are drawing a blank in the predictive stakes with temperature significantly lower than predicted. i.e. when model meets reality.
See "Global Temperature Change" Hansen et al. 2006, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.. It's a paper comparing Hansen's first basic model back in 1988 to what's occurred since. The emissions/volcanic events were close to expectations (Scenario B). Prediction: 0.33 C temp change from 19882005. From the paper: "Observed temperature change is 0.32°C and 0.36°C for the landocean index and meteorological station analyses, respectively." Not bad for 1988's crude first model.
Actually, the agreement is somewhat misleading - several factors, now better represented, canceled each other to make a remarkably good prediction. Also, it's certainly alone not enough to "prove" the model is a success - it's a short time period by climate standards. None-the-less it suggests that even the earliest simplest models were approximately on target.
Due to decadal North Atlantic current cycles (decadal, so factor out of long term trends!) recently better understood. "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." ("Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" Keenlyside et al., Nature 2008.)
The Hadley Center (which deniers favor as its temps come out slightly less than GISS's) agrees: "Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record." ("Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model" Smith et al. Science 2007)
I don't understand "Plan B?". Are you suggesting your example (discovery of bacteria-caused stomach ulcers) undermined my claim (science not suffering politically based group think)? If so, please reconsider what "politically based group think" means. I already described scientists conservative nature on theory preference/confidence; it's not political, but rational. New discoveries modify old views - true, and so what? That does nothing to support a claim of political group think by scientists.
There are two points; politically motivated conclusions, and group think.
Stomach ulcers: Resisted by established medicine, diagnosis was less profitable/supportable, required a great deal of unlearning, involved a lot of unnecessary suffering by patients, required admitting previous causation and treatment error, eliminated professions.
The result was a lack of research funding, ridicule, being ignored, etc. even though they had credible evidence. It took decades, it should have taken years.
I don't know anything about this. If it's as you describe, then I grant you made your point - and produced one rare counter-example to my general claim.
The DDT example doesn't apply to the question we were just discussing. We were talking about scientific group think, but the DDT example is about wisdom of policy decisions, which is a completely different matter. I don't discuss the possible actions to mitigate the harm from human driven global warming, as that's a very different topic.
The SCIENCE ITSELF is under attack by the industry promoted deniers and misinformation/confusion campaigns. That's the disgusting situation that motivates me to engage in this. There's no hope for wise policy so long as the public's understanding of the science itself is successfully distorted and confused by those with huge financial interests in doing so.
The science should always be under attack otherwise it is not science. Sciences' purpose is to discover new facts (against the consensus). When questioners are derided we are attacking science and undermining the science.
Are you confident we are not repeating the errors of the DDT example? The politicians are running away with themselves on this issue but this time they are going to capitalise on it and institutionalize it. Then try presenting evidence or even doubt to unseat political power.
Please... when I used "science under attack", I described it as a distortion/misinformation campaign. That has nothing to do with the ongoing process of scientific research. The "science is under attack" by ideologues and HUGE industries. The target isn't SCIENTISTS; the target is the PUBLIC. The method of attack isn't science; it's propaganda and distortion. The medium of attack isn't scientific journals or forums; it's talk radio, TV, bogus websites, bought politicians, op-ed pages, etc..
The issue is politicized on both sides and that is the problem for science. Industries are positioning themselves for political favour as they line up for the wealth and power redistribution the politicians are gunning for. Academics line up to feed off the research grants. Politicians always target the public. The media populise issues and strip out the complexity. Populism drives politics in a self reinforcing system. Businesses tap into that fervour also. Science ultimately suffers.
I don't discuss policy options for global warming, but I'll say this much: No, I'm not SURE about anything. It's a tough. But this is life - you have a problem, and some approximate bounds of what this problem will produce - so what to do? Do too little = bad. Do too much = bad. So you try to understand the problem as well as possible, and deal with it as rationally as possible. But you can't be SURE about anything. However, what else is there to do but act as rationally as you're capable?
We agree.... But shouldn't we get concerned when the degrees of confidence get obscured by politics and the cost benefit equation swings frighteningly away from what we can reasonably say we know. There are real human costs associated with actions already taken yet alone those that are proposed.
How do we now get the politicians to take a deep breath and calmly calculate probabilities, costs, and how do we convince the false certainty of politics and now the public to leave room for doubt?
Good questions. For one, listening to the scientific community is the first step in making wise decisions - it's necessary for any hope of making wise decisions! Then comes trying to understand the massively complex social, political, institutional, economic, and psychological realities, to attempt to chart an optimal course. In the US, things are rarely done rationally, it's always too much or too little; it's just the nature of our confrontational, politicians-as-mediators-of-interests system.
So in the USA, "somewhat close to rational", or "in total, more good than bad" are the best that can ever be hoped for - but we often do achieve that. About acting without adequate knowledge, I think it's more complicated. It's more "risk management", where you have to weigh your best estimates of probabilities of outcomes, and their undesirability, against the costs of mitigating them. That's the basic idea. In theory it's simple math, but the reality is moral and value-laden.
We can't "make" politicians behave as if they aren't politicians - as if they're impartial rational agents working for greatest good. You'll have better luck squeezing blood from a stone. Instead, we should try to use what we know about how politics actually works (and economics, and psychology, etc) to make making good decisions the "natural" outcome. (Aside: the wisest policies don't decree outcomes, but rather structure the playing field so that desirable outcomes follow naturally.)
I agree that natural outcomes are more likely to be better solutions, are more sustainable over time, and require less force to implement and maintain. However paternal libertarianism without providing for maximum freedom (nature) does not provide a natural decision environment and is not a natural solution and so is prone to human error and system fragility through concentration and conformity to a single solution or set of solutions and is less sustainable than more natural alternatives.
Risk management in relation to climate change should be based on cost benefit analysis. Bjorn Lombergs group has done good work here and indicates that climate change solutions are poor value for our limited resources given other priorities.
We should not listen to the scientific community until the science is settled. Scientists have a poor record of getting thing right before they get things terribly wrong.
The record on dietary recommendations, smoking, leaches, etc. is instructive.
Our ability to manage, predict, and understand complex systems is extremely limited. Add to your list the climate.
The US problem is the politicians reliance on the constitution as a constraint (that rarely comes) rather than their voting record.
Yes, CO2 is a non-toxic chemical, at least in the amount we find it the air. However something is pollution when it disrupts the ecosystem, the fact is that CO2 does cause problem is you release it in large amounts into the air, one of these problems is the increased acidity in water due to CO2 saturation. This raising acidity does cause problems for ecosystems in some places where parts of the food chain is sensitive to rapid changes acidity levels.
