“Today’s brand of liberalism is really a form of slow societal suicide”

Victor Davis Hanson with wisdom and hope filled prescience:

SuicideOn a wider political level, there is a growing realization that today’s brand of liberalism is really a form of slow societal suicide. We see red states recovering from recession; blue states are still broke. Greece is a mess; so is the entire anti-democratic, statist, and redistributive EU. Keynesian economics is about as dead as global warming/climate change/climate chaos in the age of Climategate, Al Gore, Inc., and a planet cooling over the last decade.

The old idea of open borders is also over. The notion is discredited that teaching new arrivals multiculturalism and ethnic chauvinism, providing them massive subsidies, and ignoring federal statutes was both more humane and more efficacious than the old melting pot of our youth. Solyndra was the epitaph of the lie of “millions of green jobs.” Obama will never utter that now bankrupt phrase again. “Green” means millions of dollars in printed federal money for each job produced, but even far more millions to crony capitalists who hid their malfeasance with hope and change sloganeering.

The Façade Peels Away

Independents are starting to see the end of the latest liberal experiment. Society simply cannot continue paying a half-trillion-dollars to import gas and oil, and hundreds of billions to subsidize inefficient wind and solar, even as known U.S. coal, gas, oil, shale, and tar sands reserves soar — but remain vastly underutilized. The administration’s Energy Department (e.g., gas should reach European levels, people cannot be trusted to buy the right light bulbs, California farms will blow away) is now simply the sibling of the EPA.

Raging Against the Machine

Soon even some mainstream Democrats will grasp the lie. Obamism not only does not work; its fiscal, energy, cultural, and foreign policies result in Greek-like stasis and chaos. It hinges on scapegoating those who say it does not work. Its current anger is sort of like the furor directed at those who were either trying to change or depart from the ossified medieval Church, when altruistic doctrine hides penances, exemptions, and vast estates. 

Let’s all hope that Hanson is correct.

For the country’s sake.

The Middle East And The Cosby Doctrine
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • retired.military

    “Soon even some mainstream Democrats will grasp the lie”

    He has more hope than I do.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Never underestimate the left’s capacity for self delusion.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

    Judging by how the Senate is stalling Obama’s Jobs Bill – I think they’ve started to understand their longevity in their jobs is severely imperiled the more money they flush away chasing idiotic feel-good schemes.

    At one point, all that mattered was intentions.  (And for a lot of the left, that’s still the most important thing.  If the intentions are good enough, pure enough – it doesn’t MATTER one bit what the results of them are.  What’s important is that good intentions are professed.  Good ideas, crappy implementation, epic disaster? Win.  ‘Bad’ idea, excellent implementation, good results? Fail.)

    But we can no longer afford such stupidity.  California’s showing what happens when ‘good ideas’ trump common sense. 

    The sad thing is that to attack the bad results is seen by many ‘progressives’ as attacking their ideas.  (Well, it is – come to think of it…)  And their self-worth is bound up in how right their ideas are.  (Note – the IDEAS matter.  The results?  Not so much.)  By rejecting their ideas, you attack the core of their being, their self-worth.

    It’s no wonder they get pissed off when people go “You know, having seen the results of your plans and policies, I think we’ve had enough and don’t want to throw any more money at them.”

  • herddog505

    Rick RiceLet’s all hope that Hanson is correct.

    Sadly, I don’t think that he is.  The left is AND HAS BEEN intellectually bankrupt for years.  Their big play of statism / socialism is being increasingly exposed as a failure, as indeed it has been seen by many on the right for years.  The only thing that has kept it alive is that, unfortunately, buying votes actually works until the money runs out, and it’s only started to really run out in the past decade.  But the left won’t give up: witness how they cling to the global warming hoax, to the myth that taxing “the rich” just a bit more will save us from fiscal disaster, to the fairy tale that Social Security is and will remain solvent, and the outright idiocy that massive government spending is the key to economic growth.

    And let’s keep in mind that lefty politicians owe their phony-baloney jobs to passing out taxpayer money to their constituent groups: unions, “the poor”, the “civil rights” crowd, the greenies, etc.  People like Bawney, the Simple Man, SanFran Nan, and Bad Luck Barry are hardly going to put themselves out of their cushy jobs; they’ll keep flogging the usual lefty horses to death to get another term in office.

