Despite our comfortable materialistic lives, there are many who ask: Is that all? They want a meaning for life and yearn for a spiritual life. Some follow the traditional religions, others embrace paranormal beliefs and many follow a variety of spiritual paths.
A new religion has been invented: Environmentalism. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of Christianity and socialism. This environmental religion is terrified of doubt, scepticism and uncertainty yet claims to be underpinned by science. It is a fundamentalist religion with a fear of nature. It has its own high priests such as Al Gore and a holy writ, such as the IPCC reports. Like many religious followers, few have ever read and understood the holy books from cover to cover.
Like many fundamentalist religions, it attracts believers by announcing apocalyptic calamities unless we change our ways. Its credo is repeated endlessly and a new language has been invented. Logic, contrary data or questioning are not permitted. Heretics are inquisitorially destroyed.
It states that now is the most important time in history and people are told that humanity is facing the greatest crisis in the history of time. We must make great sacrifices. Now. This religion uses thinking out of the Judeo-Christian tradition: If the world has been destroyed, then we humans are to blame.
This new age religion tries to re-mystify the world, a world that its adherents neither experience nor try to understand. The apocalyptic doomsayers promote their new religion with seven second television grabs. A disunity between religion and science is created. The science that derived from the Enlightenment and which bathes in doubt, scepticism and uncertainty is willingly thrown overboard.
Contrary facts are just ignored. Enthusiastic reporting by non-scientists is undertaken. They report new science with alarmist implications yet there is no reporting of contrary information. Non-scientific journalists and public celebrities write polemics that encourage public alarm.
The environmental religion produces widespread fear and a longing for simple all encompassing narratives. It offers an alternative account of a natural world with which adherents have little contact.
Environmentalism embraces a myth of the Fall: the loss of harmony between man and nature caused by our materialistic society. It searches for the lost Eden, which probably never existed. In the ‘good old days’ there was only struggle, starvation and unemployment, not harmony with nature. Environmental evangelism has ritual and language that have substituted substance.
Over historical, archaeological and geological time, there have been thousands of global coolings and global warmings. Global coolings have always depopulated the Earth. We are the first humans ever to fear a warm climate.
Environmentalism exacerbates disease and food shortages and destroys economies. It is a highly flawed religion. Its morality and ethics are questionable.
When the environmentalists recognise the religious aspects of their stance, then real discussion with other scientists becomes possible. Until then, they are just like the creationists who claim that their stance is scientific when their very foundations are religious and dogmatic.
The contradictory religion of environmentalism has given people a purpose in life and, despite ignoring all the contrary science, this religion provides some of the stitches that hold the fabric of society together.
Traditional religious life and practice is experience. Traditional religion tries to make sense of what’s happening to us now and gives us the mechanisms whereby we can have hope for a meaningful life, in spite of its disappointments. Religion gives us the mechanism to cope with failure.
Environmentalism cannot provide for these needs.
This is an edited version of a speech given by Ian Plimer at the IQsquared debate ‘We’d be better off without religion’ on Sydney on August 20, 2008. Ian Plimer is Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne and Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The lonely stretch….round and round we go….yawn
Just curious. Is this an atheist site? Even if I’m not very religous ( I never visit church) , methinks there are many good words of wisdom in Christianity, like ” Father , forgive us our sins , as we forgive them that have sinned against us”
Re environmentalism , it must be far better that young people hang around in NGOs , such as Greenpeace ,than snorting coke in a bar and dreaming about to be a new Kate Moss.
Good post. I’m not trying to steal any thunder from Ian’s post, rather I think this link to Michael Crichton’s site strengthens it:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
Anyone following the link might read Michael’s view on global warming under ‘Speeches – Case for Skepticism’.
All the environmentalists I know are atheists.
There is no need for environmentalism to act as a religion as environmentalists don’t need religion to get through their daily lives.
Also I am interested in how people define a religion because I don’t see how environmentalism can be defined as a religion.
in the dictionary.com it is defined thus:
re·li·gion
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
(so no go here, as there is no superhuman agency)
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
(the beliefs of environmentalists are not agreed on, nor is there any specific set of beliefs)
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
(again, there is no set of beliefs)
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
(Don’t see how this applies)
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
(No rituals for environmentalists, faith not required)
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
(But devotion to what exactly? Environmentalists are devoted to something in particular)
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
(No vows in Environmentalism)
Why do people think it is a religion? Why do people think AGW is a religion? Anyone got a rationale?
Ann, you appear to be assuming those are the only two options available, become a junkie or become a greenpimp. It is like justifying paedophilia on the basis that it is better than mass murder.
There has always been a better way, that of being reasonable men and women in possession of the relevant facts. Plimer is spot on.
Gordon all his speech shows is Michael Crichton’s personal opinion. He uses a lot of analogy, but fails to outline the actual belief system (because there is none). Environmentalism is not codified, there is no fundamental text or source of information. He claims “…I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form.You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.”
Which is to say that his own beliefs and world view are a religion… Which is pretty stupid. It’s such a loose definition that any belief system becomes a religion. Anti-AGW belief becomes a religion…
This is his proof that Environmentalism is a religion:
“There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.”
This is stuff he just made up. He just added some environmental type statements to the Christian Religion and says that’s proof. It’s very poor logic. There is no Eden state that’s understood by Environmentalists… He just made it up. He seems to imply here
“there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.”
That Environmentalists are anti-knowledge. Completely bizarre statement considering that the MOST intelligent people generally are concerned about the environment.
Michael Crichton is simply playing the political Wedge game. He just tries to make it clear that there are these people, who think different, who are irrational, and are bad.
It’s simplistic nonsense.
Ian Plimer is spot on. Nor should we be surprised if authoritarian personalities are attracted to this new religion. There are noticeable historical similarities between extreme ‘environmentalism’ and the Nazi Party of the 1930s. Nazism, with its crooked cross, was a substitute for religion. ‘Sieg Heil’ was another way of saying ‘Hosannah’.
I believe Heinrich Himmler would carefully avoid stepping on worms, and Hermann Goring was the ‘Reichsforstmeister’, with capital punishment the penalty for killing eagles. Interestingly, neither seemed to have much problem with killing humans.
I am a ‘greenie’, in the sense that I spend time as a volunteer clearing up rubbish, removing weeds etc. I do care about the plants and animals, but not to the exclusion of humans.
I have noticed, in our small group, the occasional appearance of strange people, with burning eyes, who want to drop pamphlets in people’s letterboxes, telling them the ‘correct’ way to live. Others favour an eco-informer approach, dobbing the neighbours in for removing a dangerous tree, or burning a pile of leaves. This is described as ‘educating the community’. Violence is not far below the surface. I know of one case involving criminal trespass and assault.
Australia has a good tradition of political and religious moderation. Authoritarian zealots, who would impose their views on everybody, must, like invasive weeds, be recognised and removed.
Is ‘climate change’ just a more powerful form of ‘waldsterben’?
I find crap like this quite encouraging. Obviously AGW proponent’s scientific arguments are having an effect for Pilmer to be resorting to a pathetic attack like this.
At least with this there is no peer reviewed science to debunk what he is saying. If anything it is sign of complete and abject failure to be able to carry an argument against AGW in a scientific manner so why not resort to the meta-physical. Bit like the nu-physics that is so prominent on this blog.
Ann said…”Just curious. Is this an atheist site”?
Ann…I may be agnostic, don’t really know, but I don’t go to church either. The word ‘religious’ means ‘to be serious’, and as you no doubt are aware, many religions are not very serious. I am respectful of people who practice their religion with a respect for others.
My granny was religious but she was the live and let live type and did not push her religion on others. I think the comparison of environementalism to religion is based on those religions who take their faith to zealotry. They are not happy having their faith, they have to enforce their rhetoric and dogma on everyone else. There’s no having a discussion with people like that; their minds wont allow alternate points of view.
If you take Greenpeace as an example, they use rhetoric and their own particular dogma to sway public opinion. In Canada, we produce oil in northern Alberta from oil-impregnated sand, hence the name Tar Sands. Greenpeace wants the projects shut down and make up incredible stories about the Tar Sands environment.
I have worked there for months on end and it is nothing like Greenpeace describes it. I’m a unionist and not a fan of companies or corporations in general, but the Tar Sands companies like Syncrude and Suncore are very conscientious about the environment. There are heavy fines in place for polluting, or harming wildlife.
In places where oil is taken directly from the ground, the site is going to look ugly for a while, but the companies go to great pains to make sure wastes don’t contaminate local rivers or groundwater. No one is allowed within several hundred feet of the Athabasca River, which runs through the Suncore site. I have never had problems with breathing the air on the sites and an air filter is never required unless one is working directly in the main extraction building.
Greenpeace tells tall tales about massive lakes of polluted water that kill wildlife. Horsefeathers!! The tailings ponds are small and systems are in place to discourage wildlife from landing on them. Last winter, an unusually large snowfall disabled the systems and some ducks were killed on a Syncrude site for the first time in more than 30 years. I have never seen wildlife of any kind harmed and I’ve worked around the tailings ponds. In fact, I got a great kick out of a family of foxes that showed up in the morning to play among a huge network of oil pipes.
That’s what articles like this are getting at. I wont call environementalists out and out liars because I don’t think they see their dogma as lies. Many of them are zealots, however, akin to religious zealots. I think many of them live in a fairy tale world where science has been bent to suit their dogma. That’s why Al Gore is so popular with them.
Whereas I wouldn’t want to see young people snorting coke in a bar, I think they may suffer brain damage of another kind hanging around with or listening to Greenpeace.
Gordon, is this your definition of religion?
“The word ‘religious’ means ‘to be serious'”
To tar all environmentalists with the same brush as the people you encountered through Greenpeace is ridiculous.
Have you actually done much work on Tailings dams??? Do you actually know anything about them? Done any work on hydraulic conductivity? Or diffusion?
What is a ‘small’ tailings pond, as in how small is small. I find your arguments less than convincing.
Religion is simply the old way of doing politics – environmentalism is an updated version.
Reading Lawrence Gardner’s “The Magdalen Legacy” shows most religions as being essentially politics – people need to behave in presribed manners as dictated by authority.
I am pretty relieved.
It seems that no one actually has a definition they apply to the term “religion” – so pretty much anything is a religion if you call it one.
That’s really Postmodern of you all. I didn’t realise that this site was actually PoMo!
NT said…”All the environmentalists I know are atheists”.
NT…you ‘may’ be missing the point of what Crichton is saying. Right off, he says that he cares about the environment. When he talks about environmentalists, he’s claiming they are ‘urban atheists’, so he’s not implying they are religious or need religion. He’s saying they don’t have the spirituality that religious people have so they have invented a basis for one.
I admit his words are a bit flowery, but this is a speech, not an essay. Crichton’s concern seems to be world poverty and hunger, and he seems opposed to the more activist environmentalists because he sees them as literally taking food out of the mouths of the poor via Kyoto.
I was particularly annoyed to see the likes of Bill Gates and Bono in Africa talking about the need for an AIDS vaccine and drug cocktails. Where were those rocket scientists years ago when Africans needed clean water and food? They didn’t give a hoot about Africans till the World Health Organization declared an HIV epidemic in Africa based on a computer model. The are only now beginning to admit the models has exaggerated.
Doh!! Where have I heard that before? Gates and Bono are dogmatists who get emotional about a controversial virus, then they are willing to invest in poisoning people. That’s the kind of thinking Crichton is getting at. He’s not saying environmentalists are religious, he’s saying they are behaving like them with their dogmatic substitute for religion.
I certainly don’t think all people who care about the environment are environmentalists. I think the latter are a creed who have appointed themselves saviours of the Earth. I care about the Earth but I don’t want anything to do with a dogma or an organized movement. I really hate the smugness of crowds like that.
Well, it might have a number of similarities to religion, but I wouldn’t go so far as to put it in the same category.
It’s more of a philosophy, in the misanthropic Malthusian mold, if you ask me.
[Of course, there are degrees of degradation, from the “mainly harmless” to the “fundamentally dangerous”, as there are with other religious/racial/political/etc. outlooks on life.]
Gordon
“He’s saying they don’t have the spirituality that religious people have so they have invented a basis for one.”
So what is it? What is the basis?
And you say that it isn’t a religion, but behave like they are in one.
So what is it about their behaviour that is relgious?
I think you are just lumping a group together and applying a label without any actual understanding of the people you are grouping. This is because it is easier for you to just group them together so they are all wrong.
“I think the latter are a creed who have appointed themselves saviours of the Earth.”
What does this mean? They are a ‘creed’? Where does anyone say the are “Saviours of the Earth?” – and is that what constitutes religious behaviour?
“I care about the Earth but I don’t want anything to do with a dogma or an organized movement. I really hate the smugness of crowds like that.”
What is their dogma? Can you describe it? Is it written down somewhere? How smug?
It’s kinda sad when someone thinks that because he’s a skeptic he has to support other people who also call themselves skeptics. Not really very skeptical thinking at all.
