The Great Montpelier Cool-Aid Party
MONTPELIER — Two leading voices on climate change…full story here
“The mid-case scenario — not the worst case — for what we can expect is a further 5 degree temperature increase in this century. That’s warmer than it has been since the beginning of primate evolution,” author Bill McKibben of Ripton testified.
[snip]
“Since the beginning of primate evolution” says he. Really?
Does McKibben have verifiable records from the Olduvai Gorge? If you look here you will find facts contrary to given opinion without asking Melvin and Lucy Australopithecine.
McKibben was the lead-off witness in a series of hearings called by Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin and House Speaker Gaye Symington to advance their plans for significant anti-warming legislation. The hearings are unusual because so many lawmakers — members of eight committees — are devoting so much time to a single subject.
“Climate change is the single greatest challenge — the single greatest catastrophe — our children and grandchildren will face,” Shumlin said as the session began. He and Symington also emphasized that they see the climate-change challenge as an economic oppurtunity for Vermont to build a thriving sector of alternative-energy, energy-efficiency businesses.
There is a reason alternative energy is so named: Wind, solar, geothermal, and water power were replaced with a power source more reliable. If this were not so, oil and coal would be the “alternative” energy source.
The greatest threat to our children and grandchildren is junk science. When you hear and see “the computer model” shows… then you know you are dealing with guesses. An informed guess is still a guess.
Far too many individuals with no expertise, create local warming by blathering about how their opinions should be graven in stone. We peons should listen to the consensus of the sui-generis poobahs, after all they have our best interests at heart.
Scientists say human use of fossil fuels is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an insulating blanket that raises global temperatures and sets off feedback loops as glaciers and sea ice melt at ever-faster rates.
[snip]
McKibben, author of essays and books on global warming, and Pittsford climate scientist Alan Betts outlined the scale of changes needed in human behavior to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Sprawl, the Circ Highway — they are global warming machines,” McKibben said, because they encourage or require more driving in autos that emit carbon dioxide as they burn gasoline.
[snip]
McKibben and Betts were clear on one point: There is decisive scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring.
[snip]
Earth’s average temperature has warmed 1 degree in the past century.
The average temperature rise actually ai .3 deg. Celsius. (NOAA records) If you use the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia U., be aware that they changed their data in 2004. They dropped all temperature data prior to 1880, making the global temperature rise seem much sharper.
The solutions, he assured lawmakers, don’t mean “we have to lead miserable lives huddled in caves.” Western Europeans lead lives very similar to Americans, yet do so using 50 percent less energy, he noted.
Nuclear energy is in widespread use in Western Europe; France produces 90% of its electrical power via the atom, Germany between 65 and 70% and recently decided to continue using the atom. Finland is building a new nuke facility.
The greatest user of alternative energy is Denmark producing just 8% of its total power that way. From a country that small, 8% amounts to nothing, the rest of Western Europe, counting all alternative sources, range from 3% in Great Britain to 5% in the Netherlands. The EU uses quite a bit of power. They are not doing without!
This attempt to control economies and countries will rise above the fiascoes of Alar, silicone breast implants, gun control, the evils of coffee and movie popcorn. It isn’t science; it is religion.
Archived in: Environmentalism, Europe, France, Germany, Global Warming, Gun Control, Religion, Science, Vermont
January 13, 2007 at 8:38 pm | Trackback
33 comments
“It isn’t science; it is religion”.
Indeed, and the sacrament includes the consumption of coal miners.
Lucy Australopithicene’s sub-classification is Birdus Sheilapithecus. Really, mate.
Stick a mic in an idiot ‘er Professors face and he’s and instant expert. Our failed educational system is now the most dangerous thing in the world.
The UK Telegraph ran a couple of articles last month on the subject. One of the more interesting facts was that by using the algorithm that produced the famous “hockey stick” showing temperature rise, you get that result with nearly any input. Scientists used white and red noise inputs and still found a spike beginning in the 1950’s!