Still even if CO2 wasn't a pollutant, there are many other things we simply know are very harmful to the environment, things like mercury, sulfur, lead and so on. For example, there was a time when we used a lot of lead in our gas, this lead to increased amounts of lead in nature and our own bodies. Once people realized this we started coming up with ways to limit the amount of lead in gas, we introduced taxation on those who used leaded gas and finally we simply made it illegal to put in gas.
People who pollute the air and the sea pollute other people's property as well. Compare it to living in a neighborhood where there is one guy who likes to play extremely loud music at night, this might cause problems for the other residents who might have problems sleeping because of it. Even if the man is doing it on his property, it effects people outside his property in a negative way, thus we don't allow people do play loud music at night if it bothers other people who are living there.
i really don't think personality matters too much in politics, but i just read a journal about this guy's relationship with 3 young ladies.
this guy is a blonde - predator (a kinda pedo, since he just made love with 3 girls who is their 20s). this is just another inconvenient truth about this disgusting horny guy who thinks with his penis (no offense, he really does)
But in the end, either we lose some economic advantages, the world still heats up, but we got rid of the majority of pollution exhaustions. Or we save the world from draughts and starvation, diseases and mass emigrations. Not to mention the low countries from a prolonged swimming session.
EVEN it turns out to be a scam, getting rid of your major CO2 producing fuel sources is useful in many more ways. But as our understanding is now, its not a scam. And the only debate should be if human activity matters theres nothing we can do. And for now science leans towards human activity as a cause.
well.. silly question is the wrong question I think. This comes from the hoover institute and the interviewer is clearly deeply conservative and I would even argue he´s a corporate shill. Anyways it´s his job to talk down upon the idea of environmentalism and climate change. And in the context of having a czech there.. he wants to compare it with communism. Deeply disingenuous, but that´s how they roll.
Yes, or at least in abnormal quantities. And that's next to; Noise pollution. Nitrogen oxide further affecting the Ozone layer Fine particles affecting health, especially the young and elderly. Acid rain, smog, ... Just start your car in your garage and wait to see what happens. Its quite obvious fossil fuel exhaustion is harmful. Switching to a more neutral solution is never a waste, even if it doesn't stop global warming.
"If we half the economy (our standard of living) to possibly reduce the temp by 0.5 deg in a 100 years."
What a wonderfully and transparently absurd straw man you've constructed. Nobody is advocating that the world's governments unilaterally abolish every industry that relies on fossil fuels, but only that we implement policies which gradually curtail carbon emissions, while simultaneously transitioning to new, zero-emission technologies. There's no horrible totalitarian oppression here.
The numbers I used are the (roughly) the estimates of the IPCC.
The statistic that you misrepresented is in fact drawn from the outmoded 1995 IPCC report on climate change. The cited figure of a 0.5 degree increase over a century refers to the past century, not future estimates, given the expected rise in CO2 concentrations (even the most conservative, modest projections indicate that a nearly twofold increase is likely), which suggest a rise of 3.5 degrees.
In the mean time temperatures are declining. Perhaps breaking the assumptions on the relationship between CO2 and climate as represented in the models. If the models are wrong so are the predictions.
I'm sure a lot of people share President Klaus's POV, and I can understand why they think that. I don't really know that much about global warming anywho.
dont worry, czechs with brain appreciate VK as best president we had and about those sheeps voting for social-democratic or communist party nobody cares.
Environmentalism doesn't seek to restrict the freedoms of anyone... just that the means of getting and consuming power - for example - need to be changed from finite, polluting and foreign-sourced to renewable, non-polluting and domestically-sourced.
How that would be accomplished in a capitalist society and economy would be RADICALLY different than in a Communist or socialist or police state society and economy.
The governments, the corporations, and the U.N. have now stolen away all of our natural rights to access all forms of life sustaining natural resources. Sustainability means absolutely nothing, when they have taken away your natural rights to survival and sustinance !!!.
shirleymae30 8 months ago
The governments, the corporations, and the U.N. have now stolen away all of our natural rights to access all forms of life sustaining natural resources. Sustainability means absolutely nothing, when they have taken away your natural rights to survival and sustinance !!!.
shirleymae30 8 months ago
Even a grade school child knows that it is all about the takeover of all of the worlds valuable and life sustaining Natural Resources. We all know that it is a Corporate controled, Globalist, Socialist take over of all the worlds resources !!!. We are not the corporation's, the government's or U.N.'s Property !!!, and we will not be controled as such !!!. The governments, the corporations, and the U.N. have stolen away all of our natural rights to access life sustaining natural resources,
shirleymae30 8 months ago
So embarrassing.
reunion503 1 year ago
He is right on target.
Sheviera 1 year ago
What a bullshit from his mouth
SuperBoris81 1 year ago
Communists let him study and travel abroad to study in the times in which major people couldn´t travel almost anywhere but Bulgaria or East Germany...So why he´s now comparing envronmentalits to communists in this way???
SuperBoris81 1 year ago
@SuperBoris81 Yeah, him and all the citizens in Eastern European countries... that's exactly the point.
MyshAAkCZ 1 year ago
@SuperBoris81 because communists are dicks and brought this country into shits...
Teeressa 11 months ago
@Teeressa It´s not totally the truth. The Czechs/ we Czechs brought there themselves...
SuperBoris81 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hate Commies.
lmacorp 2 years ago 8
@lmacorp They pretty much hate you too!
ahmadfahoum 1 year ago
I like this guy. Very Stirnerean insight.
MindCBase 2 years ago
I like him too.
Sensible man, pretty much the opposite of Al Gore.
majortom321 2 years ago 3
an idiot with no credibility in europe nor his native state, is fishing in the sea of naiveness across the atlantic..
amet1980 2 years ago 2
Look at them, acting like climatologists have no consensus on the issue. Like it's some wishy-washy "theory" that scientists have. Why even bother to have a society of specialized experts, if nobody is going to listen to them anyways? Every time science says something that offends a religion, or strong social view/habit, it gets treated like it's some nebulous inconsistent ideology. It is not.
The general public's scientific illiteracy only results in ongoing rationalizations for inaction.
abyssquick 2 years ago
You should probably check out the news stories referenced in this video:
/watch?v=GyLqIqFHbOw
WideWorldOfWisdom 2 years ago
No. This is conspiracy nonsense. If you go to presentations by actual climatologists and paleoclimatologists (not politicians!), there is scientific consensus.