NT said “Gordon, is this your definition of religion? “The word ‘religious’ means ‘to be serious'”
NT…I used the word ‘religious’, not ‘religion’. Religious means to be serious. So, if you practice the fiddle religiously, you are practicing seriously. I have no idea why the politics, as Louis puts it, became known as religion. Maybe they think that being devout implies being serious, and maybe in certain cases it is serious. But the behavior of religious people over the centuries has been far from serious.
Of course, you have to take into account the state of the human mind. Some people have a high degree of awareness, like Ghandi. I think Ghandi was serious. Other people are programmed from birth to belief and act in a certain way. Although they see themselves as being devout, they have relegated their natural intelligence to the back burner, and intellignece can manifest itself as love and compassion. The Inquisition and burning of witches hardly came from a compassionate, intelligent mind.
No…I was not defining religion, I was talking about what the word implies, not the way it is usually practiced.
Gordon – “I’m a unionist and not a fan of companies or corporations in general, but the Tar Sands companies like Syncrude and Suncore are very conscientious about the environment. There are heavy fines in place for polluting, or harming wildlife.”
Doesn’t look too good from here:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&msa=0&msid=104421756458551111190.00043934cd857e1f56cc6&ll=56.999241,-111.581268&spn=0.26216,0.54245&z=11
Not sure those tailings dams are that small. Also at the moment the Tar Sands only output 1.2 million barrels per day. Can you imagine how had it will be when 10 million barrels per day are produced?
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/OilSands72.pdf
“Water used for extraction at oil sands
mines ends up in tailings – a slurry of
bitumen, water, sand, silt and fine clay
particles – that is pumped to tailings
ponds. While commonly referred to as
ponds, these enormous bodies of water
and the dykes that contain them are
some of the largest human-made
structures in the world. Collectively,
they cover an area of land greater than
50 square kilometers.124”
I guess this is just another lefty greenie report.
“The National Energy Board characterizes
the problem of managing
fluid fine tailings as “daunting” – the
volume of fluid fine tailings produced
by Suncor and Syncrude alone will
exceed one billion cubic metres by
the year 2020, enough to fill 400,000
Olympic-sized swimming pools.137
If a company were not able to cover
the cost of cleaning up tailings ponds,
these costs could become major
public liabilities.138”
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
(so no go here, as there is no superhuman agency)
gaia/mother earth is the superhuman agency. human’s must conduct their lives in ways that do not change gaia from its original state.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
(the beliefs of environmentalists are not agreed on, nor is there any specific set of beliefs)
All negative changes in climate must be blamed on humans. People who refuse to adher to this code are denouced as hereitics.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
(again, there is no set of beliefs)
The IPCC is the world council for environmentalism. Beliefs are justfied by referencing this IPCC dcouments.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
(Don’t see how this applies)
Some people choose to impose hardship on themselves by living a “low carbon” lifestyle. Such people are admired by other environmentalists who realize they cannot hope to achieve that level of holiness.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
(No rituals for environmentalists, faith not required)
Carbon credits purchased to offset invidual actions. Sorting the recycling.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
(But devotion to what exactly? Environmentalists are devoted to something in particular)
Environmentalists have repeatly insisted that we must preserve the planet as it was and that any change is bad and must be denounced and reveresed. People who disagree with them are called immoral and compared to slavers or nazis.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
(No vows in Environmentalism)
To minimize ones carbon footprint.
Gee. I thought the religion analogy was a but over the top but when you go through the definition line by line it is really clear that the AGW catastrophism is a religion
James Houghton said …”It’s kinda sad when someone thinks that because he’s a skeptic he has to support other people who also call themselves skeptics”.
James…it’s you who is calling us skeptics. I don’t see myself as being anything in particular. I’m very aware of identifying with causes.
I find it frustrating at times when people tell me what I am. Mind you, I’m not overly sensitive to anything, but every once in a while I wish others could see me from the inside. 🙂
There’s the old saying from Burns, which loosely translated says, “Oh, would some power the gift to gee (give) us, to see ourselves as others see us”. I wish sometimes he’d written that from the perspective of someone observing us.
BTW…do you want me to respond to that last HIV/AIDS post you made? I think the site you gave me is a load of cobblers but it would take some time to gather the information that counters it. I would have done it already but I fear you’d be unmoved.
Raven,
The Gaia hypothesis is not an appeal to a supernatural being or entity.
“All negative changes in climate must be blamed on humans. People who refuse to adher to this code are denouced as hereitics.”
This is something you made up.
“The IPCC is the world council for environmentalism. Beliefs are justfied by referencing this IPCC dcouments.”
Again it’s something you just made up. The IPCC actual references other documents. It doesn’t start with the IPCC as it does with the bible.
“Some people choose to impose hardship on themselves by living a “low carbon” lifestyle. Such people are admired by other environmentalists who realize they cannot hope to achieve that level of holiness.”
More ridiculous speculation, give us an example – who is admired? Where is this hardship codified?
“Carbon credits purchased to offset invidual actions. Sorting the recycling.”
Sorting the recycling is a sign of religion? I thought it was more to guarantee that you didn’t have a pile of garbage left out the front of your house. And how is that an observance of faith? More made up stuff.
“Environmentalists have repeatly insisted that we must preserve the planet as it was and that any change is bad and must be denounced and reveresed. People who disagree with them are called immoral and compared to slavers or nazis.”
When has this ever been insisted? By whom? What does it even mean? Again you are just making stuff up.
“To minimize ones carbon footprint.”
More making of stuff up.
Oh I get you Raven, you’re being Socratically Ironic! That’s the only explanation for the lack of evidence!
“Environmentalism exacerbates disease and food shortages and destroys economies. It is a highly flawed religion. Its morality and ethics are questionable”
What pompous crap!
In fact the whole speech as presented above is crap. I hope nobody paid to hear it hey
“The Gaia hypothesis is not an appeal to a supernatural being or entity.”
>> Sophistry. Gaia is an entity in the environmentalist credo that is indistiguishable from many traditional deities.
“All negative changes in climate must be blamed on humans. People who refuse to adher to this code are denouced as hereitics.”
This is something you made up.
>> Then explain that constant attempt to denigrate skeptics as “deniers” or “flat-earthers”. The use of moral code words to attack others is a tactic used by all religions.
“Sorting the recycling is a sign of religion? I thought it was more to guarantee that you didn’t have a pile of garbage left out the front of your house. And how is that an observance of faith?”
>> Recycling most things costs more and is actually worse for the environment. Going through the motions anyways is a act of faith.
“Environmentalists have repeatly insisted that we must preserve the planet as it was and that any change is bad and must be denounced and reveresed. People who disagree with them are called immoral and compared to slavers or nazis.”
When has this ever been insisted? By whom? What does it even mean? Again you are just making stuff up.
>> You go to be kidding. Don’t you listen to alarmist rhetoric? It is full of allusions to nazis, slavery and other morally repugnant things.
Here is an example: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/08/rewriting-slavery.html
“Most of us approach slavery with the underlying assumption that our modern civilization is morally far superior to the barbaric slave-owning societies of the past. But are we really so different? If we compare our current attitude to fossil fuels and climate change with the behaviour of the slave owners, there are more similarities than one might immediately perceive.”
“To minimize ones carbon footprint.”
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/bookreviews/2007/070518/
“Freelance writers in Vancouver, BC (MacKinnon’s a former editor of Adbusters), the pair set themselves stricter parameters than Kingsolver and her family’s. Dubbing their project “the 100-Mile Diet,” ***they vow to eat only food and drink sourced from within a 100-mile radius of their home for a year*** — with exceptions granted for socializing and travel.”
>> There you go – the vow and monks in the same example.
All of my claims are easily verifiable. I have given you a couple links to demonstrate that point. AGW catatrophism has taken on all of the aspects of a religion whether you want to believe it or not.
Ian Plimer said:
“This new age religion tries to re-mystify the world, a world that its adherents neither experience nor try to understand”.
So true. And so sad.
They wouldn’t know the environment if it lept out and bit them and it’s this lack of knowledge that prevents them from being sceptical.
The predicted apocalyptic disasters are all backed up with computer modelling, which to them is the new gospel.
Well just remember, “It ain’t necessarily so”.
Raven,
“>> Sophistry. Gaia is an entity in the environmentalist credo that is indistiguishable from many traditional deities.”
This is bollocks and shows you don’t actually understand the Gaia Hypothesis. It is a hypothesis, and doesn’t include anything supernatural. Show us the Credo, Raven. Where is it?
“>> Then explain that constant attempt to denigrate skeptics as “deniers” or “flat-earthers”. The use of moral code words to attack others is a tactic used by all religions.”
This is dumb. In any argument a tactic is to denegrate the opposition. It’s not a defining characteristic of religions.
“>> Recycling most things costs more and is actually worse for the environment. Going through the motions anyways is a act of faith.”
This is something you made up. Where is the study? And people recycle without it being anything to do with religion. Recycling is not evidence of religion. You need to think more when you argue Raven.
“>> You go to be kidding. Don’t you listen to alarmist rhetoric? It is full of allusions to nazis, slavery and other morally repugnant things.”
The use of rhetoric isn’t proof that it’s a religion. Hell there are comments up this thread that call AGW alarmists Nazis and childkillers. Think FIRST Raven, then speak (or write). Read Ian Plimers speech he uses allusions to morally repugnant things.
“>> There you go – the vow and monks in the same example.”
This isn’t an exmaple of religion though is it? They don’t take instruction from some codified text. It’s just people trying something out.
“All of my claims are easily verifiable.”
No, all your claims are nonsense.
“AGW catatrophism has taken on all of the aspects of a religion whether you want to believe it or not.”
No, Raven, it hasn’t. It’s just some illusion you live under. Define a religion for me Raven.
well put Raven!
Toby, define a religion.
Guys,
I’m a little bit confused now by this blog discussion. According to some friends here , environmentalism origins from Nazi Deutchland , and according to others from the commies, the watermelons.
As I have also Estonian blood, I know all this about Gulag , stalinists etc , since one third of the Estonian people were deported to the Siberia under the Sovietski occupation.
FYI , the resitance against the commies started with environmentalism. People were dead tired of the destruction of nature by the Russians. Oil spills, nukes and first of all the destruction caused by , yes, Louis, the phosphate mining industry.
I think next time you call the enviros watermelons you should be very careful.
Ender…I looked at your map on the first link. It needs a couple of correction before we begin. Brought back some good memories though.
If you hit the down arrow and go south to a place listed as Wood Buffalo, that is actually Fort McMurray. Now follow Hwy 63 north till you see Fort Mackay. That is actually not there, it is about 50 miles north of that point at the end of Hwy 63. Anything north of that can only be accessed when it freezes up in winter. It is all muskeg around there.
The point where Fort Mackay is listed is actually the Suncore site. Syncrude is on the left and north of there. If you go slightly south from the Fort Mackay point, on the other side (east) of the river, that’s where the Suncore bitumen is dug out of the ground. It is then mixed with water and pumped through large pipes to the Suncore processing plant, which is right where Fort Mackay is listed.
The bitumen is dug out with huge machines and piled in trucks that hold 100 tons each. They are so big the driver can’t see the ground in front of him, and he needs a pilot truck with a tall flag on it to guide him. I shouldn’t say ‘he’, some drivers are women. The trucks are powered by electric motors in their wheels driven by a diesel generator.
They dump their loads down a chute on a plateau that is about 150 feet high. The load is picked up on huge conveyor belts and transported into a building where it is mixed with water, and the slurry is pumped through pipes up to 4 feet in diameter up to the point where Fort Mackay is listed. You can see a fine white line there crossing the river. That’s the bridge. That entire river area is protected several hundred feet on either side and no one is allowed in there.
Those tailings ponds by the Fort Mackay sign are blue, right? I wouldn’t want to drink it, but I would guess that is recycled water. There are huge water purefiers on each site that are about one city block long and several stories high. The slurry is processed in a building called ‘Froth’, named after the scum (froth) that boils to the top when the slurry is heated. The air in there is thick with fumes and workers in Froth are required to wear respirators.
They get up to 50 byproducts from the slurry, including naptha and low grade oil, and the latter is pumped to an upgrader at Edmonton, Alberta, where hydrogen is added to the carbon to upgrade the oil. Froth is also like a gulag, it’s where they send the bad guys who don’t get along with supervisors. It’s called ‘being sentenced to Froth’.
If you follow Hwy 63 a little further, you will see Syncrude on the left. If you zoom in, by the little blue inverted tear drop, you will actually see the residences which show up as long rectangular blocks. You can see the cars parked in front of them. That gives you an idea as to the size of those tailings ponds. The biggest is no more than 1/4 mile wide and 1/2 mile long.
We drove around that one by the residences each morning on our way to the Suncore site across the river and south. It was a 40 minutes bus ride on our own time, because the bus wound slowly through the Suncore site.