The Chinese have records of sailors crossing the north pole in the 15th century, finding no ice pack.
And Greenlands glaciers are thawing, and dropping tropical plants, showing this isn’t a first, or probably last time temps will do this.
Someday man will realize we don’t control everything on the planet. That will be something to see.
More manure from the statehouse. There must be a field somewhere that needs fertilizing.
Now that McKibben got his “wilderness” on the national forest I guess he has to devote his boundless energy somewhere. Oh, wait a minute, let’s harness him to a turbine!
Imagine if VT has as much nucular generation as France? The greenines would be apoplectic.
when GISS (see above, Goddard Institute) dropped the temperatures prior to 1880, they eliminated the Medieval Warm Period and the Minature Ice Age of the 14th and 15th century. These “Inconvenient Truths” allow for the formation of the hockey stick so beloved by the myrmidons of the global warming druids.
(See posts 12/9/06 Consensus & 12/23/06 Cow emissions for other info)
Antarctica’s ice is growing not melting. Proof resides with the breaking off of floes which are created by pushing ice out to where it can break off. Do you remember not long ago how the druids worried about the penguins having to cross more ice to reach open water. How can that be with everything in the world melting.
“Someday man will realize we don’t control everything on the planet.”
These individuals just want to control what you do!
It’s also strange to me that whenever ice forms and melts on my little pool, the water level remains the same unless I shovel snow into it. Can I stop worrying that East Haddam will be ocean front? Worried in CT.
Its pretty unfortunate. You don’t like the answer so its basically ‘junk science’? Sure, science about the past is never a complete known - but there’s solid science behind it involving actual measurements of actual ice content when you dig deep into the artic and antartic ice shelves. It gives estimates of both temperature and carbon dioxide contend in the air for millennium.
A couple small details of the ‘hockey stick’ graph were questions by the scientific bodies (basically, is this the hottest or nearly the hottest we’ve ever been?). There is no doubt however, that each time in the past the temperature has increased, carbon dioxide has increased along with it as well. And there’s no doubt that mankind is now creating substantially higher levels of carbon dioxide than every before and that the contents of it in the atmosphere are climbing higher and higher?
Is this an absolute certainty? Of course not, basically nothing is when dealing with areas like this. But the science is pretty darn good and basically unanimous. The only people objecting are the ones that are financed specifically to do so.
Besides, it seems to me we can chose to do something, and be wrong, in which case, oh well… what harm has really been done? Or, we can chose to do nothing and be wrong, and millions of people and millions of square miles will be lost and trillions in property value. Which way would your rather err?
> It’s also strange to me that whenever ice forms and melts on > my little pool, the water level remains the same unless I
> shovel snow into it. Can I stop worrying that East Haddam
> will be ocean front? Worried in CT.
Yes, because your ice is floating. You realize that there’s land under antarctica, right? Not to mention the land under the millions of square miles of ice on Greenland. And all sorts of smaller examples around the globe (northern Canada, etc).
Fundamentally misunderstanding.
Well, Fred, it IS “junk science”. And thanks for the science about my swimming pool. It was a joke.
Oh yes, Fred. There is also “doubt” about the direct correlation you dismiss between heat and the presence of carbon dioxide. But, enough about the facts.
Let’s get to practicalities What’s your solution? Kyoto?
Back again, Fred. Greenland is 840,000 square miles. If it were entirely covered by ice, it couldn’t be “millions of square miles” of ice. Maybe cubic miles. This is how junk science spreads from liberal to liberal.
Rhod, could you share any details on this doubt? They seem to be remarkably well-correlated in the studies I’ve seen, but I’d be willing to listen if you could explain more detail and/or provide a source.
Okay, so my ‘millions’ were an guestimate - I knew it was a lot :). I didn’t bother to look up the square mileage of Greenland while hanging around in my pj’s on a Sunday morning/afternoon.