They are quite aware of natural warming cycles, sun intensity, gases/water in the atmosphere, ice ages, trends, etc. The science is very particular and takes account for all these obvious factors.
The scientifically illiterate public / political figures are muddling the issue, generating the illusion of some political agenda.
abyssquick 2 years ago 3
You mean not-politicians like Al Gore, right?
*Eyeroll*
WideWorldOfWisdom 2 years ago
Yes, I mean Al Gore. I find he has brought undue political association to the issue. The public is prone to political conspiracy paranoia, and it is his fault that their level of awareness of the issue now has political tint.
The study of climate change has been going on for decades. It is a shame that public is only becoming aware of it through media sensationalism and political figures. The issue is a strictly scientific one, and as such, it must be understood on a scientific level.
abyssquick 2 years ago
Well there is a political conspiracy on climate change. But not the one the conspiracy theorists like to imagine. This is how it works in reality:
People who produce and burn coal and oil pay lobbyists to bribe politicians to sabotage environmental legislation.
Simple really, and too obvious to interest conspiracy theorists. They find it hard to accept because there is no NWO, Illuminati or "statist" dimension to obsess about.
cristop5 2 years ago
CO2 in the atmosphere is not a fucking threat, fuck the socialists, they simply want more taxes and the sheep can be scared into doing just about anything.
johammbass 2 years ago
In general, every "ism" is a shit, but this guy is truely stupidist.
k0zka 2 years ago
OF COURSE global warming alarmist would be in favor of restricting personal freedom, if "personal freedom" means anyone can, with impunity, continue to do things that they (the alarmists) think will make global warming worse.
What is the alternative? To say "we think that the Earth is headed to hell in a handbasket because people have been exercising their freedom to burn fossil fuel by doing so, and they should stop, but we don't want to restrict anyone's freedom, so go ahead if you want to"?
frankroto 2 years ago
going by what he just said, to me he seems biggest asshole who ever opened his mouth. wake up you fool!
hereaminow 2 years ago
You could make the same argument with things like rape, murder, child labor, slavery...
At some point we as people of the earth have to come to an agreement what is allowed and what isn't for the better of everyone. And that isn't communism. That is common sense.
burntonion05 2 years ago 2
The host is a Hoover Institution fellow, an organization funded by many corporations, including Exxon, with vested interests in denying climate change. Its roster of senior fellows comprises a number of former Bush and Reagan administration officials. Ironic that President Klaus equates global warming proponents with communists since the Hoover Institution people are essentially corporatist Republican party apparatchiks and propagandists operating under the guise of academics and researchers.
nirtseg 2 years ago
Tradgedy of the commons issues are fundamentally unable to be dealt with under a free market model.
People should not be convinced that global warming isnt true just because they dont like the consequences. How would the free market solve the issue, or indeed any tradgedy of the commons issue? The free market is a powerful tool but we must understand its limitations.
Saktoth 2 years ago 3
So true. It seems obvious to me that so many just ignore climate change and cherry pick scientists supporting them because its inconvinient to them. And the free market isn´t free, it´s a hoax to say it can ever be. Some markets can be almost wholly free but for issues like the environment you need government to step in. The tragedy of the commons is something that needs to be debated MUCH more. Just look into what is happening with the oceans. It´s an outrage but people hardly know it.
Thealazor 2 years ago
everyone who believes scientist can caluculate how much degrees warmer it is going to be in 10 or even 50 years is an ideologue. There is no computermodel that can simulate the worlds temperature in the future.Its way to complex so there is no base for Fear mongering by calling for the end of humanity in 50 years or so. He clearly wasnt talking about global warming-he was talking about the alarmist state of mind (basically fear mongering) in order to reduce peoplesfreedoms..for the slow ones.
jonz23m 2 years ago
The host is a massive douchbag, and so is the guest.
Congest 2 years ago
Actually you are a douche. And rather stupid if you think, CO2, the building block of plant life is going to kill us all. Go watch a disaster movie if you enjoy fantasy.
michalslahor 2 years ago
Aha. So we must let the planet die if we don't want to be like the communists.
cristop5 2 years ago
how do these idiots get into power
dunndudebemelol 2 years ago
I do believe they are overplaying the whole idea of "deep permanent statist temptation in western culture". It´s obviously a swipe at the left and "big government".
Fact of the matter is some issues have to be dealt with on a higher level. Individuals wont change behaviour because of something a scientist says until it affects them. And with climate change, it could be too late then. Now, I think there are more environmental issues being marginalized because of co2 but still..
Thealazor 2 years ago
But consider the goal there...the idea of an entire planet of human beings, with all their flaws, free will, whims, wants, habits and hangups--as a collective group changing their BEHAVIOR. The way we progressively live our lives...as you said "because of something a scientist says". It's lunacy.
If we are to change the planet it will be through an offensive, active means...not the opposite.
A possible example: /watch?v=kfL6Xf7BWyQ
WideWorldOfWisdom 2 years ago
You bring up an important point. You´ll never get everyone on board for something as huge and vague like climate change. I feel like focus is taken away from real environmental problems that can be seen with the eye, like the plastic in the oceans for example, or the overfishing of the oceans.
Not saying that we should not monitor climate change and develop renewable energy (oil and coal will run out eventually) but I wonder why focus has been only on climate change as of late.
Thealazor 2 years ago
That's a fair question. The reason is that climate change has the potential to alter biomes and cause mass extinctions. Granted, as you said, it isn't as concrete and visible as other environmental problems, but this is more all encompassing, while those target more specific ecosystems. (Though I'm not saying that they're not huge problems by any means).
Jrien 2 years ago
Well yes and no.. The trend of overfishing is by all means a very dangerous one. It´s already causing huge problems in coastal Africa. The plastic levels in the seas is adding to the overfishing problem in terms of it killing fish and other marine life. And that´s without taking into account the potential poisonous aspects of the plastic when it´s more or less dissolving into the water. Again not going against climate change, just would like to see other topics in the environment debate
Thealazor 2 years ago
Agreed. There are certainly a lot of important environmental issues that aren't being adequately addressed.
Jrien 2 years ago
The answer to your question is found in the video we are commenting on. Focus is not on the more visible (and more easily named, blamed and corrected) issues because there is no money or power in problems once they are solved.
The money and power comes in the PROCESS of "solving" problems (which really means not doing anything or making it worse). African poverty and disease is another great example of this.
All we hear is "if we just gave more money..." while actual solutions are ignored.
WideWorldOfWisdom 2 years ago
[continued @ Thealazor]...Just as with Africa, the people who claim to be truly concerned with the environment ignore practical solutions to the things they call problems.