There are compressed air cannisters around the ponds and some have netting on them to keep ducks out. The cannisters make loud, shotgun-like sounds regularly. The Vancouver International Airport uses a similar system since the airport is in a river delta with lots of wildlife.
You have to understand that both Syncrude and Suncore are no more than about 5 miles square, in the middle of nowhere. That country up there is muskeg. It’s all swamp, with dwarfed trees. The rest of the area is pristine, so it’s not like the Tar Sands have taken over the entire north, although they do extend well into the north.
The area across Hwy 63 from the Syncrude residences actually looks a lot better on the map than it does in person. It’s actually like a black lagoon, and on a cool, fall morning, it looks like another planet with all the steam rising off it. Down in Fort McMurray you wouldn’t have a clue as to what was taking place 40 kilometres north. The Syncrude residences are pleasant, with no foul odours.
The thing that bothers me about the link to the Pembina Institute is the licence they take. They show a picture of the area across from Syncrude on Page 40 and allege it is a tailings pond. It is not!! It is a pre-exacavated site that has rainwater in it. It is a mess but it’s not tailings and I have never seen wildlife anywhere near it.
They mention in their article that tailings ponds are the largest known man-made structures. Hardly!! They quote 50 sq. kms. but that accounts for maybe 20 ponds, which is about 2.5 sq. kms per ponds. The only reason I can think for them listing them collectively is to make it sound a lot worse than it is.
I think you can sum up the Pembina Institute from the title of one chapter, “The Impact of Irresponsible Demand”. Whoo, whoo!! We are stuck with oil because there are no alternatives and that makes us irresponsible. The photos of the authors at the beginning of the pdf gives another clue. They look like Hippie/Yuppies and seem to enjoy posing.
What will happen when oil output increases? They are experimenting with new technology all the time. Syncrude has been in that area for 50 years. The most recent technology is steam, and it is forced down into the bitumen. The oil is sucked out. One of the sites is appropriately called ‘Firebag’.
I’m not defending the Tar Sands like some wannabee oil suck. I’m being practical about it. There’s no work for a lot of people in eastern Canada and the Tar Sands provide good paying jobs for them and others. Also, as I said, we have no other source of fuel at this time. People like those from the Pembina Institute would have us suddenly give up our cars and home heating to go along with their dogma. The heck with them.
Ann, I don’t think they have a well-constructed argument as such. Nor do they understand what they are claiming, nor are they coherent in their claims. It’s just a game of name calling, really.
“Re environmentalism , it must be far better that young people hang around in NGOs , such as Greenpeace ,than snorting coke in a bar and dreaming about to be a new Kate Moss.”
Ann,
No! No! No! Quite the opposite.
By snorting coke, they are only going to damage themselves — maybe. A lot of doctors, lawyers and advertising executives live perfectly useful lives whacked out of their tiny gourds on coke.
With the $hit that Greenpeace will pour in their heads, they will want to go out and want to damage everyone else they come in contact with.
Where do you think most of these AGW nutters got their start??
“AGW catatrophism has taken on all of the aspects of a religion”
hey we have another “ism” to add to the local insults.
“Environmentalism” was nothing more than an extension to good farming practice established in the UK during the 18th century. Appreciation of “nature” was not sinister until certain despots found it impeding their form of “progress”.
Logically; we don’t open coalmines in dairy farms nor do we put dairy farms in rain forests and muddy all the streams however it all happened in the name of “growth”.
Toby: IMO middle class traders and teachers have a lot to answer for when it comes to achieving long term “sustainability” (not an ism) for the greater global population as “checks and balances” come in many forms. The notion of freedom for all, the kind we’ve had since the industrial revolution with living it up and travel etc, is an illusion.
Gavin,
Not the father of SJT are you? I note similar styles of expression.
Gavin,
Why is it that when I read one of your posts, I can’t get this YouTube clip out of my mind:
One word for this topic. Bollocks.
Ann…I appreciate your sentiments about things being said that affect you emotionally. I don’t know how familiar you are with western culture but many of us use extreme exaggeration to get points across. There’s little more extreme than relating someone or something to a Nazi or Nazism because that epitomizes all that is wrong in a dogma driven system. It may be ethically wrong but sometimes frustration gets the better of our arguements and we reach for the most vile insult available to us, not realizing it to could affect an innocent bystander.
You used the arguement about environmentalists turning the tide in Russia. I said in another post that people can care about the environment without making a big deal of it. I would call Chernobyl a far more serious incident than what we are facing with the AGW theory and I don’t relate a concern about that to environmentalism. However, extreme environmentalists justify exaggeration and lies as being a means to an end, and there seems no limit to their activism.
Take a look at these words coming from scientist Stephen Schneider, who is an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) advocate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
About halfway down the page you will find the full text. He says:
“…we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have”.
That is coming from a scientist. He’s saying literally that scientists need to lie and exaggerate in order to get their points across and to mold public opinion. Although James Hansen has not said anything that extreme, he did justify a gross error he made on a warming prediction in 1988, by claiming the error served to make people aware of global warming. What it actually did was scare people onside through hysteria, which is another matter altogether.
The kind of environmentalist being denigrated in this post is the type who feels it’s alright to lie and to persuade people through sheer emotion and exaggeration. That’s where the religion comes into it.
On the other hand, Linus Pauling was not only a great scientist, he was also an important environmentalist by his actions and his words, without resorting to dogma and rhetoric. In the late 1940’s, the US Army made an announcement that nuclear radiation was harmless. You can see photos in an old movie where soldiers who were subjected to radiation near bomb tests had their uniforms brushed off with a whisk broom. That’s how naive people were about it.
Pauling was one of the greatest researchers in chemistry of all time and he understood processes down to the atomic level intimately. He knew radiation was dangerous and he said so, even though it cost him harrassment by the US Army and government. He might have won a third Nobel had the US passport office not held up his passport application because they were trying to discredit him as a communist. If Pauling had gotten to London, and conferred with a crystallographer who held the key to the DNA structure, he would have identified it immediatley and won the Nobel.
The same harrassment is going on with so-called skeptical scientists today, and the kind of activist/extreme environemntalist mentioned above is taking part in it. Greenpeace relishes destroying the names of so-called skeptical scientists. I think a far better analogy than the Nazis could be used, but their propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, excelled at discrediting and misleading people based on a dogma. The Greenpeace exxonsecrets site comes close to that kind of propaganda, in my opinion.
We all know the horrors of the Nazi regime, and I don’t think anyone means any harm to those like yourself who are related to it first hand. There is an anger about Nazism today, even in people like myself who were not alive at the time. Although Nazism was far more extreme than anything going on today, McCarthyists in the United States, who persecuted scientists like Linus Pauling and David Bohm in the 1950’s, were of that ilk. Some of them were isolationists who recommended Britain give in to Hitler so they could get on with their businesses. One of them was Joseph Kennedy, the father of John Kennedy, the slain US president. He was the US Ambassador to the UK, and had to be recalled by Roosevelt for statements he made along that line.
I don’t care what anyone says, Nazism was about dogma in the extreme. Those who discredit and demean so-called skeptical scientists today, simply because they express contrary opinions to a dogma, may scoff at the relationship of their actions to Nazism, but the hatred stems from the same place. There’s never a reason good enough to hate someone to the point of discrediting him/her to help enforce a dogma. That’s the modus operandi of those with a weak paradigm.
There’s no room for that kind of nonsense in a civilized society and it angers me. It angers me even more that some scientists are participating in the harrassment and others are not speaking up against it. I pointed out in another post how Peter Duesberg, whose distinguised resume I cited, has been severely ostracized for rejecting the current HIV/AIDS paradigm. Anyone who is involved in science, or who has an interest in it, and does not speak up against that kind of harrassment, is condoning the Nazi-like mentality that drives the mindset.
I’m sorry if anything that was said here offended you at a level not anticipated.
“Like many religious followers, few have ever read and understood the holy books from cover to cover. ”
I find them quite difficult to understand. That’s not the fault of those reading them, or those writing them. It’s a complex area of science and difficult to understand. That’s no-ones fault.
Gordon – “Also, as I said, we have no other source of fuel at this time. People like those from the Pembina Institute would have us suddenly give up our cars and home heating to go along with their dogma. The heck with them.”
Thanks for the info. It does well to listen to a person that has actually been there so I defer to your experience in this matter.
On the other hand you people might have to do without your home heating. If you want to keep the tar sands flowing you will have to use all your gas. Under the terms of the NAFTA treaty you can’t reduce your exports to the USA so someone will have to miss out unless you rip up NAFTA.
The problem with the tar sands is that while we are doing this and the unsustainable biofuels, which are just as bad IMO, we are not changing over to sustainable transport. Instead of the tar sands being a transition fuel it is being touted as a replacement when everybody knows that even extracting as much as possible it will never get much beyond 10 or 12 million barrels per day. This is only a small fraction of demand that is not slackening much in part due to the erronous belief that the tar sands can save us.
Gavin
AGW Catastrophism is an accurate description of the belief – what else would one call a “Tipping Point” – a gradual change from a balmy mediterranean climate to an ice age over 20 years (10 years before, and 10 years after the tipping point).
But this is all quite possible in a science that has been hijacked for political purposes by the Climatists.
I emphasise with Roy Spencer and John Christy – good climatologists – who are wondering how the heck their science ended up in this situation.
Look no further than the historical past and the takeover of geology by the Lyellians two centuries ago. A lot of geological thinking is based on the Socratic method, where geological facts are deemed true by rhetoric and common assent.
However, the engineers of the geological profession, exploration and mining types, continue to conclude that the texts and reality are disconnected. But the Lyellians rule the roost and until they die out, ( as is always the case for a science contaminated by the primacy of the Socratic deductive method), little will change.
News update:
From AIG President Andrew Waltho staying in Poole, UK- via SKYPE:
“Wettest and coldest August in England for 100 years!”
And the AGW trolls here believe it’s warmer.
and “Real rain everywhere, every day, all the time.”
“Petrol and diesel are at 1.85 UK Pounds per litre”.
This is the future Gavin, SJT, Luke, Ender and the rest want for us here.
Thanks Gordon for your comment.
I might be too sensitive when it comes to words like communist, nazist etc.
A short comment here. I’m not a friend of extremists. And I have been an active member of Greenpeace and done work for GP but NEVER participated in a so called ” direct action” with the police invvolved etc.
As a matter of fact methinks it is a little bit ridiculous with such actions in Sweden, where the police invite GP activist to drink coffee and have a chat.
What I really meant with my initial comment was that many young people are lost today. They have ” everything ” materially ( not really) but needs a meaning with life. Sometimes an NGO/ environmentalism ” help” people , especially there are lots of cases with drug addicts etc that have become healthy after taking part in any activity by an NGO.Just one example!
However, recently many NGOs have misused the trust of people that have donated money etc. And I found this repelling.( Everything is just big business)
Re the AGW policy there are some points that I found that the sceptics are right on the spot. For example the issue of biofuels.
In Sweden I must also raise the question if it was right to take money from the forest biodiversity program and redirect the money to the climate change program.
I wouldn’t depend on science mainly from an NGO , in this case GP , as it is unfortunately very often exaggerated and superfiscial. All science need to be independent ( this is often not the case) if it wants to be trustworthy.)
Regards
Ann
Gordon,
Don’t feel guilty about countering Ann’s polemics here, she is like Luke, but an atypical Swedish type.
Ann
The real problem Sweden has is the replacement of the family rearing children, by the state. You Swedes have put the socialist ideal into practice, and it has not worked.
For NT, religion – a prevalent system of faith (clearly becoming the case?)
– action that one is bound to do ( something the politicians are going to “bind us all to”!)
I suspect however that what you are trying to get at is that religion is based on faith with no evidence, whilst AGW is based on firm science.
Now many scientists are firm believers and believe in their evidence….and to be fair there is certainly theoretical science based on lab work that supports co2 warming influence, as well as being well documented evidence to suggest that as climate warms co2 increases and at some point a tipping point is reached and temp can change rapidly.
However there are also plenty of scientists around who are highly sceptical of the capacity for co2 to induce climate change….and the anecdotal evidence works both ways.
Like religion it is unverifiable. Like religion unbeleivers are often scorned and abused ( I know I am at my school-“its a moral issue” I am told…so i must be immoral! what bullshit..pardon me, i am a dickhead or fruitcake depending on which believer I am being abused by …behind my back usually i might add, students love telling me. I should add in defence of teachers there are a number of science teachers at the school who are equally sceptical, its the geography and environmental science teachers that hold these strong opinions!))
Many many AGW believers have no idea of the real science behind the “belief”, to them it is a religion.
Raven however was defining “religous” and he made some excellent points.
Many AGW believers ( and our bloody politicians)want us to unconditionally submit to this theory despite the FACT that until we find a viable alternative to fossil fuels there is bugger all we can actually achieve, even if we want to.
I think this is where religion really comes into it. Even if we accept the AGW hypothesis, nothing we do in oz or the west will make any difference at all.
Chris crawford posted this link which makes some telling points I think?