As for practicalities, I don’t know about Kyoto. I understand the complaints. But there are plenty of other things. My company has been on move this year to cut back on energy usage. Our site has cut back about 10% total for the year, saving significant money and doing well for the environment. Some things are things which cost an upfront fee like our installation of lighting that has motion sensors so it turns of if you leave your office for a while, or new windows that are more heat resistant. But some things are basically entirely free, such as them updating all our computers so the monitors turn off quicker after non-use, or just sending around email reminding everyone to turn off computers for the night and the weekend, unless otherwise necessary.
I also believe we should invest more and have goals for green energy sources - to protect against energy shocks to our economy at the same time that we reduce our environmental footprint. Unlike most liberal, I’m equally for nuclear energy as I am for wind, water, ethanol, etc.
Energy usage may correspond to economic activity, but pollution need not. And by creating a whole new economic segment we will stimulate economy growth while at the same time doing the right thing. I won’t feel any worse for the dirty energy companies if they’re replaced by clean energy (or, preferably, adapt themselves), than I do for the buggy makers who were replaced by automobiles.
The carbon allowance market exchange is also a great idea that is worth expanding.
All in all, I certainly know that we do not have rock hard proof of exactly what will happen going forward. But we never will until its too late. I’d rather risk being wrong on the cautious side than play it easy and be wrong then.
Fred, I hope this gets through. I keep posting and Comcast keeps dying before I’m done.
I’ll try again. All the things you’ve suggested make sense for reasons other than man-induced global warming, so I don’t understand your complaint. Warming is almost certainly taking place. What remains in contention is the degree attributed to human activity, and the statist solutions proposed to alleviate conditions not yet proven.
Your safe harbor mindset is harmless enough with the kinds of economic changes you’ve discussed, but agreements like Kyoto have no effect on the potential pollutants emitted by the growing industrial giants of India and China, and never will. And at best, I can only find that carb/dox levels account for about 10% of the noticed changes since 1979. There are other things happening, and it’s not “unfortunate” that conservatives are pointing them out.
I will try to find the source that notes irregularities between carb/dox levels and warming periods. It’s my understanding that vastly colder periods were accompanied by extremely high carb/dox levels…which doesn’t dispute the correlation but suggests that other factors are a work. We don’t know.
The sun could account for up to 30% of the noted changes, but we are absorbing more energy now when energy reflection and earthshine is very high, suggesting differentials due to cloud cover that we haven’t begun to understand. Formulae for calculating potential sea rises also vary from one inch to eight inches in one-hundred years, and there are also varying opinions on the dissolution of ice masses in Greenland and Antarctica. The Left has politicized this; not The Right. We have no figure comparable to Al Gore, whose personal context is as shaky as his science.
The question for conservatives, and it should be a question for you, is what the state’s role should be in enforcing regulation and social change simply on the basis of scientific enquiry, when some of the “science” has risen to the level of theory while skipping the hypothetical.
fredct, have some more Cool-Aid.
I figured you would stand up for politicized science, aka consensus /junk science. Look two posts newer for more science by consensus embraced by liberal and progressive thinkers, like yourself for instance.
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R7
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
“Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.” The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
“To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality.”
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
1-14-2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence.
Installing renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage.
Fine Jay, I believe in White Supremacy through gene manipulation and sex on demand from any and every woman I ask. I believe this with a passion far hotter than the sun so that it becomes reality!
Does that make it right and good? Possible?
How about the tooth fairy? Where does he fit in? (Don’t be sexist)
Brevity, Jay. Brevity. This is Blogland, in the hills of Soundbiteland. Whenever I hear “mandates”, I feel the acid of self-interested government burning my skin.
Sex-on-demand and White Supremacy are very overrated. They’re the answers to “Daddy, where do trailer parks come from”, explain any episode of “Cops” and it’s on a sign next to the Rotary Club wheel of Plant City, Florida.