The video I linked to discusses a very viable solution to any sort of global warming threat...something much more plausible than 6.5 billion people changing their behavior . Yet people don't want to hear it--Because they are not concerned about the environment. They are concerned with telling people what to do.
WideWorldOfWisdom 2 years ago
Well, I guess it is a little reassuring that scientific ignorance and hyperbole are not exclusive to United States' politicians.
HellWithPoverty 2 years ago 3
Every ideology tells us what to do and how to live, and every ideology is based on something not subjectively verifiable.
These kind of comparisons are pointless and should be driven out of the political rhetoric.
merdufer 2 years ago
Klaus is right.
Communism/socialism and radical climate change environmentalism are both like religious faiths.
freesk8 2 years ago 2
So says the religious "libertarian".
eirefrance 2 years ago
I am a libertarian, but what is religious about that?
What is my faith?
What proposition do I accept without rational basis?
freesk8 2 years ago
That government involvement in anything, but specifically the economy, is bad.
eirefrance 2 years ago
Ah, but you misunderstand my position.
I am not an anarcho-capitalist libertarian or a voluntaryist. These are both opposed to all government involvement.
I am a minarchist libertarian. I believe in only the minimum government necessary to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. I'm a fan of the Constitution because this document generally does this.
But I am in favor of laws that criminalize the use of force or fraud against peaceful people.
freesk8 2 years ago
Exactly, you "believe" in only the minimum amount of govt needed to defend our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. It doesn't matter if there another viable role for govt, where the evidence has shown that govt intervention and/or laws are needed.
eirefrance 2 years ago
And your belief is that it is moral for govt to intervene anywhere that "the evidence" has shown that laws are "needed." In other words, if forcing others to live as vegetarians would save lives, you would advocate such govt force. You believe that the ends justify the means.
My basic assumption, which I don't accept on faith, but instead see as a self evident axiom, is that each individual owns his or her own body and life. This assumption gives rise to our rights which govt must defend.
freesk8 2 years ago
Well, yeah, thats the point. If it appeared that that was necessary to the point of trumping individual rights, then yes, I would advocate that. Of course individual and property rights are of primary importance, and any legal system, including our Constitutional one, must weigh those considerations, but they can't always trump violence, disease, slavery, tyranny, theft and social conflict when "society" feels the need to respond to those.
eirefrance 2 years ago
You seem to contradict yourself above. I'd like you to clarify.
You say both that you would violate individual rights if it were necessary to protect an individual (from him or herself?) yet you also state that individual property (and other?) rights are of primary importance...
Neither of us wants "violence, (snip) slavery, tyranny, theft and (violent?) social conflict" to be legal.
But what I want to know is, do you advocate laws that only protect people from themselves?
freesk8 2 years ago
Let me try to explain using a simple example.
Lets say you live in a very rural area, noone around, except one neighbor right across the street from you. One morning, you wake up and there is a dead body in your neighbor's yard, on his property. He tells you he killed the man in self defense but was scared to call the police, but is ready to do it now. He calls and the police arrive.
eirefrance 2 years ago
You've known your neighbor for years, and you know he is a very responsible man, not someone you think would ever commit murder. Now, first of all, would you agree that, since we have a case of violence, some independent authority needs to investigate the case, and that may mean going onto your neighbor's property?
eirefrance 2 years ago
As long as the police are required to get a warrant from a judge based on sworn probable cause, I agree that there needs to be govt authority to conduct such investigations.
But if my neighbor is really reasonable, as you have presupposed, there will be no resistance to such an investigation.
I also sympathize with the neighbor's fear of the police. There is a lot of police brutality and abuse out there. Power corrupts.
We have to have police, but we also need to keep them on a short leash.
freesk8 2 years ago
But reasonableness is not a standard by which your neighbor lets the police in. As you said, and I assume agree with, an independent judge appointed by either the people or a govt looks at the evidence and makes a ruling. Your neighbor either complies or faces the consequences of non-compliance.
But lets say hes not 100% reasonable. After years of listening to Glenn Beck, hes developed some paranoia about the govt. He holes up with his gun and refuses to let them on his property.
eirefrance 2 years ago
You would agree that your neighbor must be handled. Even if you know your neighbor well enough to recognize that his action may have more to do with his paranoia about trusting the "black helicopter/UN ruled" govt than guilt. Shouldn't the authorities do something, most likely something involving violence?
eirefrance 2 years ago
As long as a warrant is obtained, I agree that the authorities should check out the crime scene.
If, in the one in a million case, someone refuses to honor a legal search warrant, then the govt has many options, the worst of which is to set up some kind of stupid confrontation like they did at Waco, TX or Ruby Ridge. Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested without killing them by infiltration and trickery.
I'm in favor of peaceful civil disobedience when our govt does immoral things. Aren't you?
freesk8 2 years ago
Of course I'm in favor of peaceful civil disobedience. And I even find myself not condemning non-peaceful disobedience, since it often stems from a source (see Ron Paul 9/11 discussion during Republican debates). But still, I think you've hit right on the point there. The govt needs a warrant to carry out their activities. There is a check & balance that only the govt has, that only an institution of laws will transparently follow.
eirefrance 2 years ago
But now that you've agreed that the citizen must give up some his rights, as long as the govt follows a transparent check. Now lets say a jury finds him guilty based on the evidence presented; you agree that the citizen loses his right to freedom. He's proven a threat to society and society reacts by locking him up. By the way, I hope you had a good holiday.
eirefrance 2 years ago
Conservatives have been telling people what to believe, how to feel, how to act, and all that kind of shit for centuries. Vaclav Klaus, as a conservative politician has done this too. Of course when conservatives encounter something they don't like, anything they don't like, they call it "communist". Klaus is just a fucking hypocrit, that's all.
blackiron60 2 years ago 5
Nicely said.
eirefrance 2 years ago
the people who created communism are talking now about global warming like they care about the rest
kilaal 2 years ago 2
The people who created communism have been dead for almost over 100 years.
Even if you were talking about bolshevism, they've still had dirt on their face for over 80.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger If you are talking about Bolshevism then Stalin had the pre 1917 Bolshevik party shot.
Consider that the system in Russia was not communist in anything but name.
It had much more the character of industrial revolution in the capitalist mode.
Like a huge Victorian workhouse
An enlightened democratic working class had no role in it at all.
'red capitalists' set up to dictate work orders is not the rule of reason or workers.