    I suggest that we’re at a crisis point as we were in the ’30s: the world can turn down the path of statism / dictatorship or down the path of economic and political liberty.  I know which road the left will take.  What about everybody else?

  • herddog505

    Rick RiceLet’s all hope that Hanson is correct.

    Sadly, I don’t think that he is.  The left is AND HAS BEEN intellectually bankrupt for years.  Their big play of statism / socialism is being increasingly exposed as a failure, as indeed it has been seen by many on the right for years.  The only thing that has kept it alive is that, unfortunately, buying votes actually works until the money runs out, and it’s only started to really run out in the past decade.  But the left won’t give up: witness how they cling to the global warming hoax, to the myth that taxing “the rich” just a bit more will save us from fiscal disaster, to the fairy tale that Social Security is and will remain solvent, and the outright idiocy that massive government spending is the key to economic growth.

    And let’s keep in mind that lefty politicians owe their phony-baloney jobs to passing out taxpayer money to their constituent groups: unions, “the poor”, the “civil rights” crowd, the greenies, etc.  People like Bawney, the Simple Man, SanFran Nan, and Bad Luck Barry are hardly going to put themselves out of their cushy jobs; they’ll keep flogging the usual lefty horses to death to get another term in office.

    I suggest that we’re at a crisis point as we were in the ’30s: the world can turn down the path of statism / dictatorship or down the path of economic and political liberty.  I know which road the left will take.  What about everybody else?

  • Anonymous

    I think VDH is being somewhat overly optimistic as herddog505 points out.
    Their policies have indeed failed, but instead of stepping back and examining why, they’re absolutely positive that it has to be the fault of someone/something else.

     Either that or there’s so much money to be made via crony capitalism that they refuse to change course. Sadly, that is what I suspect motivates Gore, Pelosi, Obama and others with respect to the overbearing push to a green economy. And yes, Obama will utter yet again the phrase “millions of green jobs”.  Obama (and the left) has never let reality get in the way.

    If they did, their heads would explode.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

    California commiting suicide through Cap & Trade…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/california-commits-business-suicide/

    For the best of intentions – just remember that the results don’t matter when the intentions are good!

  • Anonymous

    that today’s brand of liberalism is really a form of slow societal suicide…about as dead as global warming/climate change/climate chaos in the age of Climategate, Al Gore, Inc., and a planet cooling over the last decade. 

    Is the writer a grade A nutbar?

    If all of you, without exception- I have never met a conservative who had not (Romney was wobbly for a while), nailed their mast to the ship, that anthropogenic global warming is a liberal cult, liberals might take conservatives a litle more seriously, than most of them are not village idiots on science… or politics as a consequence.

    Muller’s views on climate have made him a darling of skeptics,” said Scientific American, “and newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives, who invited him to testify to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology about his preliminary results.” The Koch Foundation, founded by the billionaire oil brothers who have been major funders of the climate-denial machine, gave BEST a $150,000 grant….

    Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Yesterday, BEST confirmed these results and others…In the press release announcing the results, Muller said, “Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK.” In other words, climate scientists know what they’re doing after all

    .

    Muller, who was a leading sceptic,(I suppose he is vilified now as a liberal turnocoat) is, officially off the reactionary reservation, on the most important issue of our day, that all of you occupy with zealous stupidty, ever since you first heard of global warming or climate change.

    • jim_m

      *Global temperatures have not increased over the last decade and do appear to be declining.  Go look at the data.

      *Global temperature was higher in the middle ages than it is today.  The warmists tend to overlook or outright deceptively ignore this fact since it eviscerates their claims that man and nothing else can be the cause of warming. 

      *The most recent Cern CLOUD Study demonstrated that ALL climate models are incorrect as they grossly underestimate the effect of cosmic radiation on cloud formation. 

      *The whole of the climate change community was shown to be a bunch of frauds with the ClimateGate email scandal.  Warmists like to talk about the legality of how the emails were obtained and ignore the collusion taking place in hiding bad data, suppressing papers that contradicted hem and even interfering with the tenure of other academics.  This ceased to be science over a decade ago.

      • Anonymous

        I remember on a much bally hooedwizbang post, July 28,2011The new findings… should dramatically alter the global warming debate” the global warming hoax, blah blah 63 comments, including mine that the study was pretty suspect, that it was bad science, and should never have been published and the inevitable update over five weeks later a month  buried with no comment from the wizbang editors. or retraction..
        The editor of a science journal” has
        resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate
        change should not have been published.

