7 Responses to “global warming is a pile of horse hockey”

1. Jim Manzi Says:
   July 1st, 2007 at 8:56 am

   Here are the two things I’ve previously said about Gore’s claims at Planet Gore, the first about his presentation of the data on long-term CO2 and temperature data in his movie, and the second about his recent Congressional testimony:

   1. Gore’s movie was a bad joke, and he was misleading in the way he presented this information (among many other things).

   2. Gore’s testimony in March followed his typical rhetorical strategy of studied ambiguity about where the science ends and the policy prescription begins, therefore it is hard to know exactly what Gore was asserting about the scientific consensus. He appeared, at minimum, to be asserting that global warming has been responsible for increasing hurricane strength, which is not a consensus point of view. More to the point, I disagree with almost every policy proposal that he put forward, and I am clear about this in my article. I say, for example, that if Gore becomes the Democratic nominee in 2008, then his Republican opponent should wage “an all-out effort to demonstrate the folly of his proposals”.

   Jim Manzi

2. Cao Says:
   July 1st, 2007 at 9:04 am

   Jim you are advocating the same thing by saying the debate is over and that man can influence warming. If two cars leave point A, destined for point B, one at 30 miles per hour and the other at 90 miles per hour, they’re still going to arrive eventually at the same place. All you’re doing is taking another route to arrive at the same conclusion. In your paper you say that “British entrepreneur Richard Branson has offered a $25 million prize to anyone who demonstrates a device that removes carbon from the atmosphere”–and then you suggest - “what if the US government upped the ante to $1 billion and pledged to make the technology freely available to the world? That would hold the potential for solving any global warming problem that might develop…”

   Boy, that’s pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.

   There are several problems with what you say there. One is, some nut in Britain with money to burn is offering a ton of money for something that won’t make a damned bit of difference one way or another. The other is your suggestion that we, presumably the taxpayers, offer a sickeningly large amount of money, for a solution to a problem that you admit in your paper few people even have on their radar and as far as I’m concerned doesn’t exist (except in your world and that of Al Gore and environmentalists). But the suggestion all by itself other than the fact that it’s stupid and ridiculous, lets us know that you think that reducing CO2 into the atmosphere is going to solve a potential global warming problem, if it should come up. That’s based on a pretty big IF. So, CO2 must be the cause, then, right? So you acknowledge that it’s a problem, and you think it’s worthy of an obscene amount of taxpayer money. What’s positively breathtaking is you are suggesting that we throw a billion dollars of taxpayer money at something that hasn’t even been proven to be a problem. How is that different than Al Gore again? Somehow I missed that.

   Another problem is how a developing country needs to go through their own industrial metamorphasis without restrictions that would hold back progress. Developing countries contribute most of the CO2 emissions that environmentalists are having conniptions over, and that includes China.

   Environmentalist concerns are one reason why millions of people have died from malaria–because of the ban on DDT as a result of “Silent Spring”. And DDT, it turns out, although it kills mosquitos, has no effect on the birds the environmentalists were trying to save to begin with. We have seen this course of events play itself out before with disastrous consequences and millions of people have died as a result. And yet, you propose the same thing by suggesting that developing countries should benefit from technologies that would decrease CO2 emissions.

   An excerpt from Forty years of perverse “social responsibility”-By Paul Driessen dated Saturday, March 24, 2007 at Townhall.com:

   Two billion people – a third of the world’s population – still don’t have electricity, for lights, cooking and refrigeration, water treatment plants, hospitals, schools, offices, shops and factories. Women and children are plagued with lung infections caused by wood and dung fires, and by acute intestinal diseases caused by tainted water and spoiled food. Some ten million die from these causes every year.

   But instead of helping destitute families get abundant, reliable, affordable electricity, Rainforest Action Network, Environmental Defense and other pressure groups want banks to withhold funding from coal and gas generating plants, because they would release greenhouse gases. They block hydroelectric and nuclear projects on equally questionable grounds – and then praise Citigroup, JP Morgan and Bank of America for being “socially responsible.” Up to 95% of people in Sub-Saharan countries have no electricity, and these activists and banks are telling them the biggest threat they face is hypothetical climate change. Al Gore personally uses more electricity in a week than 25 million Ugandans do in a year, and Hollywood gives him an Oscar for his devotion to “saving the planet.”

   Environmental Defense is poised to rake in millions from emissions trading credits, through its new alliance with Morgan Stanley, and an axis of anti-developers is telling the Third World: You can’t have electricity. You can’t have refrigeration or a modern, industrialized society. Your future is renewable, sustainable energy – expensive, intermittent and insufficient: a couple of wind turbines near your villages and little solar panels on your huts, to power a light bulb, radio, hot plate and maybe tiny refrigerator. Even if Al Gore and ED are right about catastrophic climate change, their prescription – reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 60-80% over the next few decades – would be disastrous. The ensuing poverty, misery, disease and death would likely dwarf even their malaria records.