> I’ll try again. All the things you’ve suggested make sense for
> reasons other than man-induced global warming, so I don’t
> understand your complaint.
Sure, generally its a double bonus if you can pick something tha,t that does multiple goods, right?
My complaint? Well, see below.
> Warming is almost certainly taking place. What remains in
> contention is the degree attributed to human activity, and
> the statist solutions proposed to alleviate conditions not
> yet proven.
I understand, and I’m not saying we know absolutely for sure. As I said before, by the time we have absolutely unarguable proof, it’d basically be too late. But I’m not going to stand here and say there’s not a shadow of a doubt, because that’s just not the way these things work.
What I am saying is that I have heard plenty that establishes a strong correlation. And I’d rather not see what happens if we chose to ignore it rather than play it safe and respond to the apparent danger.
My complaint, is that those who would rather not see government involvement (which is a perfectly valid opinion), rather than stating such, generally try to create doubt in the science, which the scientific community has studied and generally reaffirmed.
I will gladly listen to counter arguments on the science, and I do hope you can share some because I’d be interested to see some that you think are strong. But the scientific community has heard these and still reaffirmed the result. That says a lot to me.
It doesn’t mean that I or they or anyone knows for sure. Science is not about and doesn’t claim the absolute truth - and neither do I. But it is saying that the studies were solid, the answers based in reality, and its the best we know for now. We can debate the appropriate response all we want (or even none at all), but that doesn’t make the science junk. If it is ultimate wrong, I’d rather find out after having taken precautions, than the other way around.
> Look two posts newer for more science by consensus embraced
> by liberal and progressive thinkers, like yourself for
> instance.
Unfortunately the new post is a typical ad hominem attack. It doesn’t attack the facts or the studies, it merely attacks the character of those supporting it. In fact, it goes one step further and attacks the character of those who supported something else that it posits is similar.
Eugenics wasn’t wrong or bad because Hitler and Stalin may have supported it. Their support or lack thereof has no impact on the factual status of eugenics.
Could I not make the same argument about what I see as junk science - intelligent design? (in fact I’d argue its not science at all). Could I not then say that Hitler and Stalin liked junk science, so they’d probably love intelligent design, so intelligent design is bunk? (or pick any other example of evil people - I assume the religious leaders of Iran are no fans of evolution, does that somehow validate it?)
There may be many arguments about why ID is bunk, but attacking the character of people who supported something similar does nothing to prove it.
Okay, Fred. Prove why “consensus” in science is acceptable as fact. However you feel about these horrible ad hominem attacks, explain the inaptly named scientific method, and where is applies to GW. Show your work.
And when does caution become and excess of caution, and what does that expression mean?
And finally, you’ve confused my post with VW’s. You can’t honestly build a case on anything with disparate elements, like global warming.
Tell you what, Fred. We can end this in your favor if you answer a simple compound question.
With the science you understand to be true, what portion of global warming is attributed to human activity, and if we accomplish all the goals you’ve set to stop it, will that save us from catastrophe?
It all comes down to that.
Here is a quote from one of the persons you think I attacked.
“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
~~ Louis D. Brandeis
More hellacious damage has been accomplished by limp willy do-gooders, from the Inquisition through liberal thought. fredct, you are arguing for enslavement to a religion.
Typical liberal tripe with the ad hominem attack; the other post directly attacks the idiocy of group think, not the individuals involved. I do wonder why so few spoke out against the “scientific” practice. Hitler came late to the practice, which started before the turn on the last century.
With global warming, the numbers tossed around are abused; they are taken out of context and bent to fit the hype.
Earth, fortunately, isn’t like your abode where you can “do” preventive maintenance. However, no one is stopping you from living a druidic style. Bierkenstocks in a New England winter leads to glorious asceticism only if you ride a bike. Go for it! HOWEVER, if you believe in preventive maintenance, start with the charcoal burners in Vietnam, China, Africa, and the Philippines. Then stop the burning of the forests in Indonesia and Myammar. That will give you something to do for the next century. Worrying about the U.S. is masturbation.