        The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and
        William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections
        of temperature increase.
        It was seized on by “sceptic” bloggers, but attacked by mainstream
        scientists.
        Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with
        their criticisms and is stepping down.
        “Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science,”
        he writes in a resignation note published in Remote
        Sensing.
        “Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a
        rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to
        identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.

        Fat chance any of the editors at wizbang will every resign for given bad information bordering on disinfornation time after time they pass on. as real science or fact based.

        • jim_m

          The problem is that when you have already read the climategate emails and seen how top researchers in the field have leveraged their influence to depose editors of journals in the past this whole thing looks like more of the same dirty politics.

          Peer review doesn’t mean that the science is perfect or that the data was especially good.  It just means that it is presented well and they used credible methodology. 

          Still you avoid my points about the middle ages and the CLOUD study.  You can add to that the claims that the Himalayan glaciers were melting and that the polar ice cap would be gone by now.  I also have yet to see a single Pacific island slip beneath the waves.

          All the predictions that the climate fanatics have made have not materialized.  It’s all about controlling people and not the least bit about climate.

          • Anonymous

             JIM M”While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions” from  Simple rebuttals to denier talking points — with links to the full climate science the Cloud study , i Ihave addressed before , the scientist authors of that study say that it is far too early to see if there are any implictions for global warming.

          • Anonymous

            Greenland is not called that because it is covered in ice and cold year round Steve.
            Hundreds of years ago it was green and the climate was much warmer. See if you can explain away why it got colder prior to the “Industrial Revolution” and the influence of “Man made warming”.

            Don’t strain yourself.

          • Anonymous

            that was no strain, I already knew the answer, but in case you don’t know from wikipedia …
            The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumoured to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland (“Greenland”), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.
            Greenland was also called Gruntland (“Ground-land”) and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt (“ground”), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glaciers) is relatively green in the summer.

          • herddog505

            Yep.  The hoaxers are forever denying the last study to “prove” that AGW exists because they’ve always got a shiny new one.  The latest – “accidentally” funded by the Koch Bros. no less – is alleged to be “proof” of AGW.  More, it’s by an alleged skeptic / “denier” who has seen the light and now admits that he was wrong all along:

            Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data.

            Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, contrary to what he expected, the existing temperature data was “excellent.” He went on: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” And, today, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the team’s two-page summary flatly concludes, “Global warming is real.”(1)

            As one would expect, this report is getting quite a lot of ballyhoo (google “richard muller global warming” and you’ll see).  And that ballyhoo appears to be deliberate.  Anthony Watts writes:

            … I knew that behind the scenes, they were planning a media blitz to MSM outlets. In the past few days I have been contacted by James Astill of the Economist, Ian Sample of the Guardian, and Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times. They have all contacted me regarding the release of papers from BEST today.(2)

            But there are a couple of problems.  First of all, this landmark, groudbreaking, total proof, you-deniers-can-suck-it paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.

            There’s only one problem: Not one of the BEST papers have completed peer review. [emphasis original - hd505] (2)

            Watt also explains the what he sees as the glaring technical in the Muller papers, which cast doubt not only on their accuracy but even (IMO) upon the integrity of the authors.

            Further, though Muller is being touted as a “denier” who has seen the light, he is actually no such animal:

            Brad Plumer of the Washington Post overlooked that rule in reporting that an alleged global warming skeptic is now a convert — because the “skeptic” in question — physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley — embraced the theory of man-made global warming 30 years ago. An online search easily disproved his claim of skepticism. He co-authored a book, “Physics For Future Presidents,” that explained climate change among other things. Now he has re-branded himself a former skeptic — the better to sell global warming.(2)

            If I had a nickel for every time some scientist in the past twenty years claimed to have “proved” the existence of global warming, I’d… I’d… I’d be able to pay the student loan debts of those OWS loafers.

            —–

            (1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html

            (2) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/

            (3) http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/44855

          • Anonymous

            Which is it? Do you accept the cachet and credibilty of  peer reviewed articles or not? Because if you do, all the featured global warming articles are peer reviewed, and none of the  global sceptic ones are, as far as i know.