Norway and Sweden are much better models today.
marsCubed 2 years ago
Stalin shot or starved everyone and anyone that he wanted to and that was anyone that he saw as a athreat to his position of power.
State run capitalism with a dictator in charge.
motoxbuddy 2 years ago
"They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat."
Much like religion
McArrowni 2 years ago 2
Finally! Fora finally posting some truth.
jvittetoe 2 years ago
I don't think he's saying global warming is a hoax, he's just saying the consequences of dealing with it could be said to be "similar to communism" in that it requires certain regulations on human activity.
I agree with this in principle, but of course using communism as the comparison was red meat for the wingnuts.
GregGirardin 2 years ago 3
Klaus is a very intelligent man, i've really come to admire him ever since the speech he made within the european parliament. i know what he is hinting at here, its strong government control. As the first prime minister and first president of a former soviet nation he understands what happens to a nation when the powers that be expand their power influence and authority. the justification for that is irrelevent and always unjust. we all need to get turned on to politics or it could turn on us
goldsby5 2 years ago 4
Well said.
motoxbuddy 2 years ago
Exactly, well put.
michalslahor 2 years ago
The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)
copy and paste and listen to some real scientists
tonythatjesusloves 2 years ago
"Adding comments has been disabled for this video."
Ever wonder why these videos have their comments disabled?
newusername01 2 years ago
Global warming or not, not taxes should be involved...its just too easy to see through the agenda...
screwopenborders 2 years ago
definition of communism: a societal status where the working class has power over the means of production. That's MORE individual freedom than anything else. This man does not know what he is talking about
phoenixar 2 years ago
The problem is that no nation-state ever appropriates pure Marxist communism. It almost inevitably becomes an oppressive, totalitarian, authoritarian system.
arcanist9 2 years ago 2
that's true and I agree those states are not progressive. I like to think that the most successful form of communism achieved so far is actually in the form of profit-sharing. It is a practice that empowers the middle class and I would like to see more of it.
phoenixar 2 years ago
The truth is, that we're just not sure. I don't know about you, but I only have one planet to live on. Not being sure about the causes of global warming is a great reason to think green. We have a lot more to lose by being reckless than by being careful, wouldn't you say?
ArcaneKarma 2 years ago
Until you ask at what cost the politicians will demand in the name of green. Then you have to stop think and ask the question what the true motivation is and whether the solutions will work to improve the environment or the political position of the government over the people at the cost of our standards of living and our liberty.
stratvic 2 years ago
NWO has spoken again..
kaxitaksi 2 years ago
NWO? NWO wants to tax our asses back to slavery with carbon tax etc.
screwopenborders 2 years ago
global "man" made warming is a hoax and a way to bring in world wide tax and control -- dont be robots check it out watch
Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud
The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)
tonythatjesusloves 2 years ago
You're crazy man....just crazy.
kshackleton 2 years ago
have you checked it out , have you heard about sun spot activity and that green land was once green, global temperature always fluctuates and co2 follows warming not precedes it why are 30,000 scientists against this scam
just watch the 2 vids ive recommended
tonythatjesusloves 2 years ago
I checked out your page....you are a special kinda crazy....the conspiracy nutter type of crazy.
kshackleton 2 years ago
When, and in what court, was this lawsuit filed?
How does the global scientific community organize a hoax?
Ug...
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
in the words of Hitler tell a lie long enough people believe , and make it a big one , what about weapons of mass destruction
Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman
copy and paste ,have a think about this
tonythatjesusloves 2 years ago
That didn't answer my questions:
Q1: When, and in what court, was this lawsuit filed?
Q2: How does the global scientific community organize a hoax?
(Hint: there's a reason you're gonna find those tough to answer)
Re: "have a think about this"
I've read the abstract of DOZENS of journal articles on the topic, as well as the last two IPCC reports (summaries and parts of the main body). I've "had a think" - have you?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago 2
I've watched "The Man-made Global Warming Hoax". It's the usual deniers spouting the usual junk - sounds really compelling to a scientifically ignorant audience. But how would it fare before real scientists? Which leads me to:
Q3: Why do deniers rely on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, instead of the peer-reviewed journals, to argue their killer scientific cases?
Q4: Why is the global scientific community not convinced by that documentary?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago 2
look up lord monckton on glenn beck; he destroys the global warming hypthesis with actual research from MIT..did you also know that at least prior to the present cooling phase we are in, that the ice caps on mars were also melting as well as the moons of jupiter and saturn?
CammieSpectrum 2 years ago
Did you read my posts? I've followed the peer-previewed work and read the IPCC reports. I've read the judgments from NAS, AAAS, ACS, AMS, WMO/IPCC, NASA/GISS, NOAA, EPA, USGCRP National Assessments, etc. etc.. I've followed the scads of (industry promoted) denier arguments.
But HOLD ON, you say - the (non-scientist) Lord Monckton on the (doofus) Glenn Beck's TV show (TV show!), has "destroyed" what the global scientific community accepts, using "actual research from MIT" (oooh - actual!).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago 3
Do I know the silly denier ice cap/solar system "argument"? Of course. Do you know that the radiative forcing from solar irradiance is a full order of magnitude less than from CO2? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing you're clueless what that even means. Question: do you think the world's scientists reached their consensus without pondering "I wonder if we should consider the sun's influence?". If Monckton "destroyed" this with "actual research from MIT", why are the world's scientists not convinced?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago 3
When typical citizens, who could barely pass their one or two high school science classes, think they're in a position to better judge something as complex as climate change than the global scientific community - based on misinformation from the tens of millions spent by multinationals (whose revenues surpass the GDPs of many 1st world nations) on free market orgs, bogus websites, PR firms, campaign contributions, and lobbyists - then the nation is doomed. The sheep can be led anywhere.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago 3
yes, actual research, for everythign else is computer models projecting what they think could be, whereas this research is empirical(actual); it illustrates that the more energy that is coming in(i.e due to increased sunspot activity), the more that goes out, contrary to what al gore's models suggest, which are not empirical..Lord Monckton is a climate expert and was the science advisor for margeret thatcher; al gore won't debate him, and this research is not his either
CammieSpectrum 2 years ago
1) "contrary to what al gore's models suggest" - Al Gore doesn't have models.