   Plus, there’s the problem with giving technology to socialist and communist countries with no open markets. We’ve seen this with new prescription drugs we develop going below cost to prop Canada’s socialized national healthcare system. In order to make the most of development, you must encourage that which increases economic growth and technological progress by means of open markets and capitalism. Giving our technologies away to socialist or communist “developing countries” that have no free markets is a prescription for failure because it doesn’t teach them self-reliance, or help them to develop their own solutions, it just makes them more dependent on us, and in the end, lines the pockets of greedy dictators and bureacrats, and does nothing to improve their already starving economies. But it also lets us know that you believe we’re responsible for global economies, even if they’re communist or ‘developing’ which leads me also to believe you don’t understand the simple concepts taught in economics 101.

   There is little difference between Al Gore and Al Gore lite, even though you claim you disagree with him. As far as I’m concerned, that’s empty rhetoric; what you say in the paper lays it all out pretty clearly. The bottom line is; your conclusion is the same as his, no matter what the path is that you took to arrive there. The most telling admission in your paper is your use of the IPCC’s documentation, the admission that warming is happening at all, crediting manmade contributions of CO2 as the cause, and the solution is throwing taxpayer money at it.

3. meatbrain Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 8:45 pm

   Great post, Cao! One little problem:

   James Taylor is lying. The quote he used doesn’t come from the Journal of Climate at all. Nope. It’s a complete fabrication.

   Funny, how easy it is to sucker you into helping to spread a lie, isn’t it?

4. Cao Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 8:54 pm

   Prove it. I don’t believe anything you say because it’s you who’s saying it. You are like a feces flinging monkey with the word ‘liar’. It is meaningless when it comes from you…it only means you’re having a fit over something someone said. You’re like a child sitting in a high chair, banging his spoon.

   Noted your blog, about “global warming,” but didn’t notice - may not have scrolled down far enough - anything about Frederick Setiz’s “Petition Project.” Right here there are links to the petition against our ratifying the Kyoto “global warming” Protocol, a peer-reviewed White Paper on “Environmental Effects Of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” a letter from him on the subject, an explanation, and an alphabetical listing by last names of 17,200 initial signers. At least 2,000 signers are climatoligists.

   Professor Setiz is a physicist, President of Rockefeller Univ., past President of the National Academy of Sciences, etc. Critics of his project complain that he worked for a tobacco company once, that most of the petition signers are not certified climatologists (the same could be said about the 60 in the U.N. “global warming” group), etc., but his brief biography looks pretty good to me. I wonder how the biographies of his critics would compare……

   Tell me meat-for-brains, how does your biography compare? What are your qualifications to speak against guys like Professor Setiz, 17,200 signers of his petition 2,000 of whom are climatologists? What makes you the expert on these matters? Where are the scientific citations (other than ‘he lied’) for the ridiculous **** you spew?

   And that says nothing of the citations that are used in that article. He’s not “lying”, he’s providing evidence, you’re providing hyperbole.

   So is the November 23, 2003 issue of Nature magazine “lying”?

   Is Chris Lansea’s study documenting hurricane activity lying? William Gray? Is he lying? How about the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters? Is that lying, too? Is the New Scientist “lying”?

   You’re so full of bunk, meat-for-brains, it’s amazing. It’s fun to see you get your designed panties in a wad, though. :twisted::twisted::twisted:

   Is the Journal of Glaciology lying? Is the Danish Meteorological Institute “lying”?

   Is Nature Magazine “lying”? The British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences “lying”?

   Honestly, meaty, you’re so full of ******** it’s unbelievable. Likewise, Manzi doesn’t cite any scientists, either….except for the ones who have bought into the climate change BS.

5. Cao Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm

   meaty, not all articles end up online. All this little ‘gotcha’ proves is that you’re too lazy and stupid to look up the journal in print.

   IT proves NOTHING other than that which we already know…you’re a complete idiot.

   …it’s possible the article has not been loaded on the journal publisher’s web site…

   God skipped you when He was giving out common sense…

   It was pointed out to me that

   He calls everyone who disagrees with the need to abolish the constitution and establish communism a liar.

   bwahahahaha!

   Your argument is an invalid fallacious argument because picking on one thing because it’s not online doesn’t make it a “lie”. All three contentions; that the one thing you picked on is false because you didn’t find it online, and the presumption that it renders the rest of the article and sources cited a ‘lie’, plus the writer of the article a ‘liar’ make all three of your premises false, therefore your conclusion is false.

6. SSgt Yatahey Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 pm

   OMG — you let Meat-Ball throw in a post???

7. Gribbit Says:
   July 4th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

   I see that Meat for Brains has chimed in with the only argument that he ever makes - someone is lying. I could have made book on that one.

Leave a Reply