            Best, set up by sceptic, Mueller, and funded  by  Koch brothers and invited by the Republicans on the  Congressional Conmitteee on global warming issues a study that is  is not peer ‘viewed, so you consider it non credible, while wizbang in a couple of gaudy posts, bashing Al  Gore  trumpet  the Roy Spenser study, that  global warming is dead etc..basing their position on a non peer reviewed article which was later  trashed by the editor of the geographical science magazine it was published. in (he later resigned in embarassment)

            ,You guys are like your friends  the birthers or truthers, and your evidence  is just as imaginary.. You can’t even get what few scientists or editors, who believe the earth is not warming by humans on board. you are left with God would never allow etc  I am beginning to understand what  Galileo, Darwin  or Loius Pasteur must have gone through to have their theories accepted  by the those who preferred faith over reason…

          • herddog505

            1.  I actually am a scientist (chemist), so I have some small familiarity with the sort of crap that people believed in the past to be incontrovertable scientific fact.  You cite Gallileo, Darwin and Pasteur: do you realize that they debunked what was the orthodoxy of their time?  They were, to use a current term, “deniers”.

            2.  As a scientist, I also know about measurement uncertainty.  It’s a bit hard for me to believe that we KNOW the average temperature of the earth with any degree of certainty, and it’s even harder to believe that we KNOW how much it’s changed given the fact that many of the recording stations have moved, been adjusted, been deleted, or their local environments have changed during the course of their lifetimes.  Further, I know about time scales: the earth, we believe, is something like 4.5 billion years old.  We’ve been measuring temperatures for only about a hundred years (the thermometer is only about 250 years old, IIRC).  That’s not much data upon which to base such a breathtaking conclusion.  And yes, I know about the ice cores.  How many data points is that?  And how reliable are those data?

            3.  As a scientist, I know that there is never a last word.  What we KNOW today can be reduced to a laughable fable tomorrow by one good experiment.  When somebody starts yapping about “consensus” or “the science is settled” or goes to various lengths to villify skeptics, I get more than a little suspicious.

            4.  As a scientist, I know the value of evidence and what constitutes good evidence.  Such things as articles from hiking journals or a non-peer-reviewed “paper” from some global warming advocate do not rise to that level.  The same may be said for models: one doesn’t base conclusions on models until they have been rigorously demonstrated to work, which means backed up by real-world data.  The climate models do not remotely meet this requirement.

            5.  As a scientist, I know about the necessity for transparency (unless there are patent issues involved).  When scientists hide their data or refuse to divulge their methods, I get very suspicious.

            6.  As a scientist, I knew the value of prediction.  When a theory predicts something – melting glaciers, melting ice caps, sinking islands, etc. – and those things don’t happen, it’s a pretty good indicator that the theory is flawed.  Given that we can’t predict the weather more than a week or two out with any certainty, it’s absurd to believe that we can predict GLOBAL temperatures decades in advance.

            7.  As a scientist, I know that one doesn’t rush to “publish” in the Washington Post or Time; one publishes in a peer-reviewed journal.

            8.  As a rational human being, I know that one doesn’t take drastic action because of a very shaky theory.

            9.  As a rational human being, I know that, when people are making a fat pile of cash off some “theory”, it’s a good idea to start questioning* that theory.

            Finally, Watt uses a good phrase: “pal review”.  We know that climate science is corrupt, that a handful of so-called scientists have engaged in (ahem) back-scratching or outright intimidation to get their articles through the peer review process.  This has been a huge blow to science and should make the cheeks of every real scientist burn with shame.  This is NOT what we are taught to do in school.  However, the lure of fame and fortune has turned many a head in the past; it’s a lot easier to go along with the accepted orthodoxy and get the grant money than it is to buck the system and get the ridicule.

            —-

            (*) Questioning, as in THE core principle of science.

          • Anonymous

            Impressive, Herddog. Steve seems to have fled the field.

          • herddog505

            Thanks.  It really does p*ss me off that these “scientists” have been engaging in such unethical behavior.  It’s one thing to have competing / conflicting theories.  It’s quite another to try to fight out these conflicts in the popular media, ESPECIALLY when such huge political and economic questions are involved.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            Perhaps it’s especially BECAUSE such political and economic questions are involved.  (Shrug.)

            Re measurement uncertainty – that’s one thing that bugs me about all this. If while collecting data you ignore the quality of your data, ignore such things as the variability of the sun, and seem to see the world as being as smooth and homogenous as a steel ball bearing, what you’re going to end up with as far as a useable result will be more science fiction than science.