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/08/11/jim-manzi/keeping-our-cool-what-to-do-about-global-warming/
On a final note, to believe in the predictive abilities of the models is certainly a religion.
To believe that we can build a model to tell us the impact of co2 on the real world given its chaotic nature and the enormous number of variables that we do not understand sufficiently, or do not even know about, that to me is a religion…no way of proving, hence based on faith! Do you believe in the models?
Toby,
Good point to which I might add the following:
Given the physical state of the earth at Cambrian times, tribolites, etc, and observing the facts THEN, the scientific method would be unable to predict future dinosaurs from tribolites.
As history shows that geological evolution progressed from simple to complex lifeforms, in line with changing environmental conditions, then any theory congtradicting the past, as AGW theory propeses, cannot be considered scientific.
woops, my spilling is bed,
but we knew wort it mins,
Or putting it plainly, if the geological past is incapable of being used to predict the geological future, (the essential basis of a scientific theory), then so to climate theorey.
There are no geological theories about what a future geological future might be, and the climate system is intrinsically coupled with the earth’s geological state.
Proponents of AGW are nothing more than latter day proselytisers of millennial doom and gloom, but these days cloaking their beliefs under the sophisticated technology of science. They fool themselves but no the sceptics.
Raven’s definitions and comparisons are a good start; the religion of Gaia, Terra, Tellus or plain old mother earth shares a lot of common characteristics with conventional religion; a sense of certitude; I have never heard an element of doubt, or an admission of error, or being wrong by an AGW acolyte; a sense of moral ascendancy so as to be able to condemn the non-believers; Hansen wanted sceptics to be jailed, as does Gore and the cries for punishment for disbelievers are becoming more strident; an element of sacrifice by the self; one thinks of the PETA abortions; and sacrifice demanded by others; there have been many demands for reductions in population, by whatever means, even by such luminaries as John Reid; then there is the proselysing; does it ever stop? But the clincher for me is the idea of tithes; all the great religions have a payment system; the Catholic guilt expungement through donation system I thought was as good as it gets, but I think the carbon tax and its myriad offshoots will surpass it.
Yep, AGW is a religion; let’s hope it does something really stupid, like prohibition; given the puritannical undercurrents it’s on the cards.
Gavin “The notion of freedom for all, the kind we’ve had since the industrial revolution with living it up and travel etc, is an illusion.”
It will be if your kind have there way!…mind you, doesnt stop the biggest proponents of AGW gore (bull) and flummery and their ilk, swanning around the world preaching to us!!
I take it you don t believe in freedom for all?….what 4 legs good two legs bad????
“But the clincher for me is the idea of tithes; all the great religions have a payment system; the Catholic guilt expungement through donation system I thought was as good as it gets”
great analogy Cohenite..sorry felt it had to be repeated…i like it!( not an ETS..that scares me!)
Gavin,
Dear fellow, you have no idea what freedom really means.
It does not mean doing what you want, irrespective of everyone else, it is freedom to choose from a limited number of possibilities.
Your postion is to remove that freedom of choice but, being indoctrinated, it seems, therefore, impossible for you to even be able to contemplate such a state – such being the life of the socially devout.
“great analogy Cohenite..”
Probably one of the most insightful comments to date. It raises a number of interesting and interlinked ideas that are well worth exploring.
As a tithing system, ETS only goes part of the way. To be effective, a tithe is something that needs to be paid by an individual so that they can expunge personal guilt. Expunging guilt by proxy (ETS) doesn’t quite do it.
I have another idea – rather than loading up those of us who are guilt-free with this tithe in perpetuity, why don’t all the guilt-ridden environmentalists adopt the self-flagellation rituals of the Shia muslims instead. In that way, only those with the all-consuming sense of self loathing and guilt over burning fossil fuels need to suffer — and the rest of us can kick back, drink beer and enjoy the spectacle.
Bunch of old bollocks. Gaia is not a religion and it never was. It was a proposal by James Lovelock and remains a scientific hypothesis.
Toby what I am trying to get at is that there is a tendency on this blog to label things without any actual analysis of what the label means. People call Environmentalism a Religion when they can neither define “Environmentalism” nor what it means to be a Religion. So then they proceed to make stuff up, generalise and start name calling. It’s garbage and nothing more than I expect from this blog.
People are not being forced to believe in AGW any more than they are forced to believe that speeding is bad. Heck you can believe what you like, BUT you live in a society with laws that you must obey (unless you think being Australian is a religion). The laws regarding carbon trading have nothing to do with trying to force anyone to believe in AGW but are simply a tool put in place by the Government to reduce GHG emissions. People knew they were going to do this before the election and they still voted them in.
You can believe anything you like but if you believe something stupid you can’t complain when people say “That’s stupid”. It’s not a ‘conversion’ attempt it’s just someone saying that it’s a stupid thing to believe.
Belief that AGW is a conspiracy is stupid.
“Belief that AGW is a conspiracy is stupid.”
Really? Check this out:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/etc/script.html
“TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.”
Ivan… This only demonstrates your stupidity.
What do you think this demonstrates?
“Like religion unbeleivers are often scorned and abused” … or pitied whatever Toby, but I’m comfortable with the knowledge these kids of ours will take over regardless of what we stand for and do well enough on their own. BTW that Manzi essay is a bit of a copout in terms of who does what in future and IMO pretty slack!
Ivan: I said it before, I don’t bother with youtube.
We just had the coldest day for several years. Do you really think it’s the end of warming for the average gardner? Climate change is more than that. Today as I replaced old soil in my half barrels for our next tomato planting, I noticed it was all bone dry as well as barren at the bottom after months of no watering.
I forget which thread this is, but while thinking of our much abused “white coats” and wondering about the next likely conference in the Capital I got a call from one intending to visit. The truth is there is a network of people here being asked to do all sorts of work just keeping up with climate change impacts across this country.
While we have a lot of childish punters bothering blogs there are others everywhere including kids doing real science. See the latest ABC Catalyst on science and education
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2339812.htm
There is a glimpse of our Capital and a bit of history on the Acadamy for those interested.
Cohenite: Re Gaia I suggest you call Shorty sometime
These concepts, i.e. putting a box around nature are just personal BS in the mind regardless of the language you use to portrait it
Some sanity returning at last – New Jersey State legislature:
http://www.politickernj.com/bguhl/22291/doherty-new-scientific-data-justifies-repealing-global-warming-response-act
“DOHERTY: NEW SCIENTIFIC DATA JUSTIFIES REPEALING GLOBAL WARMING RESPONSE ACT
URGES STATE TO HOLD OFF ON DAMAGING NEW REGULATIONS AS CLIMATE CHANGE THEORIES CLASH
Responding to various new scientific reports questioning the concept of global warming, Assemblyman Michael Doherty today called on Governor Corzine to hold off on proposing any new regulations associated with the state’s Global Warming Response Act and urged the Legislature to repeal that act when it returns to legislative business after Labor Day.”
Brrr! Farmers’ Almanac says cold winter ahead
http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/031815.html
Households worried about the high cost of keeping warm this winter will draw little comfort from the Farmers’ Almanac, which predicts below-average temperatures for most of the U.S.
“Numb’s the word,” says the 192-year-old publication, which claims an accuracy rate of 80 to 85 percent for its forecasts that are prepared two years in advance.
The almanac’s 2009 edition, which goes on sale Tuesday, says at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder than average temperatures, with only the Far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings.
“This is going to be catastrophic for millions of people,” said almanac editor Peter Geiger, noting that the frigid forecast combined with high prices for heating fuel is sure to compound problems households will face in keeping warm.”
“See the latest ABC Catalyst on science and education”
I was watching it for a while. Unfortunately, as soon as Robyn Williams appeared on the screen, the dog threw up on the carpet, so we had to turn the TV off. Did I miss anything?
“What do you think this demonstrates?”
Gee … I dunno, NoTalent – what do you think it demonstates when the leading lights in this AGW frolic need to resort to this sort of horse$hit to get their case up? Don’t think it demonstrates science, that’s for sure.
“Numb’s the word,” says the 192-year-old publication, which claims an accuracy rate of 80 to 85 percent for its forecasts that are prepared two years in advance.
Bulsheeetttt !! Put up.
“Bulsheeetttt !! Put up.”
The maths is pretty straightforward. It’s the word of 1 man whose livelihood is at stake, vs. 4,000 gubmint scientists who never get out of the office.
You’d have to put your money on the word of the 1 man any day.
To follow logic of anti-AGW,s you all must be members of Itztlacoliuhqui-Ixquimilli sect.
Next logical step will be to build a temple. I can point you in right direction
– architect of Jukkasjärvi ice hotel Åke Larsson Mob 0707-55 64 43
– interior designer contact Daniel at rosenbaumdesign.com.au
Warning – as the season change you must have a alternative god: what about Huitzilopochtli or Ra of Annu.
“All the environmentalists I know are atheists.
There is no need for environmentalism to act as a religion as environmentalists don’t need religion to get through their daily lives.”
You complete idiot. Not everyone can cope with being an atheist. Supposing you were right. You are not right and you are a moron. But supposing you were right.
How does this than explain the relentless irrationalism. The faith-based science baby-talk and the full-blown demonology?
“FYI , the resitance against the commies started with environmentalism.”
As someone who exists because his family fought then fled Communism from the inside I’d have to say you’re full of crap.
Other than that, I would have to agree with the premise of the speech.
.”Important considerations supporting this undertaking were the successful demonstrations on the 14th of June in Riga, Latvia, the Crimean Tarters’ protests in Moscow, and the favorable atmosphere that had developed in Estonia itself. (The first six months of 1987 have seen active protests against environmentally dangerous phosphate mining in Estonia, and 30-40 independent Estonian historical and cultural organizations have been formed). And finally, there was the important matter of Baltic solidarity. We in Tallinn could not betray this joint Baltic endeavor. We sensed that a historical moment was upon us.”
Official hearing on Baltic Dissidents in the US
http://www.lituanus.org/1988/88_3_03.htm
Excerpt from the same site:
“The Latvian environment is being ruthlessly exploited and destroyed.—The work undertaken by the Latvian regional environmental protection club is consistently hampered. Often, during talks with the KGB, club members have been told that the club is too nationalistic and that in their work they do not take into account State interests. ”
Ann, if you think internal resistance to Communism didn’t begin until the late eighties you have a very narrow and circumscribed view of history.
Perhaps a little more analysis and little less wanton cutting and pasting?
another attempt of that “socratic thingy”?
this is getting beyond bizarre…
IceClass , try to be a little intelligent now…
If you read my initial post , you see that I have written that ” one third of the Estonian people were deported to Siberia DURING the Sovietski occupations.”
This means the two Soviet occuptions during the WWII ( One German invasion as well) and the whole postwar period to the liberty in 1991.
“Bunch of old bollocks. Gaia is not a religion and it never was. It was a proposal by James Lovelock and remains a scientific hypothesis.”
Or very own Steve Short seems to subscribe to Gaia as having the ability to limit warming use negative feedbacks.
“If you read my initial post , you see that I have written that ” one third of the Estonian people were deported to Siberia DURING the Sovietski occupations.”
Does anyone really care?
I mean, is the blog going to be given over to all the aggrieved and dispossessed people of the world? If so, how far do we go back? To the Irish potato famine? Or further?
“The laws regarding carbon trading have nothing to do with trying to force anyone to believe in AGW but are simply a tool put in place by the Government ( IE THEY HAVE THE FAITH/ RELIGION!)to reduce GHG emissions. People knew they were going to do this before the election and they still voted them in (IF THAT IS WHY THEY WERE VOTED IN THEN ‘WE’ ALSO HAVE THE FAITH).”
NT, the very fact that people voted in a party saying that they would put in place an ETS (if that is the reason they were voted in), that will accomplish nothing in terms of changing global co2 levels or temperatures, pretty much proves my point ….not yours.”a prevalent system of faith ….”….since nobody actually thinks Australia ( or anybody else) reducing co2 will actually lower global emission levels…..hence it is similar to a tithe, designed to make people feel better, but will in reality achieve nothing….
Now that too me is stupid
And can we get over this conspiracy push, most that do not have the “faith” do not believe it is a conspiracy…just that it is based on questionable science and modelling(now luke will of course challenge me to state the poor science…but this has been done to death)
Seems Ian has gone a bit potty in his old age. Mind you he doesn’t mind a bit of the old spotlight, he’s always reminded me of Dick Smith with a degree. Anyway, have to agree with a number of others here that this is an encouraging sign that the argument against AGW is petering out. The core science is being left unrefuted and the extreme end of the activist movement is being used as an exemplar of the whole. Of course this stretches credibility to the point of failure and renders the argument impotent. The fact is there is little mainstream support for the anti-AGW position and unless this support emerges the contrairians will be submerged under the tide of history. And there will be no victory celebration, in fact I don’t think many will actually notice.
Interesting that Plimer chose a forum on religion to pillory his opponents, he must be lacking genuine fora.
Meanwhile while the deniers insist that the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 42 this is happening:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/boxice.htm
“A massive 11-square-mile (29-square-kilometer) piece of the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland broke away between July 10th and by July 24th. The loss to that glacier is equal to half the size of Manhattan Island. The last major ice loss to Petermann occurred when the glacier lost 33 square miles (86 square kilometers) of floating ice between 2000 and 2001.
Petermann has a floating section of ice 10 miles (16 kilometers) wide and 50 miles (80.4 kilometers) long which covers 500 square miles (1,295 square kilometers).
What worries Jason Box, an associate professor of geography at Ohio State, and his colleagues, graduate students Russell Benson and David Decker, all with the Byrd Polar Research Center, even more about the latest images is what appears to be a massive crack further back from the margin of the Petermann Glacier.”
Obviously another priest of AGW just reinforcing his belief by making stuff up.
Mind you, if AGW is a religion the anti-AGW crowd better watch out as they may end up on top of a collection of faggots in the village square.
“Traditional religious life and practice is experience. Traditional religion tries to make sense of what’s happening to us now and gives us the mechanisms whereby we can have hope for a meaningful life, in spite of its disappointments. Religion gives us the mechanism to cope with failure.
Environmentalism cannot provide for these needs. ”
Actually one has to wonder why Ian is looking for a replacement for religion, I would have thought that as a sceptic he would have been quite happy to see the back of religion. Very curious and perhaps a further indication of Ian’s declining powers of reason.
“Actually one has to wonder why Ian is looking for a replacement for religion, I would have thought that as a sceptic he would have been quite happy to see the back of religion. Very curious and perhaps a further indication of Ian’s declining powers of reason.”
If you read into Ian’s comments that HE is looking for an alternative religion then you are on a different paradigm to me!,….Do you think he is saying he is happy with what he calls the new religion of AGW?….maybe it is your reasoning that is declining!
“Anyway, have to agree with a number of others here that this is an encouraging sign that the argument against AGW is petering out.”
A classic example of delusional wishful thinking if ever there was one.
Agree with Patrick B. No longer able to debate the substance, inactivists are reduced to creating strawman religions, organisations and conspiracies. With no solid basis for skepticism, skepticism is defended as an end in its own right. I’m saddened that many otherwise capable figures on the conservative side of politics have fallen for this suckers game.
What ever happened to Gaia?
Can it be she’s not?
Or did she leave the kitchen
when it got too hot?
I never believed in Gaia,
but she kept the pagans quiet.
Now a little change in temp,
and they start to riot.
“Anyway, have to agree with a number of others here that this is an encouraging sign that the argument against AGW is petering out”
They are getting stronger with every year that temperature fails to rise while CO2 goes up.
The AGW alarmist position is in such disarray that all that remains is to explain why the warmers are so tied to it. There are actually several reasons, but Ian Plimer does an excellent job of explaining one of them.
Dear Ann,
I am sorry if I upset you with my Nazi history, but we cannot, and should not, clean up history to suit a fashionable point of view. From your contributions I cannot imagine you ever being a Nazi, or a thug of any kind, left or right wing.
The danger is that well meaning movements, once they gain some publicity, tend to attract people who will walk the walk, and talk the talk, for their own advantage.
In the early 1960s I found the Hippies of Haight Ashbury had many attractive ideas, and many of them were good people. But they were quickly infiltrated by thugs, who used their dress, hair style, and talk, to peddle drugs, and sexually exploit young girls. You may remember those whose main aim was to attack the ‘pigs’ and ‘barbecue some pork’. Perhaps you have met similar people.
Bjorn Lomborg is a good example of someone who was subjected to bullying because he pointed out the truth, as he understands it. I am glad that both he, and the Danish Government were strong enough to stand against that bullying.
A good account of the historical links between Nazis and ‘environmentalism’ is given by Simon Schama, in ‘Landscape and Memory’. As a good scholar, he is careful to say that the history does not prove that all environmentalists are Nazis. Nevertheless, there is a sinister tendency that we need to guard against. Many ‘wandervogel’ (German eco-hippies of the 1920s) became Nazis, according to Schama.
I have been rather rambling, but, from your own experiences, I suspect you know what I mean. I have been ‘green’ since 1945, but my definition of that word excludes Ecotopian visions, revised history, and authoritarian personalities.
I think my own thoughts, rather than following a quasi-religion dogma. Nobody knows more about God than anyone else. Having some mathematical background, I use and enjoy modelling, but know its shortcomings. I agree with Professor Ross McKitrick that ‘environment’ is rather a silly generality, meaning anything between our skin and outer space. It should be put in the same trash can as ‘biodiversity’ and ‘old growth forest’.
Keep smiling, and fixing up those poor old birds. That’s the real stuff.
Perhaps I meant ‘authoritarian manipulators’. Also, I remember someone saying that bullying is the most contemptible of human behaviours. I second that.
Don’t forget the hedgehogs …
Greens and religion?
Why not check the relationship with the Catholic church in Australia at http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2004/aug2004p14_1705.html for an expose on an “unholy association between the Catholic Church and the Greens has prevailed in Australia for the past few years”
also the Catholic Earth Care site http://www.catholicearthcareoz.net that features both Senator Milne and Professor Brendan Mackey, who recently published a study on green and brown carbon as discussed this month on this site at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003318.html.
Ender
A misplaced metaphor you are guity of with your angels on a pin head comment – obviously you never bothered to check Dorothy Sayer’s comment Davey Gam pointed to some time ago.
So … Ender has not read my Dorothy Sayers reference? Bring him in for questioning …
And Ender might also illuminate us how he might explain the ubquitous presence of diamondoids in crude oil – as a diamond geologist I would have a problem accepting that fossils could spontaenously produce nanodiamonds at the near surface. This would be part of his angel on pin metaphor problem.
“Mind you, if AGW is a religion the anti-AGW crowd better watch out as they may end up on top of a collection of faggots in the village square.”
End up…..?
On top…..?
…and in front of all these village people?
Oh no!
Does this mean I might even have to fight a ‘rear guard action’?
Damn, almost dropped my coffee into the keyboard (laughing so much). Thanks Patrick B.
Gordon Robertson
Thank you for the detail of the tar sand deposit. I’ve practised field geological mapping/investigation for too long to count now world-wide – there is nothing that substitutes for 1st hand observation. Much appreciated.
Ender – you’re becoming dipstick1, quite an achievement. Spmewhere in the mess above is a comment suggesting that Canadians may have to do without home heating. I’ve lived and worked in sub-zero climates … any GHG effects from sources of home heating are infinitesimally unimportant when compared with surviving. Try 1st hand observation.
No AGW zealot has yet answered the 2 questions I put:
1) why are global temperatures not rising in step with increased CO2 levels for a decade now ?
2) why is 30 years considered an appropriate time grab for definition of climate ?
Just answer the questions.
GDGEsq, unfortunately it appears few here bothered to read your Dorothy Sayers reference, judging by the quality of debate on recent threads.
http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
“They are getting stronger with every year that temperature fails to rise while CO2 goes up.
The AGW alarmist position is in such disarray that all that remains is to explain why the warmers are so tied to it. There are actually several reasons, but Ian Plimer does an excellent job of explaining one of them.”
Don’t underestimate these people. The energy-deprivation crusade precedes the global warming racket and if we are weakminded it will outlast it. These guys appear to get what they want. Even if it means millions of black kids dead from DDT bureaucratisation.
I’m not accusing anyone in particular. But conservatives seem to get off on the idea that they are so much smarter than the lunatics. But by what standard is that the case?
The lunatics tend to get their way. Its not good enough to sit back and take pride in the idea that you are smarter than these bigshot lunatics. You haven’t won anything. You only win when they are sacked, humiliated, and someone more worthy steals their wife from them.
If it wasn’t CO2 it would be something else so lets not be like the Prince of Denmark and lose our ardour for revenge.
SO YOU ARE SMARTER THAN A LEFTIST?
Hardly anything to be proud of I would have thought. The true test is can we bring these people down and get them sacked.
Paul it certainly seems that these questions from dorothy are as apt as ever.
“Have you ever followed a discussion in the newspapers or elsewhere and noticed how frequently writers fail to define the terms they use? Or how often, if one man does define his terms, another will assume in his reply that he was using the terms in precisely the opposite sense to that in which he has already defined them?” subsititute people on both sides of this blog to be fair, but on this thread there have been plenty of reasons why AGW can be considered a religion and yet few of the examples given have been refuted in any way….infact evidence provided to the contrary seems to support the thread entirely!!
“Even if it means millions of black kids dead from DDT bureaucratisation.” – name two Bird?
True Toby,
And remember that Dorothy was writing in 1947. Have we improved? I doubt it. I am as guilty as anybody of rambling all over the place.
I remember 1947 – Marxism was then a religion to millions of people, and they were convinced they were right. Anybody who argued otherwise was a ‘capitalist running dog’ or whatever. They were ruled by rhetoric, and ignored Adam Smith’s ‘hidden hand’ in the marketplace – the reality of economics. As a result they suffered, and are still suffering, great economic hardship.
The Marxist model has now faded into the past, except for a few pockets like Zimbabwe. I suspect that climate models, and their associated religious zealots, will do likewise. As the truth of Adam Smith’s self-organizing ‘hidden hand’ is generally recognized now, so will the truth of that funny looking mathematical owl, which flips back and forth chaotically, and hence unpredictably. Beware of butterflies in Brazil.
she was pretty astute wasn t she Davey!
I hope we don t get driven into the same state the marxist countries got themselves into! Rudd is already moving to subsidising what we do not do well and taxing those things we do well….not sure he read any “wealth of nations”!
“I remember 1947 – Marxism was then a religion to millions of people, and they were convinced they were right. Anybody who argued otherwise was a ‘capitalist running dog’ or whatever. They were ruled by rhetoric, and ignored Adam Smith’s ‘hidden hand’ in the marketplace – the reality of economics. As a result they suffered, and are still suffering, great economic hardship.”
Science has nothing to do with Marx or Smith. It’s a comforting diversion for you Davey, but that’s about the only relevance it has to the issue.
SJT:
The funny thing is that the science may not really be the big issue with AGW. It’s the economics, you stupid twerp. It’s the econmics of how we arrange our affairs so that human living standards don’t get tipped over a cliff by the leftists that are currently controlling the general debate on AGW.
That’s where creeps like you will come unstuck.
Most of you understand sweet fuck all about economics. We have people like that moron Ender thinking he can explain AGW and we find out he’s Hives Hamilton’s disciple.
So please spare us that you understand any of the real debate because when it comes to the economics you would be as stupid as Bob Brown.
People like you and Ender are declinists… preaching economic decline.
“The funny thing is that the science may not really be the big issue with AGW. It’s the economics, you stupid twerp. It’s the econmics of how we arrange our affairs so that human living standards don’t get tipped over a cliff by the leftists that are currently controlling the general debate on AGW.”
Economics depends on the climate, it does not exist without it.
You really are totally fucking stupid aren’t, SJT?
And we need calories to survive, so what has got to do with anything?
Look dickhead, what is the rate of change and what is the adaptability quotient. I’d say it is very good whereas you and the rest of the declinists think otherwise.
Don’t be scared, SJT. Just don’t be scared.
Here’s my bet, SJT. You currently have the big momentum and will get the ETS introduced. However the bill will come in and when it does kiss goodbye to the ALP for a generation as they will not be able to form a government for a very long time.
The bill will come in simply because the ETS has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and it will create a great deal of misery. Labor will be tagged with that for a very long time. Wait until the bill comes in.
“You really are totally fucking stupid aren’t, SJT?”
You’re welcome.
Economics is everything.How many times over how many threads have you got to be told.
One day SJT, it might dawn on you that a failed so called “Marxist” state as Zimbabwe has toss all funding available for health,pensions education,environment,science etc. Once a bread basket now a basket case. And all within 30 years!
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,,2-11-1662_2378617,00.html
Will Rudd,Wong and the SJT’s of the world deliver a similar bounty for Australia?
823 days phewww…
You’re right WJT, these gooses understand shit about the economics of AGW. They read a coupla of alarmist sites that get them all worked up and scared and then go around preaching declinism to anyone who’ll listen. It’s a tragedy in the making.
Ender and this other goose are Hives Hamilton’s disciples of declinism and think we should take them seriously on anything. Loonies.
“Science has nothing to do with Marx or Smith. It’s a comforting diversion for you Davey, but that’s about the only relevance it has to the issue.”
No thats bullshit. Compare the fastidious economic science of Smith, to the dramatic, tendentious, superficially appealing, and eschatological-utopian economic-baby-talk of Marx.
This is an almost exact parallel between climate-rationalists and frauds like yourself in the alarmist camp.
The climate rationalists are more akin to Smith. Maybe the laity finds them boring and undramatic. Whereas the science fraudsters are more in line with the absolutism, tendentiousness and drama of Marx. But they are not scientists and could never be, no matter how many brain transplants or successful reincarnations they experience.
Smith is by no means the greatest economist. But he is a true economic scientist. In that he just fastidiously studies the world as it is. Marx works backward from the conclusion. The conclusion being the package of Christian heresies going back at least as far as Joachim of fiore.
“The lunatics tend to get their way.”
You have to look at their followers.
A. They have a lot of weak minded people to appeal to.
B. The idea that the government will give you something for nothing – or the government will take something from other people and give it to you – is an idea that really appeals to them.
C. If I can take a position and make it look like I’m more humanitarian than the other side, I can run around acting sanctimonious.
Our presidential candidate Obama is an excellent example. He has a half brother living in a hut in abject poverty in Africa. The guy lives on less than a dollar a day. Obama could increase his brothers standard of living by a factor of 10 for no more than pocket change. But Obama has done absolute nothing for his brother. There isn’t a bit of generosity and humanitarianism in him. But when he’s elected he will tax eveybody else, redistribute the money to people who voted for him, and claim to be a huge humanitarian because of it. Remember Hillary Clinton taking tax deductions because of her husbands used underwear that she had contributed to charity. That’s the left wing mind for you. Intellect and reason are not going to have an influence on them.
“Bunch of old bollocks. Gaia is not a religion and it never was. It was a proposal by James Lovelock and remains a scientific hypothesis.”
“Or very own Steve Short seems to subscribe to Gaia as having the ability to limit warming use negative feedbacks.”
We’ve got to be a bit gentle here I think. Lovelock is pushing his favoured paradigm way too far. He’s got the wrong end of the stick.
You see your parents. They do slow down. No abuse is to be accorded to Lovelock. He’s a serious character and if he were younger we might have expected him to break free from these communist worm-tongues and data-morphers.
The point is that he’s the only serious scientist the alarmist camp has bar none. He’s the only serious inductivist. He’s a good guy because he pointed out the essential nature of nuclear power production and offered to put the waste in his own back yard.
He’s also pointed out the powerful cost-effectiveness of cooling measures. Although in reality the situation doesn’t arise.
Some things are pretty sacred I think. Authentic scientists ought to be respected even if they do go off the beam in their dotage. Because these days they are rare and thin on the ground.
Name one other major proponent of this racket (poor Jack is a victim of this racket as much as anyone else who hasn’t actually been murdered by it) who is a serious scientist!
There isn’t one. Annan is a tandem-riding scotsman who mis-applies Bayesian statistics to an area of political controvery.
Connelly is just maths-boy 101 and a computer programmer. He is as far from a scientist as an amoeba is from bacteria.
The entire Goddard institute are science frauds and a lot of them probably prosecutable under norms of only a few decades back.
Lovelock is it. And he’s being exploited ruthlessly.
You would think Obama would buy his half-brother some sort of gear to help him earn a living. You know a truck with a dingo digger in the back or something.
Yeah Obama is no good. One likes to think that one isn’t subject to demagoguery but I remember listening to him and really finding myself liking the guy. But you have to go away, calm down and look at things in black and white.
This guy is a loser who could not pass a standard immigration security chech to be able to visit your country.
Hopefully McCain won’t do too much damage. He’s annoying but at least there is a chance he may be a firm hand on the tiller.
Some times to do stupid things are worse than other times to do stupid things. Its never a good time to elect Islamist sympathisers and barely reconstructed communists to be President of the United States.
But now is a worse time than most.
Still if I see this guy shoot a basketball and listen to him speak it will likely take me several hours to get my considered opinion back. There is no doubt he’s an appealing fellow and a great communicater. The problem being he has nothing worthy to communicate.
“He’s Clean” as one expert described him.
Actually, Mr. hope, change, and togetherness is as dirty as any politician in Washington. His hypocrisy as demonstrated by his treatment of his brother is not a single case, but rather the pattern of a lifetime. This book documents it all.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1596985666/?tag=bhos2-20
All right guys. I’ve heard James Lovelock describe how the name, ‘gaia’ came about for his hypothesis.
The name arose during one of the regular walks he used to take with the thriller writer Len Deighton around the village where they both used to live. Lovelock was describing his hypothesis to Deighton who suggested he call it gaia. Lovelock said that he replied that such a name would cause trouble but Deighton persuaded him to try it out, perhaps Deighton thought that any such misunderstandings would be fun and sort out the stupid people from the thinking people whether you believe in denialism or environmentalism or whatever.
Ha ha.
But this is no condemnation of Lovelock.
Look I’m actually jealous. The Doctor and Paul get to be able to call up Ian Plimer. They have that much snap that they can talk to him outright.
I used to almost fantasise over having that much snap if you were an American. And in this view being an American would give you the snap to be able to just call up and chew the fat with Tom Sowell. Just if you were depressed about something or another.
But when do I get to ring up Ian Plimer? Here is this fellow who has dedicated his entire life to the scientific ethos………TO TRUTH……. he has due cultural respect for our religious paternity but he has spent his life pulling out the high-calibre weaponry should anyone jump the fence to undermine our understanding of science.
And after all that decades-long crusade the whole thing dissolve from the insides.
WE WILL OVERCOME.
For our enemy is weak and shabby. They know no social graces and they are appalling with women.
Green Davey Gam Esq wrote “There are noticeable historical similarities between extreme ‘environmentalism’ and the Nazi Party… ”
Bad move GDGE. Godwin’s law. You lose.
“Environmentalism as religion”. Strewth, I am so sick of this stupid ‘argument’. When it’s the Denialist’s opinion, it’s science, and when it’s the other lots’ it’s theology. Pathetic
breath in the balance
The Earth is quite dangerous,
the Universe too.
For many dangers
there’s nothing to do
(if there’s no God,
we’re simply screwed).
But with CO2,
it’s different indeed;
no burning of carbon
and please do not breathe.
“For our enemy is weak and shabby. They know no social graces and they are appalling with women.”
LOLZ.
” I have been rather rambling, but, from your own experiences, I suspect you know what I mean. I have been ‘green’ since 1945, but my definition of that word excludes Ecotopian visions, revised history, and authoritarian personalities.
I think my own thoughts, rather than following a quasi-religion dogma. Nobody knows more about God than anyone else. Having some mathematical background, I use and enjoy modelling, but know its shortcomings. I agree with Professor Ross McKitrick that ‘environment’ is rather a silly generality, meaning anything between our skin and outer space. It should be put in the same trash can as ‘biodiversity’ and ‘old growth forest’.”
Ignorance Davey. You don’t understand biodiversity, you don’t understand AGW, you don’t understand the science, so you just revert to homilies and labelling with no evidence other than opinions to back them up.
“Bad move GDGE. Godwin’s law. You lose.”
Don’t be an idiot mate. Godwins law is all about self-projecting nazi-leftists trying to rig the rules for their benefit. The idea is to get out the facist accusation first. Before these communist nazis make the accusation against you.
“Ignorance Davey. You don’t understand biodiversity, you don’t understand AGW, you don’t understand the science, so you just revert to homilies and labelling with no evidence other than opinions to back them up.’
NO NO. You are an idiot SJT. You are a moron. Whats to understand about the black body fantasy of AGW make-believe?
Is this where the dumb kids who could never understand science get to be proud of their triumph in understanding this bogus narrative?
A 7 year old could understand the global warming thesis you twit silly JT. There is no-one so stupid but that they cannot understand the global warming concept.
What an idiot you are SJT. Are you so dim in your scientific understanding that you thought it was a big deal to understand this bogus global warming paradigm?
SJT,
Do you understand ‘biodiversity’? If so, please give us a clear explanation. Never mind the ‘bio’ bit, that’s easy. But ‘diversity’, now that’s tricky, especially if you have any real mathematical insight.
Do you believe that ‘Shannon’s Diversity Index’ says it all? Claude Shannon was a great mathematician, but I suspect he would be horrified to see how biologists naively use his work on signals. Actually, that index was first proposed by Ludwig Boltzmann in the 1890s, in connection with gas theory. You may be interested to know that one of Ludwig’s colleagues was Svarte Arrhenius, of ‘greenhouse’ fame. Have a Google and track its history. You may learn something.
Don’t even start me on the sacred ‘Precautionary Principle’. A shrewd French lawyer demolished that long ago. What a heretic! Send for the Inquisition! Burn her at the stake!
Start thinking for yourself, SJT, rather than regurgitating what was in your ecology text-book (Krebs 1972?), or was said by your lecturer, or you have read in doctrinal emails from your particular Eco-Church.
Thinking is fun, and liberating, especially thinking about thinking. Things are usually more complicated than you brashly imagine. That’s the dangerous appeal of eco-religion – it simplifies. A few buzz-words, and you can sound like an expert.
Don’t forget to define ‘biodiversity’ for us. Before you do, get hold of the paper Hurlbert, S.H. (1971) The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52(4): 5777-586.
Sorry, I have a sticky key. That should be 577-586.
All Hurlbert is doing is saying “If you can’t measure it, I’m not interested”. There are a lot of interesting fields of life and science that are not measureable, that are still inherently interesting and important to us. How much is a bird’s song worth? Biodiversity is one of the factors that makes this world worth living in, without it, we wouldn’t have those birds you want Ann to save.
I have been doing a lot of reading and thinking on this subject, and I am more than willing to admit, like the PM, that I have to defer to others on the topic of AGW, because I just don’t have the ability to understand the breadth and depth of the many fields of science it takes to understand all aspects of it.
I was brought up as a Catholic, and I can tell you, reading the IPCC reports compared to the Bible is a liberating experience. Talking to scientists who work on the topic is a liberating experience. Knowing that I worked hard enough to be able to spot waffle like cohenite, siddons and others write as waffle is the most liberating feeling of all. It is nothing to do with religion, I want evidence for what I think, and I work hard at finding it and doing what I can to understand it.
What do you understand about AGW, apart from calling it a religion?
SJT asks:
“What do you understand about AGW, apart from calling it a religion?”
I understand that the entire catastrophic AGW case is built on the outputs of heavily parameterized (a.k.a. tuned) GCMs which have never demonstrated any predictive skill. Yet despite the obvious deficiencies in the models we are told that we must invest trillions in various technologies that will be absolutely useless if the GCMs turn out to be wrong.
Frankly, I see no difference between a person who argues that the GCMs are infallible and a person who argues the Pope is infallible. Both claims are not supportable by any evidence and require a leap of faith. It is this leap of faith that turns AGW from a pseudo-science into a religion.
AGW believers who would like to distance themselves from their religious brethern can do so by acknowledging that the GCMs are not infalliable and that any public policy must take into account the possibility that GCMs could be very wrong – a possibility that grows largers as long as the planet fails to warm as predicted.
Ender said…”Under the terms of the NAFTA treaty you can’t reduce your exports to the USA so someone will have to miss out unless you rip up NAFTA’.
Ender…you’ve got that one right. I’ve been opposed to NAFTA from the start. Some Yanks recently used it against us on lumber tarrifs. They claimed our government was subsidizing lumber, which is a load of cobblers. Vested interests in the States don’t want a two-way agreement, they only want to use what works for them.
I agree with you 100% that we have not done enough to prepare for a future without oil. The Tar Sands should not be necessary, and I’m not defending them simply to oppose the AGW theory. I’m not a supporter of corporations, or any other big business enterprise, nor do I support oil companies. I am deeply concerned about the effect the massive outlays for Kyoto, carbon trading, and carbon taxes will have on the social programs and way of life in our country.
We were talking a few years ago about $18 billion for Kyoto alone. That same government stood by while university tuition fees went through the roof and they changed the legislation to make life really miserable for student who had to take out ridiculous loans to get through university.
I would think anyone willing to pay out $18 billion would at least want a detailed explanation of why it’s necessary. Instead, our politicians bought into the IPCC Summary for Policymakers without the least bit of skepticism. I was drawn into the debate when I saw the 90% confidence level to back the allegation that anthropogenic CO2 was the cause of global warming. I was immediately skeptical because such a high confidence level for an opinion seemed odd to me. That’s when I started researching.
I could buy into the arguements used by environmentalists that we should act now. I’m not opposed to reducing emissions over time. The arguement is over how much to act and how much to spend. It annoys me that people like Al Gore and our local activist, David Suzuki, are wealthy men. They wont be hurt by this and Gore has his own carbon trading company. He buys carbon credits from himself.
A while back, when recycling became a big fad, I said to heck with them. I have nothing against recycling on principle, I’d just like to know where all the environmentalists are when it comes to feeding the poor or making life a bit better for those who do without. I’ll do recycling when a decent effort is made to eradicate poverty and hunger in this world. I’ll be damned if I’m going to buy into someone’s pet project, however.
Louis Hissink said…”Wettest and coldest August in England for 100 years”!
Same here in Vancouver, Canada. I don’t remember a colder, wetter summer. We had the coldest June on record. I’m not complaining, mind you. I don’t mind it a bit cooler.
Ender re Petermann glacier…here’s a quote from a local news source:
“University of Colorado Prof. Konrad Steffen, who returned from Greenland Wednesday and has studied the Petermann Glacier in the past, said that what Box saw is not too different from what he saw in the 1990s: “The crack is not alarming… I would say it is normal.”
The reference to ‘Box’ above is from the following:
“The pictures speak for themselves,” said Jason Box, a glacier expert at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, who spotted the changes while studying new satellite images. “This crack is moving, and moving closer and closer to the front. It’s just a matter of time till a much larger piece is going to break off…. It is imminent.”
I have always wondered about the discrepancy between Arctic warming and the Antarctic. I read today, and I don’t know if it’s correct, that most of the Arctic warming is in the Atlantic side. A lot has been mentioned about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which I think used to be refered to as the Gulf Stream. It is responsible for moving warm ocean currents and air into the Arctic, and from what I have read, that warming can move ice out of the Arctic Ocean.
I’m not stating the above just to be contrary, I really am curious.
Ianl…your welcome for the tar Sands tour. I enjoyed following it on the map Ender supplied and reminiscing.
You said “…any GHG effects from sources of home heating are infinitesimally unimportant when compared with surviving”.
I live on the coast and we get a current from the Pacific that keeps our climate very moderate. It seldom goes below 0 C in the winter. It can get pretty miserable, on the odd sub-zero day, or week, when the Arctic air descends on us. I have lived on the Canadian prairies, however, and that’s a vastly different story. I thought -20 C was cold till I experienced -35 C (-40 C = -40 F).
At that temperature, you can hold a can of oil upside down and it wont run out. The battery gets so cold it wont crank your car unless you have an engine block heater installed. If you’re caught outside in that cold, without adequate winter clothing, you’ll die in a few minutes. On the other hand, I have experienced -50 C on a clear day. It’s magical with fine ice crystals falling out of the sky.
I got caught in a blizzard once, on the highway. My gas pedal froze. It was a cable in a sheath and the inner wire froze to the sheath. I raised the hood to get at the motor and could barely hold it open for the wind. The problem was compounded by the fact that I could not last more than 30 seconds before having to jump back in the car, and I was well clothed.
Eventually, I managed to disengage the gas pedal cable from the carb and turned the idle up on the carb. With that, I managed to get 20 miles back to the city at idle speed.
Amazingly, I met an old timer who grew up on the prairies. His family lived in a one-room house with a sod roof. When they woke up on a winter morning, there was frost on the blankets and they had to break the ice in the water-bucket to get water.
That’s the kind of life people seem to be expected to go back to.
“understand that the entire catastrophic AGW case is built on the outputs of heavily parameterized (a.k.a. tuned) GCMs which have never demonstrated any predictive skill. Yet despite the obvious deficiencies in the models we are told that we must invest trillions in various technologies that will be absolutely useless if the GCMs turn out to be wrong.”
How many times do we have to be told something that no-one has ever claimed.
Read the IPCC report. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
They go through several reasons for their claim that AGW is caused by CO2. It’s not just models, and it never has been, and they have never claimed that models are infallible.
“Economics is everything.How many times over how many threads have you got to be told.”
No, it’s not. It depends on an evironment being there.
SJT,
You still have not given a rigorous definition of ‘biodiversity’. Science needs to be rigorous.
I agree that a diversity of life-forms is a nice idea, but that is more poetry or art than science. There’s nothing wrong with poetry and art, I love them myself. They can inspire scientific questions and hypotheses, but they are not, themselves, science. That matter was discussed by Karl Raimund Popper (Logik der Forschung 1934), and Imre Lakatos (Science and Pseudoscience 1973).
So the concept of ‘biodiversity’ is not science – more like a cry of ‘alleluja!’. If you want a mathematical insight, play around with Pascal’s Triangle. The sum of each row shows how many interactions are possible between only a modest number of species. If you are not familiar with this sort of thinking, you may get a shock.
With regard to AGM I have already pointed you at the work of Boltzmann and Arrhenius. I am not a physicist, so you must follow that path wherever it leads. I will say that models are only as good as the assumptions in which they are based. Ponder that one.
You will find Lakatos’ talk at
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscience.htm
Pax vobiscum.
P.S. ‘Environment’ means simply ‘surroundings’. The French use the word ‘milieu’, which is, at least, shorter. We will always have ‘surroundings’, whether we like them or not. ‘Environment’ is another ‘alleluja!’, and about as meaningful.
Science is about describing the observed in terms of prior observations tested by experiment.
To get back to the religion of Environmentalism – Ian Plimer’s analysis neglected to include the green version of the bad, the devil, the doer of evil. Environmentalists dogmatically reject dams and nuclear energy as the evils militating against their natural world deity.
Anne
So the Canadian Beaver, building its dams, is an environmental monster?
“Environmentalists dogmatically reject dams and nuclear energy as the evils militating against their natural world deity.”
Good point Ann. Given all of the environmental pluses and minuses for every energy source, one would think that nuclear would be well supported by the greenies. But instead it’s one of the deadly sins.
SJT
“How many times do we have to be told something that no-one has ever claimed. Read the IPCC report. They go through several reasons for their claim that AGW is caused by CO2. It’s not just models, and it never has been, and they have never claimed that models are infallible.”
Why don’t you try to read the report yourself? If you did you would find that IPCC argument that CO2 is a clear and present danger is built on the claim that “the models cannot produce the recent temperature trends unless they include CO2” (see Chapter 9). If the IPCC did not have the models or at least acknowledged that the models were very falliable then they would have to acknowledge that we don’t know whether there are natural factors that contributed to the recent warming.
That is why virtually every alarmist of note is on the record claiming that the models are extremely reliable and not likely to be wrong. Every call for action is based on the premise that the models are most likely right and cost is no object when it comes to preventing the doom predicted by the models.
Those of us with a more scientific bent are not willing to place blind faith in the models and feel that people who insist we do are no different from any other type of religious fanatic.
“I have been doing a lot of reading and thinking on this subject, and I am more than willing to admit, like the PM, that I have to defer to others on the topic of AGW, because I just don’t have the ability to understand the breadth and depth of the many fields of science it takes to understand all aspects of it.”
Right. So you just have no idea what you are talking about you idiot SJT. So stop lying about it. What a lunatic you are. Here you are unable to comprehend the situation. And yet you still charge about lying and pretending this isn’t a fraud.
I do believe in a Creator. This allows me to be cool about the environment. I pity those who don’t believe in a Higher Power. So many things to be afraid of.
“You will find Lakatos’ talk at ”
Lakatos says Popper was wrong. We can’t reduce some science to the neat little packages that Popper was interested in. That’s not anyone’s fault, that’s not a conspiracy, that’s just the way the world is. AGW encompasses the whole globe. Try to read the reports, the scope and breadth of the topic is huge. There are, however, several parts that can be falsified, such as whether or not CO2 is GHG. It is, and deniers such as Pat Michaels acknowledge it is. The only real debate is the extent of warming that is going to happen.
Lakatos:
“Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime.”
I wonder if this statement penetrated into the minds of some here.
SJT,
I agree that Popper was a bit too prescriptive. That’s what Lakatos was driving at. However, read a bit more of Lakatos, and you will see that he and Popper were, essentially, arguing in the same direction, even if by different paths. I enjoy Paul Feyerabend and David Stove, because I believe all sides of an argument deserve to be heard. So did Lakatos – he was a firm friend of Feyerabend, even though they differed philosophically. That’s the freedom of thought and expression which some ‘environmentalists’ want to deny – clearly they are in a religious fervour.
Any progress on a definition of ‘biodiversity’ yet? I will assess you on logic, grammar, and rhetoric. I warn you, I am a hard marker.
“I do believe in a Creator. This allows me to be cool about the environment. I pity those who don’t believe in a Higher Power. So many things to be afraid of.”
You haven’t read the bible? Plenty of things to be afraid of even if you do believe in a creator. And god doesn’t give one damn about anything or anyone.
“It is, and deniers such as Pat Michaels acknowledge it is. The only real debate is the extent of warming that is going to happen.”
Michaels buys into the watts per square metre jive. He just thinks rightly that a bit of warming would be a good thing. And obviously so. Look at your idiotic reasoning SJT. You ae trying to conjure a warming problem ontologically.
Here is your reasoning and its basically just a word-game. It goes like this:
1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas then extra amounts of it will cause problematic warming.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
4. Therefore it will cause problematic warming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The frightful illogic of this is that a person creating pseudo-syllogisms in a room, cannot alter physical reality outside of that room by the act of these wordgames.
There were things known about radiative physics. On that basis a speculation was made that industrial-CO2 would warm the globe substantially. The speculation does not prove itself. Yet your chain of reasoning has imbedded in it the idea that the speculation proves itself by definition.
I have a phrase for what you are trying to do here. I call it TRYING TO CONJURE THE SASQUATCH ONTOLOGICALLY.
Here is a summary of Saint Anselm trying this sort of Jive on in an attempt to prove the existence of God:
“Anselm’s Argument may be summarized thus:
God is, by definition, a being greater than anything that can be imagined.
Existence both in reality and in imagination is greater than existence solely in one’s imagination.
Therefore, God must exist in reality: if He did not, He would not be a being greater than anything that can be imagined.”
You see you cannot conjure the sasquatch ontologically. What you need is evidence. You want very large footprints. You want banana peels scattered about carelessly. You want a large steaming shit in the snow.
Don’t try and conjure the sasquatch ontologically. It cannot be done.
“You haven’t read the bible? Plenty of things to be afraid of even if you do believe in a creator. And god doesn’t give one damn about anything or anyone.” SJT
Actually, all I have to be really afraid of is the Creator. It greatly simplifies things. Worry depresses the immune system and causes wrinkles too.
“Actually, all I have to be really afraid of is the Creator. ”
Yeah, it seems to like it that way. Too bad for us.
“Yeah, it seems to like it that way. Too bad for us.”
It’s for our own good.
The AGW platform has been built on the premise that manmade CO2 emissions (a very small % of what is released into the atmosphere)has caused/exacerbated the recent global warming (which stopped 8-10 years ago). If it is shown that CO2 has no discernable impact on climate then there is no need for mankind to concern itself with the burning of fossil fuels.
The historical climate record and recent observations (as against fallible computer models) show that CO2 doesn’t cause warming – game over for the AGW supporters, which means that the thousands on non-jobs that have been supporting this non event (hoax) need to go. Tax payers money needs to be used to tackle the world real problems: poverty, disease, local environmental issues and economic development in the third world
“The science is settled!”
That statement turned me off AGW. Science is never “settled”. Consider the Atomic Theory. We have engeneers that have used bits of that theory to build power plants, light bulbs, batteries for my NOKIA, A-bombs and H-bombs, and the computer I’m using now, but the science still isn’t settled, or why is the world spending billions to build Cern. They hope to learn more about the Atonic Theory.
What I fear is COLD weather. I had enough of it in northern Minnesota when I was growing up. There was pleanty of firewood growing on the homestead so we had heat until the fires went out at night. But here in New Mexico I have to depend on natural gas for heat and electricity for everything else.
Lab tests have shown that CO2 by itself can only modulate the temp ~6Degrees F. That means, without any other greenhouse gas, we would only be 6 degrees cooler than the moon in the day and 6 degrees warmer at night. Not too nice a climate. Water is what makes the Earth liveable, Water in all it’s forms.
Get used to that cold weather Ted. Because its coming on strong and its not something you are going to have to warn your grandchildren about.
The lab test data applies to an otherworldly scenario with no night and day, no convection or conduction, no capacity for the ability of air to act as an insulator. Its a totally imaginery construct to apply it to this dynamic world.
Oh, SJT, do come one,
Can you define ‘biodiversity’? Have you looked up the history of the ‘Shannon Diversity Index’, also known, for garbled reasons, as the ‘Shannon-Wiener’ or the ‘Shannon-Weaver’. If not, I will assume that it is just a religious chant, like ‘Omm’.
And while you are at it, what exactly is the ‘environment’? Doesn’t the word translate, from the original French ‘environnement’, to the rather banal English ‘surroundings’? Perhaps you don’t speak French, and interpret it as the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’?
And where does the ‘Holy Ghost’ fit into all this eco-gibberish? Is he called Ernst Haeckel? Some Nazis seemed to think so (Schama 1995).
I like the Ambrose Bierce touch (Devil’s Dictionary 1911). He defined religion as a daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Hosannah, SJT.
“It’s for our own good.”
So the only reason you behave morally is fear of being punished?
“Oh, SJT, do come one,
Can you define ‘biodiversity’? Have you looked up the history of the ‘Shannon Diversity Index’, also known, for garbled reasons, as the ‘Shannon-Wiener’ or the ‘Shannon-Weaver’. If not, I will assume that it is just a religious chant, like ‘Omm’.
And while you are at it, what exactly is the ‘environment’? Doesn’t the word translate, from the original French ‘environnement’, to the rather banal English ‘surroundings’? Perhaps you don’t speak French, and interpret it as the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’?”
Nazis again, good grief, you can do better than that, can’t you?
A definition is easy to find, Wikipedia provides a reasonable definition. You were just quibbling about a mathematical defintion. We still can’t say how gravity works, but that never stopped anyone dealing with it.
One last chance SJT,
Can you tell me which site, A or B, has the higher ‘biodiversity’?
Site A Site B
Plant species 204 109
Vertebrate species 50 42
Invertebrate species 75 91
Fungal species 10 17
Tonnes of bacteria 59 93
No appeals to God or Wikipedia will be allowed.
“One last chance SJT,
Can you tell me which site, A or B, has the higher ‘biodiversity’?
Site A Site B
Plant species 204 109
Vertebrate species 50 42
Invertebrate species 75 91
Fungal species 10 17
Tonnes of bacteria 59 93
No appeals to God or Wikipedia will be allowed.”
Can you tell me how gravity works? If you can’t, then will suddenly start floating around in the air.
You are creating pedantic nonsense masquerading as science. It’s the same trick played by creationists. No matter how science can tell you, there will always be something they can find that science can’t. Science is always dealing with hard to know or define, that’s what makes it so interesting. Playing games such as ‘what is the most diverse’ will not actually tell you much anyway, beyond a general indication of what is going on. That is because biodiversity is much more complex that a simple statistic can tell you.
“So the only reason you behave morally is fear of being punished?” SJT
No, I have my pet virtues as well as some stubborn vices. The greatest fear is that of being rejected by one’s Creator.
SJT,
Exactly my point. ‘Biodiversity’ is so complex that we cannot get a reliable grasp of it, and probably never will. If you play with Pascal’s Triangle you will see why.
So claims such as ‘Global warming will reduce biodiversity’ are not science, just religious rhetoric. Which returns us nicely to the topic of this thread.
P.S. Last time I looked (a few years back) there were many thousands of websites offering a definition of ‘biodiversity’. One, from Rutgers University, seemed to be simply a turgid paragraph on the word ‘biota’. Another mentioned political implications. Another suggested it was a good word to include in a funding application.
By the way, Amused, in answer to Godwin’s Theory, I plead Bentsen’s Defence.
Point well made Davey!
Ian Plimer makes an interesting point in his book,”a short history of planet earth”, that humans live right on the edge of survival. I always remember this point when people talk about dangerous climate change. They all seem to think humans live in paradise and we are going to wreak it.
It’s one thing to influence one of mother nature’s mechanism, but to think you can have control over mother nature! pure ignorance
“It’s one thing to influence one of mother nature’s mechanism, but to think you can have control over mother nature! pure ignorance”
To think that anyone has claimed we have control over the climate is sheer lies.
“SJT,
Exactly my point. ‘Biodiversity’ is so complex that we cannot get a reliable grasp of it, and probably never will. If you play with Pascal’s Triangle you will see why.
So claims such as ‘Global warming will reduce biodiversity’ are not science, just religious rhetoric. Which returns us nicely to the topic of this thread.”
No, you are wrong. Biodiversity is reduced because rapid climate change means that species that are adapted to a complex interdependence can’t change quickly enough to cope. What seems a long process is ocurring in the blink of an eye in geological terms and evolutionary terms. It is impossible to predict to what extent biological systems will impacted, it’s not a long stretch to know that they will be. Although the relationships are complex, they are notactively created and designed by the participants, but are the result of many years of adaptation.
As I said, we still don’t know how gravity works, that doesn’t mean we are floating around in the sky.
“To think that anyone has claimed we have control over the climate is sheer lies.”
True…so why are we all talking about global warming, if its out of our control?
It’s an unintended consequence. We can do something about that.
What the biodiversity indexes would be useful for would be measuring change in BD. Even if we can’t say exactly what it is measuring, if it’s going down and not up rapidly, then it’s an indication of something affecting the system.
Just like hitting an asteriod with missiles?
That’s a little unnatural is it?
If its so easy to push the planet out of balance,
humans are likely to have some serious competition.
“To think that anyone has claimed we have control over the climate is sheer lies.”
SJT. Well you seem to think that if we take a bit out, we will change the climate…so clearly you think we do have control!
“SJT. Well you seem to think that if we take a bit out, we will change the climate…so clearly you think we do have control!”
All we are talking about is taking out the bit we put in. If we can put it in, we can take it out, or at least stop putting more in.
…when I heard that “the debate is over” I knew instantly that truth could not be approached. Surprisingly, it is St. Thomas Aquinas who tells us that science and faith must agree or faith must yield (Anthropogenic Warming believers should read Chesterton’s book on Aquinas and note the astonishing ironic criticism about taking action before knowing what to do coming from, of all places, the Middle ages.)
What a lot of clap trap! In the end, the price of energy as driven by an ever increasing population dictates all. We will all be living in smaller houses, driving smaller vehicles, eating more locally grown products etc etc etc.. Commerce, governments and social systems will all be changed as a result. Not through dogma or concoius social design or “religion” as so poorly defined here, but by necessity. This is all argument about foregone conclusions. The earth’s population will dictate the future. Change is inevitable and most of this argument stems from those that want no change. They will be dragged kicking and screaming into the future by the reality that they try to deny. I imagine that much of the same arguments were presented at the advent of the change from whale oil to gasoline.
Dan , most of what you you say is true, but it is not that sceptics do not want change….rather that forcing change on some parts of the world ( the west)will create lower living standards and great hardship. The fact is we are being lied to that there is a no longer a debate about AGW, and we ar egoing to have ETS or carbon taxes thrust on us that will accomplish absalutely nothing in terms of reducing co2 and temperatures.
I have always said that with the approach of peak oil ( if we havent already passed it), that we will need to find alternatives and agree that it is likely tha tmany of teh changes you mention will occur naturally….that is fine. But it is not fine to distort the market.
We should be providing research and development grants and very significant prizes for individuals or organisations who do find viable alternatives to fossil fuels….how about 1 billion for the first person to find a way of storing alternative energy that will power a town…and not hydro/ water storage!
I truly believe that it is ignorant to suggest the majority of sceptics of AGW are against change…….against change that will cost trillions and solve nothing…bloody oath!
Davey
You can tell me things fall down, you can tell me how fast they fall down, but you can’t tell me how gravity works, can you? If you can’t define it, then we obviously can’ deal with it, can we?
I second toby. And also, when ever someone wants to rush me into to something I smell a great big rat. Panic is not a survival trait.
SJT,
Your gravity argument is just a red herring. Gravity exists, we don’t fully understand it, so a claim that it will change, or has changed, would need weighty evidence.
There is, no doubt, a diversity of life upon the planet. We don’t fully understand it. So claims that ‘biodiversity’ will increase, or decrease, are either naive, or scientifically dishonest. We don’t know enough about that buzzing, blooming abundance to say. A reduction in lions might lead to an increase in zebras – for a while. But who knows about all those little wrigglies? If humans disappeared, some bacteria might increase, but others, that live on and in us, might decrease. It’s complicated.
I am just reading a book about the use of ‘science’ as a rhetorical tool. The author traces the progress of a scientific paper (itself tainted by tacit assumptions) through the news media and political arena. At every step the information is simplified, and made to sound more authoritative. Numbers are rounded up, and upper confidence limits used as if they are inevitable fact.
So I remain sceptical about claims that ‘biodiversity will decrease’, or even ‘has decreased’. I am equally sceptical about claims that ‘the environment is harmed by xyz’. As Ross McKitrick has said, the devil is in the generality.
But then those who have simplified the ‘environment’ to the Kingdom of Heaven, and ‘biodiversity’ to the Holy Ghost, will be annoyed at me. They might call me ignorant, and produce red herrings.
P.S. Amused – I have just realised that Simon Schama is Jewish, so outside Godwin’s jurisdiction. Besides who is this Godwin to make laws banning mention of Nazis? His first name isn’t Adolph, is it? Davey’s Law is that anyone who regards ‘biodiversity’, ‘environment’ or the ‘Precautionary Principle’ as Holy Writ has lost the argument on grounds of logical incapacity.
“Your gravity argument is just a red herring. Gravity exists, we don’t fully understand it, so a claim that it will change, or has changed, would need weighty evidence.”
No, it’s not. Can you define for me precisely how gravity works? I bet you can’t.
“There is, no doubt, a diversity of life upon the planet. We don’t fully understand it. So claims that ‘biodiversity’ will increase, or decrease, are either naive, or scientifically dishonest. We don’t know enough about that buzzing, blooming abundance to say. A reduction in lions might lead to an increase in zebras – for a while. But who knows about all those little wrigglies? If humans disappeared, some bacteria might increase, but others, that live on and in us, might decrease. It’s complicated.”
No one is saying they know what will happen, but if you disprupt a complex mechanism, you have a pretty good idea it will not continue working in the way it was.
SJT,
A. Of course I cannot explain gravity, but I can define it reasonably well. Neither you, nor I, nor Claude Shannon, nor Charlie Krebs, can define ‘biodiversity’. So predictions of changes in it are largely hot air.
B. You may think that papers in refereed journals are ‘Holy Writ’, but it has been pointed out that scientists, being humans, often have ‘tacit presuppositions’ (Michael Polanyi 1962 ‘Personal Knowledge’, Uni of Chicago Press).
C. Disturbance of a complex system (I am wary of your rhetorical ‘disruption’) will probably change it, but for how long, and in what direction? ‘Better’ and ‘worse’ are human perceptions. ‘Nature’ has no particular preference for forest, grassland, tundra, or desert.
D. In law, ‘legal fictions’ are recognised as ways of sidestepping an impasse (Pierre Olivier 1975 ‘Legal Fictions in Practice and Legal Science’, Rotterdam University Press). So religions use ‘psychological fictions’ to avoid confronting truths, such as our own death. Some of these fictions are beautiful in themselves. For example, St Francis of Assisi’s Sermon to the Birds.
E. It is important, however, to distinguish between religious fictions (however useful, beautiful, or understandable) and the truth about our relationship to our surroundings.
F. So I think that Ian Plimer’s combination of rhetoric and reason is spot on. ‘Environmentalism’ (‘Surroundingism’ doesn’t have quite the same rhetorical effect) confuses religion and science. We, the news media, and the politicians, need to distinguish which is which, in order to make decisions that are the ‘best’, at least for humans. But then, not all humans will agree on what is ‘best’. It’s hard, isn’t it? Send for Adolph …
“A. Of course I cannot explain gravity, but I can define it reasonably well. Neither you, nor I, nor Claude Shannon, nor Charlie Krebs, can define ‘biodiversity’. So predictions of changes in it are largely hot air.”
No you can say things fall down, that things attract, with what force, over distance. I can describe how it behaves quite well, although even then there are questions over larger distances. I can say what a lion eats, and how much nutrition it needs each day to live, what rate it breeds at, how long it lives, plenty of observational facts and evidence. As for how gravity works, it’s still a mystery, but we are working hard at it. Similary for bio diversity. It is the interdependence of species, and we can describe a lot of those interactions. No one is trying to describe changing those interactions, they are just saying we can disrupt the system with climate change.
“C. Disturbance of a complex system (I am wary of your rhetorical ‘disruption’) will probably change it, but for how long, and in what direction? ‘Better’ and ‘worse’ are human perceptions. ‘Nature’ has no particular preference for forest, grassland, tundra, or desert.”
I know, and the rocks have been doing well as well. We depend on a certain stability in our environment. To say that because we can’t describe that precisely, therefore there is no need to worry about it, is wilful ignorance.
Our actions, if they have any effect at all, could well be reducing the rate of change, given that climate change is a constant.
“Our actions, if they have any effect at all, could well be reducing the rate of change, given that climate change is a constant.”
Anything could well be happening. That’s why scientists have been investigating all kinds of things for many years now, to see why things happen.
“B. You may think that papers in refereed journals are ‘Holy Writ’, but it has been pointed out that scientists, being humans, often have ‘tacit presuppositions’ (Michael Polanyi 1962 ‘Personal Knowledge’, Uni of Chicago Press).”
Not at all, this is what annoys the hell out of me, people assuming they know what I am thinking, and even why I am thinking it, even though I’m not.
I quite agree, acomplia. I assume that was a comment on SJT’s ‘logic’.
“I quite agree, acomplia. I assume that was a comment on SJT’s ‘logic’.”
So you have nothing to say?
“The contradictory religion of environmentalism has given people a purpose in life and, despite ignoring all the contrary science, this religion provides some of the stitches that hold the fabric of society together.”
Is Socratic Ignorance science now?
“Anything could well be happening. That’s why scientists have been investigating all kinds of things for many years now, to see why things happen.”
Science-workers SJT. Field workers. And no they haven’t been doing that. They have instead tried to prove that industrial-CO2 was making the changes. And it wasn’t.
Now your point was that there ought not be this change to the climate. I said the climate always changes. And that were we having any effect it might be to slow the rate of change.
My total neutralisation of your idiotic point stands.
Thread closed because of ongoing spam attacks.