2) "which are not empirical" - Data is empirical, but analyzing it properly, for something this complex, involves many judgments with potential errors. This isn't simple like "the model predicted 4 seconds, but the measurement was 50 seconds." Several issues have been raised about Lindzen's paper, but none of them published yet (the paper is just a few months old) to my knowledge. Time will tell if this stands up.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
3) "Monckton is a climate expert" - classics at Cambridge, journalism diploma, worked newspapers and think tanks before advisor. No science credentials at all. Made some silly comments on the show (unclear if he even understood Lindzens paper)
4) "science advisor for margeret thatcher" - False, economics and policy adviser
5) "Al Gore won't debate him" - Hence Monckton is right, Gore and AGW are wrong
6) You ignored my questions, and the ones to tonythatjesusloves where you jumped in
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Much respect 4 Vaclav Klaus.
He speaks his mind.
motoxbuddy 2 years ago
Even Milton Friedman knew that environmental regulation was needed due the problem of claiming property of air space and bodies of water since these tends to drift into other people's property.
If I own a piece of property which has a section of river on it, I don't right to dump crap into the part of the river that runs through my property because the whatever I put into the river will drift and eventually end up in other people's property. Same principle applies to air pollution.
Slug99 2 years ago 2
CO2 is not pollution ... it is non toxic plant food.
stratvic 2 years ago
In high quantities it is pollution. We're not talking about the odd forest fire or volcanic eruption here.
We're talking about 85 million barrels of oil a DAY.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
A decent eruption dwarfs humans meagre efforts.
stratvic 2 years ago
Another red herring. The debate has nothing to do with whether CO2 is a pollutant.
HellWithPoverty 2 years ago
Whether CO2 is a pollutant or a greenhouse gas is an important distinction.
Then the question is what effect CO2 has on climate. The estimates still vary hugely from barely detectable to catastrophic.
The question of whether there is warming or not is another question again. The planet has warmed and cooled throughout its history. Therefore logically there are other causes of climate change other than human activity.
stratvic 2 years ago
Nobody denies that there are other factors, the meaningful scientific consensus is that humans have dramatically altered the course of the planet's climate change.
Sardonac 2 years ago
Thankfully science is not a political discipline where majorities and consensus is not the determining factor. Science has a long history of politically motivated group think eventually overturned with evidence. The scientific method purpose is to thwart majority, consensus, group think, politically driven conclusions in favour of the evidence.
Lets leave the consensus building to the politicians and judge the science on the evidence.
stratvic 2 years ago
That's my point. If the vast majority of the scientific community is in consensus (as they are for evolution and gravity) then it's generally best to act on their claims. And the idea that "we" should be the judges of "the science and evidence" is horribly illogical. Between the scientific consensus of some of the most brilliant thinkers on the planet and plebeians saying "but what about the sun? It's warm" the question of what to act on is obvious.
Sardonac 2 years ago
If you have to reach for a majority decision that's evidence enough that the science is taking a back seat. Evidence does not enable dissent without reason to refute the evidence.
Scientists are uncertain that climate change is being caused by CO2. Less uncertain that we are in a warming period.
Scientists are people who are not afraid to state what they don't know. Politicians try to convince us that they not only know, but that they are the solution, and that therefore we need them.
stratvic 2 years ago
Compare the Wikipedia articles "Scientific opinion on climate change and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and then assert that there's any real dubiety in the scientific community. Before you lavish your adulation on a few lone dissenters, remember, there were scientists advocating phlogiston theory after the discovery of oxygen, and ether theory following the advent of relativity, and there are still biology professors who reject evolution.
nirtseg 2 years ago
The purpose of the cannons of scientific practice is to eliminate human error (intentional or not). The modern (since Galileo) physical sciences have basically no history of politically based group-think. Scientists are generally conservative - not accepting the new until it's been proven in the crucible of repeated intense scrutiny, and not rejecting the theories that have survived that trial until new evidence compels them too. That's VERY different from politically motivated group think.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Re consensus: You're right that evidence is always the final arbiter. However, there is no "Pope of Science". Humanity's current scientific understanding of anything is EXACTLY the collective judgments of the world's scientists knowledgeable about that topic. When evidence "overturns" an existing consensus, what does that mean? It means EXACTLY that there's a NEW CONSENSUS. So when asked about ' humanity's current scientific understanding", scientific consensus is EXACTLY the determining factor.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Science has a frontier that is in constant contention. The core of scientific knowledge is more certain and corresponding less contended. Climate change is on the edge of what we can call knowledge. We should expect constant changes in what we think we know until the science develops.
In the meantime politicians are distorting the process and forming, funding, and using "consensuses" to further their own agendas.
stratvic 2 years ago
"We should expect constant changes in what we think we know until the science develops."
That may be true, but nevertheless it would be prudent to undertake certain modest, progressive measures towards remedying the problem given that an overwhelming majority of current experts prognosticate a potential catastrophe in the relatively imminent future if the problem is ignored. Again, neither I, nor most climate change proponents, are advocating anything radical, baleful, or authoritarian.
nirtseg 2 years ago
What do you consider "modest"?
Taxation? Radically increasing energy generation methods and costs? - reductions in standards of living.
Restrictions on land use/ property rights?
The problem is that the politicians have taken over the green agenda. They will inflate it and use it to further their agenda not yours. They are not restrained by limitations of evidence and do not suffer the restraint of uncertainty. The evidence is in the solutions they endorse as to their motivations.
stratvic 2 years ago
"What do you consider 'modest'?"
Establishing and enforcing industry standards for mileage; implementing tax disincentives for the generation of excess carbon emissions (or, alternatively, subsidizing industrial modernization); investing in the construction of non-fossil fuel-based energy sources; penalizing industries which do not re-forest areas that they cultivate. All to be executed within a reasonable time-frame of years, if not decades, in order to allow for capital reallocation, etc.
nirtseg 2 years ago
You're quite right about the distinction between settled science and research frontiers, and that the understanding of climate processes has many areas of active research. However, with each passing decade of intense scrutiny, the understanding about this issue grows, and the uncertainty in the core position (humans are driving the recent global warming - toward harmful consequences) diminishes (witness the increasing confidence with each IPCC report).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
It's now at a point where every esteemed scientific org on the Earth accepts this core position about human driven global warming. Though many aspects of this topic still have large uncertainties, its central contention is now essentially settled. It would be a shocking, Nobel worthy discovery if some other process were eventually concluded to be "the real primary cause." That has NOTHING to due with any political agenda; that's coming straight out of the scientific community.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
That confidence must be born out in the predictive ability of the models not in the (nobel winning) quality of the construction of those models as they are based on uncertain assumptions that may prove to be false.