            But if it’s not a usable result you need, then TLAR numbers will do nicely.  (TLAR?  That Looks About Right…)

          • Anonymous

            herddog505 the ice core data is very reliable and accurate , like carbon 14 dating . What you really seem to object to is climate science itself 

             “melting glaciers, melting ice caps, sinking islands, etc. – and those things don’t happen, it’s a pretty good indicator that the theory is flawed. Given that we can’t predict the weather more than a week or two out with any certainty, it’s absurd to believe that we can predict GLOBAL temperatures decades in”.
            It may be absurd to you, but it is what climate scientists predicted for the first decade of the 21stcentury. and was born out, .a  small precursor of what is to come..

            Climate change,such as  ice ages or.global warming took place over centuries or milleniums in the past, but it has happening at much faster rate.now .The last great warming period, fity six miilion years, PETM, also because of ‘the burning of fossil fuels’, the breaking upf continents, the, ralease of methane from oceans which quickly converts to C02. It , took two hundred thousand years  to bring the fever down  Do yourself a favor and  buy the july edition of Scientific American.  Of course It is not happening overnight as you imply .There are no sinking islands yet  but a good portion of  glaciers have retreated. in just a few decades .
             
            And if you want to know what the future will be like, look at Australia, its floods and droughts of the past year  or just the drought of Texas. They are  the canaries in the coal mine of global warming. 

          • herddog505

            Oh, ABSOLUTELY!  Why, there have NEVER been droughts in Texas or Australia before!

            / sarc

            As for what climate scientists predicted… well, when you predict everything under the sun, you’re sure to be right sooner or later.  They also predicted no more snowfall in Britain.  More and stronger hurricanes in the Atlantic.  The total disappearance of the Arctic ice pack.  Drowning polar bears.  Sinking islands.  Etc., etc.  And how many “tipping points” have we gone past?  What was the most recent excuse for why the warming stopped?  Something about sulfur particulates from Chinese coal plants?  Jebus…

            One place that the gorebots failed is assuming a static earth: “The earth is like this, has been for practically forever (i.e. the past ten years), and if it changes AT ALL, it must be due to global warming!!!” It’s amusing to me to read about “ZOMG!!! Glaciers retreating!!!” and then read about what’s found in their wake: frozen flowers and other evidence to indicate that (surprise, surprise!) the glaciers had “retreated” before.

            Another screwup is the deliberate confusion over the difference between “climate” and “weather”.  This allows them to claim that a dry spell in Texas is proof – UNASSAILABLE proof, I say! – of global warming, yet heavy snowfall is “just weather”.

            And, while I’m at it, let’s consider what they call this phenomenon.  Forty years ago, it was global cooling, a new Ice Age.  Then it was global warming.  Then, climate change (because – dang it! – the earth didn’t get hot enough, fast enough to scare people thoroughly enough and it was starting to become embarrassing).  I’ve even heard it called “climate disruption”, so that ANY weather event, from a heat wave to a blizzard, can be attributed to it.

            It’s as jim_m says further down the thread, this isn’t science because it’s non-falsifiable: ANYTHING is “proof” of the phenomenon.

        • retired.military

          Steve

          The authors at Wizbang arent chasing millions in govt funds either.  Follow the money.

          • herddog505

            Exactly.  Plus, ain’t it funny how the left will INSTANTLY condemn a “denier” as “in the pay of Big Oil!”, but never stop to ponder that the climate scientists who support AGW are hardly doing their work pro bono: somebody’s paying them.  Nothing wrong with scientists being paid, of course, but when the subject they study is a political hot potato, it’s well to (as you say) follow the money.

    • Anonymous

      Steve Crickmore,

      I am a conservative.
      I am also a scientist.
      The “Great Global Warming Panic” does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. The data does not support the hypothesis. All of the computer models do not support the theory. The entire hypothesis was not subject to the scientific method.

      Your attack is one that a “grade A nutbar”,liberal would make, and I expect an apology.
       

      • jim_m

        Like most of what liberals consider to be science it is not falsifiable.  When it gets warmer it is global warming.  When it gets colder it is global warming.  If we have severe weather it is global warming.  When we have dead calm weather it is global warming.  Drought or flood it is global warming.

        AGW is used not to predict anything but as an all purpose explanation for why things are the way they are.  In that it is more religion than anything else.

    • Anonymous

      Steve, how about a deal?