Dragging ID in to this discussion obsfucates the argument against politicized science. Eugenics+global warming=science by consensus. Both are/were agenda driven which invalidates the solutions; the reason is grant money not science in the case of global warming. Or phrased another way, it has become advocacy science
BTW, from your above statement, do you advocate practicing a wee bit of Eugenics?
I missed that one, Woody. Read between the lines, Rhod. Fred, would it have been safer over time, to have eliminated the asocial personality up front, rather than wait to measure the effects of his/her dysfunction?
> Prove why “consensus” in science is acceptable as fact.
Do me a favor first, define ‘consensus’ science.
If by that you mean science that is based soley on what a bunch of people think and not hard scientific research, then I think you have misjudged GW greatly. The science is based on actual measurements of the content of icelayers that were formed over years in the artic regions.
If you mean that it is science which is peer reviewed and people comment on it to improve the methodology, well, that’s all science, and that’s exactly how it should work. Having peers review, comment, criticize or back, and repeat your work is exactly the kinds of checks and balances that a scientific process needs.
So what exactly does ‘consensus’ science mean?
> With the science you understand to be true, what portion of
> global warming is attributed to human activity
I don’t think that’s a question that even has a fundamental way to answer it, at least as far as proving it goes. Tell me, how could that question ever be answered?
You’re right, there are plenty of other factors in play, including the sun, etc. I don’t see how its even potentially possible to conclusively answer that. And I am not saying that anyone has.
But the facts as I have read up on them are as follows:
- temperature and carbon dioxide content throughout history (as determined by actual measurements of ice layers) correlate together very well (if you want to provide a study otherwise, I’d be glad to take a look).
- carbon dioxide temperatures in the past 150-200 years are rising substantially to levels higher than anything measured before
- that corresponds directly to the time period of the beginning of the industrial revolution and substantial deforestation of the new world - both of which have logical direct connections to carbon dioxide numbers
- temperatures have begun rising significantly to follow the carbon dioxide levels to a point that is one of, if not the higher, temperatures we’ve ever had (according to the same data)
Could the cause/effect be completely, 100% without a doubt proven? I don’t see how. Could you suggest a way? This is science, not a mathematical prove. This is dealing with evidence, connections, and theories, not rock hard undeniable certainty.
Could it be that all of this is just a fantastic coincidence since the sun or some other unrelated factor happens to be occurring at the same time? I don’t see how that could ever be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But nor do I want to find out what happens if we assume it is and are wrong.
It’s been suggested in this thread, apparently, that mankind cannot effect the environment, and that we’re awful self-centered to assume we can. What about the hole in the ozone layer? Acid rain? Existinction of species? Loss of wetlands? Human behavior absolutely does have an effect on the environment, just like it has in the past and will in the future. Argue the evidence of GW if you want, but to throw it out on some categorical denial doesn’t add up.
hey fred — come on pal, tell me what you think of Jay’s prescription!!!
Wow, where’d that guy come from — and where’d he go?!?!?
Personally, I’d love to put a windmill up at my house. It might heat my water, I dunno, but for sure it’d piss of my neighbor, and I owe him one.
> hey fred — come on pal, tell me what you think of Jay’s prescription!!!
Who’s Jay?
I blame it on the bad acid twenty-five years ago.
> I blame it on the bad acid twenty-five years ago.
In the womb?
Or, the crib, I guess.
Uh, I was ribbing Wavemaker. Maybe you’re making a joke about his age. I hope so.
I thought you were responding to my not knowing who ‘Jay’ referred to. Nevermind. Carry on.
Rhod.
It was a LOT longer than 25 years ago.
Man, that’s when we kept it in tortoise shell snuff boxes.
[…] post by Vermont Woodchuck Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and […]