Currently they are drawing a blank in the predictive stakes with temperature significantly lower than predicted. i.e. when model meets reality.
stratvic 2 years ago
Re: "when model meets reality"
See "Global Temperature Change" Hansen et al. 2006, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.. It's a paper comparing Hansen's first basic model back in 1988 to what's occurred since. The emissions/volcanic events were close to expectations (Scenario B). Prediction: 0.33 C temp change from 19882005. From the paper: "Observed temperature change is 0.32°C and 0.36°C for the landocean index and meteorological station analyses, respectively." Not bad for 1988's crude first model.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
Actually, the agreement is somewhat misleading - several factors, now better represented, canceled each other to make a remarkably good prediction. Also, it's certainly alone not enough to "prove" the model is a success - it's a short time period by climate standards. None-the-less it suggests that even the earliest simplest models were approximately on target.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Re: Slowed increase this decade
Due to decadal North Atlantic current cycles (decadal, so factor out of long term trends!) recently better understood. "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming." ("Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" Keenlyside et al., Nature 2008.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
The Hadley Center (which deniers favor as its temps come out slightly less than GISS's) agrees: "Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record." ("Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model" Smith et al. Science 2007)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
"The modern (since Galileo) physical sciences have basically no history of politically based group-think."
Plan B?
Nobel for stomach ulcer discovery. Praised for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas.
stratvic 2 years ago
I don't understand "Plan B?". Are you suggesting your example (discovery of bacteria-caused stomach ulcers) undermined my claim (science not suffering politically based group think)? If so, please reconsider what "politically based group think" means. I already described scientists conservative nature on theory preference/confidence; it's not political, but rational. New discoveries modify old views - true, and so what? That does nothing to support a claim of political group think by scientists.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
There are two points; politically motivated conclusions, and group think.
Stomach ulcers: Resisted by established medicine, diagnosis was less profitable/supportable, required a great deal of unlearning, involved a lot of unnecessary suffering by patients, required admitting previous causation and treatment error, eliminated professions.
The result was a lack of research funding, ridicule, being ignored, etc. even though they had credible evidence. It took decades, it should have taken years.
stratvic 2 years ago
I don't know anything about this. If it's as you describe, then I grant you made your point - and produced one rare counter-example to my general claim.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
I should have raised the DDT example.
Credited with killing more than 20 million people. ... and more analogous to the climate change movement.
stratvic 2 years ago
The DDT example doesn't apply to the question we were just discussing. We were talking about scientific group think, but the DDT example is about wisdom of policy decisions, which is a completely different matter. I don't discuss the possible actions to mitigate the harm from human driven global warming, as that's a very different topic.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
Comment removed
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
The SCIENCE ITSELF is under attack by the industry promoted deniers and misinformation/confusion campaigns. That's the disgusting situation that motivates me to engage in this. There's no hope for wise policy so long as the public's understanding of the science itself is successfully distorted and confused by those with huge financial interests in doing so.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
The science should always be under attack otherwise it is not science. Sciences' purpose is to discover new facts (against the consensus). When questioners are derided we are attacking science and undermining the science.
Are you confident we are not repeating the errors of the DDT example? The politicians are running away with themselves on this issue but this time they are going to capitalise on it and institutionalize it. Then try presenting evidence or even doubt to unseat political power.
stratvic 2 years ago
Please... when I used "science under attack", I described it as a distortion/misinformation campaign. That has nothing to do with the ongoing process of scientific research. The "science is under attack" by ideologues and HUGE industries. The target isn't SCIENTISTS; the target is the PUBLIC. The method of attack isn't science; it's propaganda and distortion. The medium of attack isn't scientific journals or forums; it's talk radio, TV, bogus websites, bought politicians, op-ed pages, etc..
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
The issue is politicized on both sides and that is the problem for science. Industries are positioning themselves for political favour as they line up for the wealth and power redistribution the politicians are gunning for. Academics line up to feed off the research grants. Politicians always target the public. The media populise issues and strip out the complexity. Populism drives politics in a self reinforcing system. Businesses tap into that fervour also. Science ultimately suffers.
stratvic 2 years ago
I don't discuss policy options for global warming, but I'll say this much: No, I'm not SURE about anything. It's a tough. But this is life - you have a problem, and some approximate bounds of what this problem will produce - so what to do? Do too little = bad. Do too much = bad. So you try to understand the problem as well as possible, and deal with it as rationally as possible. But you can't be SURE about anything. However, what else is there to do but act as rationally as you're capable?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
We agree.... But shouldn't we get concerned when the degrees of confidence get obscured by politics and the cost benefit equation swings frighteningly away from what we can reasonably say we know. There are real human costs associated with actions already taken yet alone those that are proposed.
How do we now get the politicians to take a deep breath and calmly calculate probabilities, costs, and how do we convince the false certainty of politics and now the public to leave room for doubt?
stratvic 2 years ago
Good questions. For one, listening to the scientific community is the first step in making wise decisions - it's necessary for any hope of making wise decisions! Then comes trying to understand the massively complex social, political, institutional, economic, and psychological realities, to attempt to chart an optimal course. In the US, things are rarely done rationally, it's always too much or too little; it's just the nature of our confrontational, politicians-as-mediators-of-interests system.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
So in the USA, "somewhat close to rational", or "in total, more good than bad" are the best that can ever be hoped for - but we often do achieve that. About acting without adequate knowledge, I think it's more complicated. It's more "risk management", where you have to weigh your best estimates of probabilities of outcomes, and their undesirability, against the costs of mitigating them. That's the basic idea. In theory it's simple math, but the reality is moral and value-laden.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
(cont)
We can't "make" politicians behave as if they aren't politicians - as if they're impartial rational agents working for greatest good. You'll have better luck squeezing blood from a stone. Instead, we should try to use what we know about how politics actually works (and economics, and psychology, etc) to make making good decisions the "natural" outcome. (Aside: the wisest policies don't decree outcomes, but rather structure the playing field so that desirable outcomes follow naturally.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 years ago
I agree that natural outcomes are more likely to be better solutions, are more sustainable over time, and require less force to implement and maintain. However paternal libertarianism without providing for maximum freedom (nature) does not provide a natural decision environment and is not a natural solution and so is prone to human error and system fragility through concentration and conformity to a single solution or set of solutions and is less sustainable than more natural alternatives.
stratvic 2 years ago
Risk management in relation to climate change should be based on cost benefit analysis. Bjorn Lombergs group has done good work here and indicates that climate change solutions are poor value for our limited resources given other priorities.
stratvic 2 years ago
We should not listen to the scientific community until the science is settled. Scientists have a poor record of getting thing right before they get things terribly wrong.
The record on dietary recommendations, smoking, leaches, etc. is instructive.
Our ability to manage, predict, and understand complex systems is extremely limited. Add to your list the climate.
The US problem is the politicians reliance on the constitution as a constraint (that rarely comes) rather than their voting record.
stratvic 2 years ago
Yes, CO2 is a non-toxic chemical, at least in the amount we find it the air. However something is pollution when it disrupts the ecosystem, the fact is that CO2 does cause problem is you release it in large amounts into the air, one of these problems is the increased acidity in water due to CO2 saturation. This raising acidity does cause problems for ecosystems in some places where parts of the food chain is sensitive to rapid changes acidity levels.
Slug99 2 years ago
Still even if CO2 wasn't a pollutant, there are many other things we simply know are very harmful to the environment, things like mercury, sulfur, lead and so on. For example, there was a time when we used a lot of lead in our gas, this lead to increased amounts of lead in nature and our own bodies. Once people realized this we started coming up with ways to limit the amount of lead in gas, we introduced taxation on those who used leaded gas and finally we simply made it illegal to put in gas.
Slug99 2 years ago
People who pollute the air and the sea pollute other people's property as well. Compare it to living in a neighborhood where there is one guy who likes to play extremely loud music at night, this might cause problems for the other residents who might have problems sleeping because of it. Even if the man is doing it on his property, it effects people outside his property in a negative way, thus we don't allow people do play loud music at night if it bothers other people who are living there.
Slug99 2 years ago
Exactly, its carbon. Good for trees.
michalslahor 2 years ago
It seems like the phrase to tack on at the end is: ``...but, I'm not sure it's helpful to compare the two ideologies.''
jhip87 2 years ago
depends how you look at it.The key phrase for me is "centralized control"
motoxbuddy 2 years ago
i really don't think personality matters too much in politics, but i just read a journal about this guy's relationship with 3 young ladies.
this guy is a blonde - predator (a kinda pedo, since he just made love with 3 girls who is their 20s). this is just another inconvenient truth about this disgusting horny guy who thinks with his penis (no offense, he really does)
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
and your point is .....?
ZankDigiTrash 2 years ago 3
he thinks with his penis
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
what? you call a guy who sleeps with 3 women in their 20's disgusting??? I call him a hero! And I'm 26. I hope I get that kind of tail when I'm old.
ArcaneKarma 2 years ago 2
But in the end, either we lose some economic advantages, the world still heats up, but we got rid of the majority of pollution exhaustions. Or we save the world from draughts and starvation, diseases and mass emigrations. Not to mention the low countries from a prolonged swimming session.
wimscheers 2 years ago
EVEN it turns out to be a scam, getting rid of your major CO2 producing fuel sources is useful in many more ways. But as our understanding is now, its not a scam. And the only debate should be if human activity matters theres nothing we can do. And for now science leans towards human activity as a cause.
wimscheers 2 years ago 2
Is CO2 pollution?
stratvic 2 years ago
@stratvic In the meaning of harming our environment in large quantities, yes
barabg 2 years ago
What kind of silly question is that? How old are we, twelve?
HellWithPoverty 2 years ago
well.. silly question is the wrong question I think. This comes from the hoover institute and the interviewer is clearly deeply conservative and I would even argue he´s a corporate shill. Anyways it´s his job to talk down upon the idea of environmentalism and climate change. And in the context of having a czech there.. he wants to compare it with communism. Deeply disingenuous, but that´s how they roll.
Thealazor 2 years ago
No argument here ... other than avoiding discussing the issue through guilt by association and ad hominem rhetoric.
stratvic 2 years ago
Yes, or at least in abnormal quantities. And that's next to; Noise pollution. Nitrogen oxide further affecting the Ozone layer Fine particles affecting health, especially the young and elderly. Acid rain, smog, ... Just start your car in your garage and wait to see what happens. Its quite obvious fossil fuel exhaustion is harmful. Switching to a more neutral solution is never a waste, even if it doesn't stop global warming.
wimscheers 2 years ago
That is CO (carbon monoxide) that will get you in your garage ... not CO2.
Is water, carbon, etc. harmful in "abnormal" / large quantities? Volume is not the only criteria or an answer to whether something is harmful.
If we half the economy (our standard of living) to possibly reduce the temp by 0.5 deg in a 100 years. Is it worth it? ....
Consider the human cost and suffering before you answer.
stratvic 2 years ago
"If we half the economy (our standard of living) to possibly reduce the temp by 0.5 deg in a 100 years."
What a wonderfully and transparently absurd straw man you've constructed. Nobody is advocating that the world's governments unilaterally abolish every industry that relies on fossil fuels, but only that we implement policies which gradually curtail carbon emissions, while simultaneously transitioning to new, zero-emission technologies. There's no horrible totalitarian oppression here.
nirtseg 2 years ago
So you acknowledge that the goal is not CO2 reduction at any cost. Which begs the question .... what cost is appropriate.
Straw man..... The numbers I used are the (roughly) the estimates of the IPCC.
stratvic 2 years ago
The numbers I used are the (roughly) the estimates of the IPCC.
The statistic that you misrepresented is in fact drawn from the outmoded 1995 IPCC report on climate change. The cited figure of a 0.5 degree increase over a century refers to the past century, not future estimates, given the expected rise in CO2 concentrations (even the most conservative, modest projections indicate that a nearly twofold increase is likely), which suggest a rise of 3.5 degrees.
nirtseg 2 years ago
In the mean time temperatures are declining. Perhaps breaking the assumptions on the relationship between CO2 and climate as represented in the models. If the models are wrong so are the predictions.
stratvic 2 years ago
I'm sure a lot of people share President Klaus's POV, and I can understand why they think that. I don't really know that much about global warming anywho.
bjr43 2 years ago
The Czech President is probably the only sensible leader in Europe. Global Warming is a scam. Just follow the money.
1984IcameandIstayed 2 years ago
Totally agree, its a pity, most Czech's don't appreciate his brillaince.
nichaeloz 2 years ago 9
dont worry, czechs with brain appreciate VK as best president we had and about those sheeps voting for social-democratic or communist party nobody cares.
tralalak4444 2 years ago 15
Incredibly stupid.
Environmentalism doesn't seek to restrict the freedoms of anyone... just that the means of getting and consuming power - for example - need to be changed from finite, polluting and foreign-sourced to renewable, non-polluting and domestically-sourced.
How that would be accomplished in a capitalist society and economy would be RADICALLY different than in a Communist or socialist or police state society and economy.
These guys are a waste of bandwidth.
voyeurdug 2 years ago