      And I am fairly serious. You mention a host of data that proves, or “proves” that global warming is real. Perhaps conservatives can be convinced to really and truly take that more seriously.

      And how about MY host of unimpeachable data, that proves that socialism, and Keynesian economics is a catastrophic, monstrous, titanic, gargantuan failure of the highest order that has brought untold and uncountable misery, pain, tyranny, death, and oh, um….. let’s not forget, major environmental destruction for going on 100 years now. Allow me to present my data – I’ll start now and wrap it up around next Monday.

      So how about a deal – We conservatives will start being much more accepting of your argument if liberels and the left become at least as accepting of the latter.

      Deal? Waddya say?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      crampless asks:

      Is the writer [Victor Davis Hanson] a grade A nutbar?

      A textbook case of projection!

  • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

    Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/

    The GISS dataset includes more than 600 stations within the U.S. that have been in operation continuously throughout the 20th century. This brief report looks at the average temperatures reported by those stations. The unadjusted data of both rural and non-rural stations show a virtually flat trend across the century.

    And from the comments…

    Bigdinny says:
    October 24, 2011 at 4:48 am
    I have been lurking here and several other sites for over a year now, trying to make sense of all this from both sides of the fence. In answer to this simple question, Is the earth’s temperature rising? depending upon whom you ask you get the differing responses YES!, NO!, DEPENDS! IT WAS BUT NO LONGER IS! I think I have learned a great deal. Of one thing I am now fairly certain. Nobody knows.

    One thing to take into account – the environment is NEVER static. Over the course of a year where I live I see a 90+ degree (f) temperature swing. By AGW standards, this whole state ought to be dead as a friggin’ doorknob.

    Gaia ain’t a fragile damsel – she has her ways, and the creatures that inhabit her adapt when it gets too warm or too cold. It’s only mankind that seems to have a solid obsession with attempting to maintain an invariant environment no matter the cost to his own species.

    • jim_m

      If the trend is flat that really means that it is declining since surveys are showing that over 92% the stations themselves are skewing the temperature data by a degree or more. That includes 64% that skew it by 2 degrees and 6% by more than 5 degrees.  http://www.surfacestations.org/

      It’s not science and even if it were it would not be good science.

      • herddog505

        And yet the gorebots ASSURE us that they can measure a global temperature rise down to tenths of a degree Celsius.  Jebus…

        This may explain part of the problem.  I invite all readers, especially those who buy into the AGW garbage, to look at the photos of some of the weather stations.  Some are in parking lots.  Others are sitting above air conditioners.  Hence – surprise, surprise! – they show INCREASING temperatures.

        http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Many elected Democrats know their policies are crap.  But they can’t get nominated by their Party if they admit it, so they have to swear allegiance to crap every day.  This is nothing new.  As former Treasury Secretary William Simon wrote, after being raked over the coals for show by Senate Democrats – who refused to postpone the committee hearing even though Simon was bleeding from an accidental cut which would require stitches to close – he was caught on the Capitol steps by Hubert Humphrey who apologized, saying, “Sorry, Bill, it’s just politics.”

    Despite Crickmore’s desperate attempt to hijack the thread and jump start the global warming scare, if you look at the historical temperatures for the last half million years, you will see regular cycles of Ice Ages lasting 60-80,000 years, separated by warming periods of 10-20,000 years.  The high and low temperatures for all these cycles form nearly perfectly straight lines, and we are now about 18,000 years into our current warming cycle.  The next Ice Age is coming, so if human activity can warm the globe, we should be doing more of it, not trying to stop it.

    Of course, THAT wouldn’t be an excuse for government control of the economy, so we shouldn’t look at it.

    • herddog505

      Well, in all fairness, Hansen was yapping about global cooling and an ice age about forty years ago, which (surprise, surprise!) required IMMEDIATE government intervention to forestall.

      Until he decided that the world magically wasn’t actually starting to freeze over (due to smog, as I recall), so it HAD to be getting hotter, which (surprise, surprise!) required IMMEDIATE government intervention to forestall.

      Hmmmm… Am I alone in sensing a pattern here?

      • jim_m

        And the IPCC acknowledges that even IF we were to immediately end all carbon emissions today the effect on global climate would be to reduce the average temperature less than half a degree, which is such a slight difference that out current technology could not even verify it.

        Like all things favored by the left this is ultimately another scheme for redistribution of wealth and power. Nothing more.  Nothing less.

  • jim_m

    All the warmists should go and read the 1975 Newsweek article at this link: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age

    “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change
    is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy
    of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely
    unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key
    questions.”

      But the left will have you believe that in just a couple of decades we have not only figured out what those key questions are but we have answered them so thoroughly that all science is settled on the matter.

    Settled.  Just like it was settled when the earth was the center of the universe.  Just like is was settled that the sun was the center of the universe.  Just like it was settled that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, until two weeks ago when we learned that maybe something could.

    The left is inherently anti-scientific and disposed to believing what they are instructed to by authority.  Had they followed their “scientific leaders” 35 years ago they would have actually created something closer to man made global warming than what they complain about today.  Morons.

    • herddog505

      A small quibble: the left is not anti-scientific.  If I may coin the term, they are ascientific: they neither believe nor disbelieve, but rather use science to suit their own ends.  In this case, it suits their ends to claim the mantle of science, to cast themselves as the cool, rational empiricists calmly and logically standing firm against the voodoo quackery of the deniers.  But if you start talking science about the inherent inefficiencies of certain green technologies (e.g. windmills, solar panels, ethanol from corn, etc.), they are no more interested in science than a witch doctor or a Dominican inquisitor in Spain.

      • jim_m

        Speaking of “The science is settled” http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/38943/?p1=MstRcnt

        Researchers demonstrate the non-genetic inheritance of traits.  What we learned in school about Lamarkian inheritance being false is being proven false as our understanding of the complexities of inheritance grows.  No it isn’t exactly what Lamarke postulated, but it isn’t Mendel either.  It creates a serious challenge to all our current biological models.

        People want surety and all science offers is “This is the best we can do today to explain the world. Tomorrow we will know better”.

  • retired.military

    rick
    “Today’s brand of liberalism is really a form of slow societal suicide””

    Well since Orland Bob Armstrong got banned (again) we dont have a really good example showing up to proof your accusation.

    • Anonymous

      There are plenty of examples. Just look through the old threads.

  • Pingback: “Today’s brand of liberalism is really a form of slow societal suicide” | My Blog

  • Anonymous

    “Mainstream Democrats” by whose definition?  There’s a supposedly moderate Senator in Virginia who, conventional wisdom aside, may well be exposed come 2014 …

    http://www.ombudizen.com/2011/10/25/looks-like-tarzan-plays-like-jane/

  • Anonymous

    herddog505, the ice core data is very reliable and accurate, like carbon 14 dating. What you really seem to object to is climate science itself:

    “melting glaciers, melting ice caps, sinking islands, etc. – and those things don’t happen, it’s a pretty good indicator that the theory is flawed. Given that we can’t predict the weather more than a week or two out with any certainty, it’s absurd to believe that we can predict GLOBAL temperatures decades in”.

    It may be absurd to you, but it is what climate scientists predicted for the first decade of the 21st century. and was born out, .a small precursor of what is to come..

    Climate change ,such as ice ages or.global warming, took place over centuries or milleniums in the past, but it is happening at much faster rate.now .The last great warming period, fity six million years, PETM, also because of ‘the burning of fossil fuels’, the breaking up of continents, the, release of methane from oceans which quickly converts to C02. It , took two hundred thousand years to bring the fever down. Do yourself a favor and buy the July edition of Scientific American. Of course It is not happening overnight, as you imply .There are no sinking islands yet, but a good portion of glaciers have retreated. in just a few decades .

    And if you want to know what the future will be like, look at Australia, its floods and droughts of the past year or just the drought of Texas. They are the canaries in the coal mine of global warming.

  • Anonymous

    herrdog. we are talking overall incremental patterns just moving the spectrum a litte, or more than a little, each decade. the .there are and will be more snow  storms as  warmer air moves more northerly meeting colder arctic air.. austraila an entire continent is better example  of a petri dish climate change, what is in store for many regions in entire globe? Climate Change & the End of Australia

    • herddog505

      I shall try to resist with might and main the urge to be snarky for a change and simply ask you to read what you’ve posted. 

      1.  “The climate is changing slowly.”  Yes, just like it has since the earth came into existence.  Trying to posit that “it’s GLOBAL WARMING!!!” is a bit like the rooster claiming that the sun comes up because he crows.  The best the AGW crowd can do is that it’s going faster than… um… er… they think it ought to, even though nobody really knows how fast it has done this in the past.  As I wrote above, we simply lack the records to say what is and isn’t normal in the earth’s history (even assuming that the earth always naturally warms and cools in a nice, predictable, consistent fashion).  I further suggest that we cannot accurately measure on a global scale the relatively tiny temperature changes that the AGW crowd assert are “proof” of their goofy theory.

      2.  “More snow storms because the earth is getting hotter.” Seriously: do you realize how this reads?  It’s getting HOTTER so we’re getting more SNOW???  Further, the AGW crowd was predicting LESS snow not too long ago.  So, which is it?  Or shall we just punt and mumble about sulfur particles from Chinese coal-fired power plants?

      3.  “Australia’s going to disappear or burn up or flood or something equally terrible!” First of all, this assumes that Australia has always been exactly as it is now, which is absurd.  Hence, it presumes that whatever has happened to the weather in Australia over the past couple of decades is “unprecedented”, which is equally absurd.  Even worse, it supposes that SUV’s and incandescent lamps and power plants and cow herds are the culprit.  Further, we don’t really know what Australia was like beyond more than a couple of centuries in the past because nobody was there who could or did keep written records.  Finally, floods are dicey evidence because flooding is affected by man-made / created conditions in the river’s path / flood zone.  The same may be said for wildfires, another disaster that the AGW crowd likes to link to global warming.  Never mind that fires are perfectly natural phenomena, or that they can be AND ARE exacerbated by poor forest management; if a large area burns, it MUST be global warming.

      By the way, is the Australian government urging its citizens to evacuate the continent before it’s too late?

    • herddog505

      Oh, and I must say that I just LOVE how the author of your Rolling Stone article starts out:

      I have come to Australia to see what a global-warming future holds for this most vulnerable of nations, and Mother Nature has been happy to oblige: Over the course of just a few weeks, the continent has been hit by a record heat wave, a crippling drought, bush fires, floods that swamped an area the size of France and Germany combined, even a plague of locusts. “In many ways, it is a disaster of biblical proportions,” Andrew Fraser, the Queensland state treasurer, told reporters. He was talking about the floods in his region, but the sense that Australia – which maintains one of the highest per-capita carbon footprints on the planet – has summoned up the wrath of the climate gods is everywhere.

      Shorter: I went to Australia looking for signs of global warming, and darned if I didn’t find exactly what I was looking for.  Whodda thunk it???  Oh, and the Aussies are getting exactly what they f*cking deserve, the carbon pigs.

      I wonder how this wanker got to the Land Down Under, anyway.  Sailboat?  Dugout canoe?

  • Anonymous

    I have given up on Steve Crickmore.

    He apparently will not apologize, and continues to parrot the liberal talking points.

    One wonders if the “grade A nutbag” that is Steve has ever asked why the so-called “climate experts” never include the effect of variable solar output in their climate models.
    One wonders…

    Of course, one could wonder why I expected more out of Steve.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      What took you so long?

    • Anonymous

      Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically
      explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs, there are several empirical
      observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global
      warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of
      the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is
      bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of
      the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.

      It’s not the Sun

      As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar
      influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past
      century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

      “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part
      is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

      • jim_m

        That’s right Steve because the sun only effects climate on other planets.

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

        Sheesh!

        “The problem is that Earth’s atmosphere is not in thermodynamic
        equilibrium with the sun,” Duke associate research scientist Nicola
        Scafetta explained in a Duke University news release. Moreover, “the
        longer the time period [that the Earth's atmosphere is not in
        thermodynamic equilibrium] the stronger the effect will be on the
        atmosphere, because it takes time to adapt.”
        Examining a 22-year interval of reliable solar data going back to
        1980, the Duke scientists were able to filter out shorter-range effects
        that can influence surface temperatures but are not related to global
        warming. Such effects include volcanic eruptions and ocean current
        changes such as El Niño.

        Applying their long-term data, the Duke scientists concluded, “the
        sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the
        1980-2002 global surface warming.”

        “[Greenhouse] gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought,” Scafetta observed.

        http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2005/11/01/mars-warming-nasa-scientists-report

        That means at least 10-30% if not more is due to the sun and that was before the data came out about the solar effect on cloud formation which further suggests that current climate models are worthless.

  • Pingback: Anthropogenic Global Warming Revisited | Wizbang

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE