“THERE is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
“Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
“Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.”
*************
From ‘The Question of Global Warming’ by Freeman Dyson, http://www.nybooks.com/contents/20080612
Freeman Dyson has spent most of his life as a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
Photograph of the pond and waterfall was taken near Wentworth Falls in the Blue Mountain by Jennifer Marohasy in 2008.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“secular religion” is a term, that doesn t make any sense. so it is not a surprise, that it is about as often mentioned in the context of environment (about 15000 google hits) as in the context of evolution (similar number of google hits).
there is absolutely ZERO support for the claim, that the science of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is based in faith. it is a fact.
Dyson is wrong.
Sod,
I also have a problem with Dyson’s use of the term “secular religion”. But the essence of his argument is sound. So I recomment just remove the word “secular” and read religion.
“Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. ”
much? how much is that?
he really should get out.
Sod,
I also have a problem with Dyson’s use of the term “secular religion”. But the essence of his argument is sound. So I recomment just remove the word “secular” and read religion.
religion is the wrong term as well. the real problem is, that his argument is NOT sound. basically he has zero evidence, to support his claim.
when you make a good argument, you can get away with giving a new meaning to a term. if you dont, you cant.
sod:
Sure, carbon dioxide is technically a ‘greenhouse gas.’ But so what? It is also a fact that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming. “CO2 = global warming” only exists in always-inaccurate computer models, with which the real world strongly disagrees — to the consternation of worshipers of the [repeatedly falsified] AGW/CO2 hypothesis.
Freeman Dyson is absolutely correct when he states that uncritical acceptance of AGW fits the definition of those having a religious faith in their belief system. Note that those same True Believers routinely decline invitations to debate their position. Their minds are made up, and closed tight. They absolutely run away from any neutral, moderated debate. If their hypothesis is correct, why do they consistently refuse to defend it publicly?
Finally, why is “secular religion” a term that doesn’t [in your words] “make any sense”? Religion is always faith-based. AGW is a religion. If you claim that AGW is based on science, kindly provide any proof you have, and rationally debate the issue, rather than simply disparaging the eminent Freeman Dyson as being “wrong,” without any corroboration.
It is the refusal of those promoting the AGW hypothesis to provide the raw data and methodology that their hypothesis is based on that makes AGW skeptics skeptical. If the AGW contingent ever engages in transparency, the truth will emerge. The plain fact that AGW proponents run and hide out when asked for their raw data and methodology tells us all we need to know about the truthfulness of their assertions.
BUT NOT tolerant of pseudo-sceptics ….
“Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. ” LOLZ and sound of leg pulling !
“They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice”
– but strangely never do anything about these either – more crocodile tears and pseudo-scepticism. Gee am I being sceptical? Yes especially of sceptics…
First sniff of political motivation – start shooting and don’t stop. Use the full clip just to make sure (rhetorically speaking of course).
“Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. ”
yes, i fell from my chair laughing as well.
i would LOVE to hear some names, supporting this claim.
i bet that i can provide a name of a denialist being part of the tobacco lobby or a creatonist for every “passionate environmentalist” you bring up. (if i wasn t that lazy, i could bring up 10 for each!)
The use of “secular” is presumably to remove a deity from the discussion, but this overlooks Durkheim:
In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim defines religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”
So we’re talking about the church of low carbon, with its offset indulgences where zero carbon has become sacred and consumption has become profane.
It is Ecofeminism, a serious school of thought that has been around for some time now.
I think this is why any “realist”, “skeptical”, and “rational” objections to the arguments from AGWers fall of deaf ears.
We skeptics are like the slave owners who say that they can’t free the slaves because the economy would collapse.
We skeptics are like the slave owners who say that slavery is in the natural order of things.
We are like racist white South Africans who say that Apartheid is necessary to preserve cultural traditions.
Unfortunately, Ecofeminism [1] is a highly polarizing philosophy. In its efforts to root out oppression, it ends up denying many things, which is why “denier” was the original shadow projection from the green camp.
See the greens all know that we skeptics are mean ruthless slave traders. They don’t even have to call us that, they simply know it implicitly. So whatever our “rational” objection to their green ideas, the greens know that’s just us trying to justify oppression. And all the greens / ecofeminists / feminists have heard *that* before.
It is not enough to claim to be an environmentalist… that is like some slave owners claiming that they give their slaves the best possible medical care, the best salaries, and the best housing available–all within the confines of them still being slaves. You have to actually subscribe to the ecofeminist philosophy itself–you have to speak out passionately about all forms of oppression, and preferably, you have to identify new forms of oppression that nobody had noticed before. Like “speciesism” (Man is the most advanced animal). To free yourself of speciesism, you have to talk about reducing human numbers in preference for polar bears and other dumber animals. Then you can be taken seriously as someone who gets the agenda.
If you can’t be taken as someone who is truly part of ecofeminism movement, then they can always find something about you that shows you’re an oppressor in some way, even a token oppression will do. Thus they “deconstruct” your real underlying motivations.
Learn to deal with ecofeminists on this level and perhaps we’ll start to see some progress in the “debate”.
[1] Ecofeminism is, “prepatriarchal historical analysis, an embracement of spirituality, and a commitment to challenging racism, classism, imperialism, heterosexism, ageism, ableism, anthropocentrism (i.e. human supremacism), speciesism and other forms of oppression.” — from wikipedia page on Ecofeminism
Dr David Bellamy is a passionate environmentalist. Anthony Watts (wattsupwiththat.com) drives an electric car. There are many others who are not in the limelight (myself included) who care greatly for the environment, yet do not buy into the AGW alarmist mantra.
To me, janama, sod, luke and the like come across in their posts as adolescent schoolchildren who enjoy making sniggering comments about anyone who’s not in their gang.
And if the quote “Many of the skeptics are passionate enviromentalists” makes sod fall off his chair laughing, I would suggest that he seek clinical attention as soon as possible.
¿Why not “secular” religion?
secular:
Of or pertaining to this present world, or to things not
spiritual or holy; relating to temporal as distinguished
from eternal interests; not immediately or primarily
respecting the soul, but the body; worldly.
[1913 Webster]
religion:
… ; the feeling or expression of human love,
fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power (CO2),
whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites
and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; …
[1913 Webster]
“Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion”.
I’m getting a bit tired of hearing this kind of crap. Most people who use the term socialism have no idea what it means or what it is about. If you will take note, most of the people who are called socialists these days refer to themselves as social democrats, not socialists. The Greenies and the environmentalists being refered to as socialists are not socialists. In fact, I doubt if an honest to goodness socialist exists in this world today.
Socialism is NOT communism, it ‘was’ a workers’ movement. Many early socialists were extremists and ideologists but they lived in a world of extremes and ideologies. Socialism began in a time before psychology was properly developed and it was assumed people were of certain classes by birth. Those of us working the 9 to 5 grind these days have benefitted enormously from people a century ago who rebelled at the working conditions and reformed the workplace. They not only reformed the work place, they reformed the way people thought of the working class. We owe those people, who gave their lives and bodies for the cause, our respect, not our derision. Let’s stop associating them with the yuppy, religious cult who are environmentalist activists. I distinguish them from the people who do care about the environment, like myself, who don’t make a religion of it or belong to a denomination.
Socialism began in Germany as handouts to the poor from the wealthy. Marx hated that and refused to have anything to do with socialism. Please take note of that: the father of communism wanted nothing to do with socialism. It was the Russians and Chinese who stole that name for their causes. They had no more to do with socialism than they did with democracy. When considering Marx, it is vital to take into account the working conditions facing the working class in those days. If I was a worker in those days, I’d have been right behind him. I would, however, be shaking my head if I’d ended up in a Russian or Chinese style communist abortion.
True socialism, as we came to know it, evolved as a ‘democratic’ struggle between the working class and company owners. In those days, there was no middle class as we know it today. Communism, as we came to know it, evolved through bloody revolution, and the brutal overthrow of the ruling class. As is normal for such a struggle, it evolved into a brutal autocratic mess. Anyone today, from the middle class, who sermonizes about socialism, is speaking from a comfort level that evolved from the struggles of early socialists. Back in the day, none of us would have been in the position of affluence to speak so snidely. We would either have been one of the priveleged wealthy, or working class poor.
Anyone today, who identifies with that wealthy class of the 18th and 19th century, needs to give his head a shake. If you think for one minute that you could have put a business together, as easily as you could today, you live in a dream world. On the other hand, if you hold a hostility toward the workers, who democratically overthrew the corruption of that day, then we know where you’re coming from.
I hear people on this blog talking about the Rudd government as being socialists. Not on your life. They are no more socialist than Mussolini. There’s little need in this day and age for true socialism because we have learned to meld the small-c capitalist mentality with that of a generally comfortable working class. Todays working class got its rights from the early socialists and no capitalist wants to rock the boat by reverting to those days. Much of that comfort is due to low prices for luxuries like electronic components, clothing and automobiles, priced low because people in third world countries are paid miserable wages and work in miserable conditions to produce those products so cheaply. We benefit from the misery of others abroad.
What we have today is an abortion of socialism with small-c capitalism. You can’t criticize socialism without criticizing capitalism, because they have become one and the same. Even the Tory governments in Canada and Australia are socialists due to social programs they support. That’s what the voters want. If you look closely at people in the Rudd government and party, you will see people who are relatively well off, if not millionaires. Socialism to them is an ideal, not a practice, and I’m willing to bet you’ll find the same hypocrisy in their opposites.
Anyone can start a private business and succeed in places like Canada or Australia. That’s not the way it was when socialism began. Even if you succeeded in creating an enterprise, you were never accepted because your bloodlines were not right. Anyone today who has succeeded, and flaunts it, would never have been accepted by the class of yore he admires. I am a contractor, hence a businesman. I am also a unionist who supports unions because I feel a worker has a fundamental right to be represented by a legal contract that outlines his wages, benefits and working conditions. Having said that, I defend the right of anyone to be in business and to make a fair profit. What does that make me, a capitalist-socialist? I am also skeptical of the AGW movement. How does that fit the paradigm that all socialists are AGW types?
Let’s think a bit about what is actually going on in today’s world and stop labeling people according to our biased ideologies. Calling someone a socialist based on a loose concept of what you think socialism means, or worse still, based on what rank capitalists or the media, who are in business as capitalists, have lead you to believe it means, is nothing more than an ad hom attack. It’s no better than the tactics of the activists and it cheapens the argument.
Forget “secular religion”. Use the word “cult” instead.
As for unions, I think they are just gangsters running a two way protection racket. “We’ll save you from the evil bosses, brother! Just give us a little money” and “nice business you got here, pity if anything should happen to it, just give us a little money”. Then their leaders get into government via the Labor party.
As for “We benefit from the misery of others abroad”, spare us the claptrap. Those people will better off unless the greenies manage to stop industrialisation. They are in the “dark satanic mills” because it beats staring at the south end of a north bound water buffalo in a rice paddy from sunup to sundown and offers the possibility of betterment for themselves and their children. It was only a few generations ago that we in the west were in the same situation.
here’s James E Hansen’s socialist dream
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf
[quote]The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis
(half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly
in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint
more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax
much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be
supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.[/quote]
Gordon, I would say I agree with most of your comment, but the part about people in poorer countries working under slave like conditions is today way off the mark.
For eg the working conditions and pay in say China and Indonesia are much better and higher making shoes, cars, tvs, toys or writing software ( English endowed India particularly ) than anything they could hope for working on rural farms.
This has happened in about 20 to 30 years and just proves the superiority of free enterprise and hopefully democracy will follow in the not too distant future.( China )
Just to finish, when a capitalist sets up a factory in a third world country today to make shoes or whatever the technology is pretty much first world and cutting edge, but of course the labor component is much less than the first world, but give it time this will change, it always has and always will.
Most jobs in Canada and Australia are in the service sector ( 70% at least ) but I just wonder what will happen in the future when no one wants to make or build things anymore.
I would put my faith in invention and technology with perhaps a Nano advanced society just waiting in the wings for a critical breakthrough.
Re my earlier comment, I should not have included janama in my rant. My apologies!
Sod, human CO2 emissions represent a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of a natural atmospheric gas that is absolutely essential to life itself. To my way of thinking this is blindingly obvious but if your mindset is separate from your very own biology then you can say stooopidities like “carbon pollution”.
The point is that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are insignificant…. and certainly it’s effects have not been observable in the climate system. This has only been imagined but of course can only be found in the minds of infected ant-life opportunists.
The fact is that water vapor is literally everything to our lovely planet earth …. it is our sun’s energy and water vapor when it comes to climate and CO2 when it comes to all life here.
I wish there was more CO2 to green the planet but those plants will just need to be patient i’m afraid. If we really want to save the planet then let’s not in effect starve the biosphere.
All scientists are skeptics. You cannot conduct science without giving an equal consideration to the thesis and antithesis of any theory. Clearly some of us scientists care about the environment!
The fact people believe in AGW clearly shows that it is psudo- religious. A scientist doesn’t believe in any theory, they can only agree with it!
Something I learnt a long time ago from an uncle who worked for the EPA is that environmentalist can be roughly divided into two groups. Conservationists and Preservationists (AKA Greenies). preservationists think that change only occurs due to humans and that by locking humans out you stop change. The reality is that all environments change over time and that humans are an intimately part of the environment. Therefore managing the environment in a sustainable way is the best way to look after ourselves.
Sometimes there are no words available to describe something, and the words of the past with all their baggage, have to be used, leading to misunderstanding and conflict.
For example, we found in the 1980’s that it was impossible to get Ag Dept and Bank Managers to comprehend our non-text-book adaptions in farm practices. Then some kind soul invented the term “Sustainable Agriculture”. Bless him.
To partly quote Sod: “… the science of CO2 being a greenhous gas … is a fact”.
The use of the word greenhouse is at issue. Joe public understands what a greenhouse is. An enclosed area under glass trapping radiative heat. The glass providing a physical barrier to both the dispersion of the trapeed radiative heat, and the convective dispersion of the heated trapped air.
In the atmospheric system, there is no physical barrier to the dispersion of radiative heat or to the covection of warm air. I have yet to see the supporters of the AGW hypothesis point this fact out to Joe Public.
The word “greehouse” is a very misleading analogy for understanding atmospheric science. A clearer term is needed.
The whole problem with Dyson’s argument is the IPCC report. It’s all based on science and evidence. You may disagree with that evidence and reasoning, but there is nothing there that is based on faith, and faith is the basis of religion. “Faith” is the ability to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
To and fro on whether or not the new AGW religion is socialism.
Coming from a different POV, Senator Barnaby Joyce has arrived at a similar decision.
From Barnaby Joyce – The Innate Problems With Labors Emissions Trading Scheme in Agmates.
“I don’t pretend for one moment to be a scientist but in my role in the Senate it is implicit in my job to be a sceptic , to question and to consider all sides and be open to the views of many rather than one view.
My current concern with the emissions trading scheme is that a religious fervour has built up around the altar of global warming. Those who serve at the altar have become ruthless in their denigration of alternate views. This fervour has now received its imprimatur by reason of a new tax, or should it be tithe to be paid to the Rudd Labor Government.”
http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/12/17/barnaby-joyce-the-innate-problems-with-labors-emissions-trading-scheme/
The chair that sod fell out of;
http://www.bambinipronto.com.au/extra_img.aspx?id=591&img=ex_prod_1306.jpg
Neville “Gordon, I would say I agree with most of your comment, but the part about people in poorer countries working under slave like conditions is today way off the mark”.
Neville…thanks for your openminded comments. There have been sweatshops uncovered recently in my hometown of Vancouver, Canada, run by Asian immigrants. We also have a problem with young Asian girls being brought in for prostitution. I’m afraid the world hasn’t quite caught up as much as we might like to think.
According to this page:
http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100206
The average wage in urban centres was 1750 yuan a month in 2006. If you peg the yuan at 7 yuan per US dollar, you have about $250/month, if my math is right. The average unionized electrician in Canada is getting CAN$5632 /month before deductions, which is about US$4675. Many non-union companies are paying that to their top electricians just to keep them around, but the benefits are scant compared to union workers.
It was only a few years ago that Nike and Adidas got caught running sweatshops. Here’s a 2002 article:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0308-03.htm
It claims Nike paid Tiger Woods US$100 million for 5 years and some of their workers as little as $2 a day. Later in the article it says, “Fear dominates the lives of these workers,” the report concludes. “They are afraid that speaking openly about factory conditions or getting involved in active unions will put their livelihoods in danger.”
There was a smartass reply from Eyrie to my post, about unions being gangsters. I’ve been in a union for over 25 years and to me he is just raving crap that he has been taught. The reason we have unions is that just a century ago, the statement above about working conditions and fear applied to us in North America. There have been unions involved with gangsters, like the Teamsters, but they were cleaned up a few years back. Maybe they have drifted back by now, but there’s little you can do with unions in larger US urban centres where the members are intimidated by underworld types. Even the governments and police forces in those areas are rife with corruption.
The union I am in is clean and we elect our leaders. They in turn ‘ask’ us what we want, and if something needs to be done, it is ‘always’ put to a vote. In fact, most unions in Canada and the States are clean and run respectably. Where people like Eyrie get their notions about unions is beyond me.
From The UK Daily Mail on Line 3/1/08
ANDREW ALEXANDER: Politicians, power and a new religion
“Since this is the moment in the year when forecasts are demanded, I shall pick a sad certainty. Parliament will create more offences, lots of them. Many of the new offences in the coming year are sure to stem from the new religion: global warming.
Its extent and scale may still be an issue among scientists, but politicians have latched on to this crusade fervently. The reason is simple. It increases the power of government.
Never, never underestimate this urge. Anyone wanting to understand politics must understand this. And when it comes to global warming – it is a politicians’ dream. The scope for governmental interference and pious lectures is limitless. “
Returning to topic; the overlap between environmentalism and religion is beyond doubt; the use of the word secular is inappropriate;
http://www.ecofascism.com/article16.html
Sorry – still hung over from the other day…From The UK Daily Mail on Line 3/1/08 should be today 3/1/09
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1103928/ANDREW-ALEXANDER-How-global-warming-new-religion.html
Never forget that there are only two types of people in this world: those who divide people into two types and those who don’t.
This debate is laughable. Ooo AGWs are religionists! Denialists are the one true atheists! However, it does illustrate that the debate about global warming and climate change has gone way beyond the actual science. It’s an ideological battle with both sides sticking doggedly to their beliefs. As much as denialists wish to prove that there is no AGW they cannot – much as atheists cannot disprove the existence of God (and neither can theists prove his/her/its existence). It becomes a matter of faith either way. Faithful in belief, faithful in disbelief. It is beyond empirical certainty.
AGW is a huge idea/phenomenon. No amount of ‘hooray for our side’ will decide the issue one way or another. Only the passage of considerable time and the continued application of the best science can offer will reveal the reality of AGW or otherwise. Meanwhile, it’s all just pissing in the wind. But all of us here know that.
And yes the AGW climate science continues on despite the best efforts of malevolent pseudo-sceptics who in reality are corrupting science to assert a political position.
As for keiran0’s lust for more CO2 covering the planet – all these debates are inherently stupid – water and salt are also part of life – you can drown in too much water and too much salt will also kill you.
Slim and luke; what prissy claptrap, although at least spokespersons for AGW are at least now speaking in terms of equivalence: “Faithful in belief, faithful in disbelief”; pardon me if I vomit in your direction; this veteran of the criminal and Family courts will take a more visceral approach to this paradigm shifting bit of ideology thank you; and that approach will be follow the money trail and/or ideology; and where better to start than here;
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=12&Itemid=4
ha ha ha ha – good find Cohenite 🙂
Agreed Gordon there are some very bad capitalists and unions out there in all countries and I know we’ve had some bad sweatshop plus prostitution cases in Australia as well.
Usually these can be traced to underworld asian gangs such as triads etc, particularly where young underage girls are involved.
Slim speak for yourself, we don’t all know that thanks very much. What I do know is that the world has gone through enormous natural changes over millions of years and has experienced an ice age every 100,000 years for the last million or so years then changed to a mild interglacial for a little more than a tenth of that time.
This has occured naturally and there are many reasons that the world could have experienced a small increase in temp in the last 100 years.
Whether you like it or not we did have a Little ice age that ended ( ended understand) around 1850 so part of that temp increase must be due to a recovery through to the present day.
How much of the .6c is due to the recovery I don’t know but the LIA temp is often quoted to be at least 1c lower than now, so we’re left with a surplus of .4c so I don’t know what all the fuss is about.
In the last 100 years solar radiation has been much higher than any equivalent century in the last 10,000 years, although we have a very quiet sun at the present time. Perhaps some of that rise could be attributed to the sun who knows.
In the last century we experienced a drop in temp from 1946 to 1976 that coincided with a strong cool phase PDO that ended with a step up in temp of .5c.
The nonsense by some scientists that the world could be heading for another ice age in the 70’s just proves how stupid some of these claims can be.
All of the above has come to pass and can easily explain the increase in temp of .6c over the last 100 years. All your claims are just speculation with more green politics involved than science , evidence or proof.
cohenite – vomit in my direction as much as like – I would expect no less from you, but it doesn’t change the reality of what I said.
I can not get grips with Dyson’s concept of environmentalism.
1. He writes; “The ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound.” What ethics is he referring too? What does fundamentally sound mean?
2. “Ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good.” Really where I live there is plague of black crows that hide foul smelling carrion around the roofs etc. What is good about that? Dyson is making a “motherhood statement,” that is entirely unsupported by evidence. Who is ruthlessly destroying the environment? Does Dyson have in mind the destructive consequences of war? It may be a noble aspiration, but at the same time an impossible ideal to abolish human (and animal) conflict.
3. There is a proposal to build a LNG plant some 60 km north of Broom. This will inevitably destroy some natural environment. The benefits to industry and wealth creation including employment opportunities must, in my opinion, out way the negative claims of environmentalists.
4. In his last paragraph Dyson hits the “nail on the head.” Which group of environmentalist has the truth? Those that put their faith in global warming? Those who believe the nuclear industry in all its many aspects is the greatest threat? Or is it those who hunt whalers? Or those that want to preserve the yellow bellied whatever?
5. It is my firm belief that so-called environmentalism should be classified among the many cults of unreason. Cults which span the whole of human history, from biblical times through to the modern era. From Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) to the post modernists such as Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida
“the overlap between environmentalism and religion is beyond doubt; ”
No it’s not, I doubt it.
But Jennifer, Environmentalism is a false Religion, and Godless…. It’s values are anti Human. It offers the appearance of hope, but delivers nothing in the longer term except decay, stagnation and elitism.
The established religion of Christianity has built the moral foundations of the most successful society in the world…… It is a Religion that wholly embraces humans, their endeavour and enshrines compassion as a value…. Environmentalism abandons Humans and thus, would abandon compassion.
… In my opinion it is better handled within the idea of Christian compassion for all of God’s designs… Then it includes the environment with a human context.
… The argument would be then, can you have compassion without being Christian….? The answer is yes, of course…. But can you pass that knowledge, practice and understanding beyond your own lifespan…. effectively…? After all, each generation balances on the precipice of it’s own destruction… there is always an entropy with the passing of the generations.
Environmentalism has demonstrated that it abhors human involvement…. It would ultimately fail. Catastrophically.
SJT “No it’s not, I doubt it.”
Spoken like a true sceptic.
Sod, human CO2 emissions represent a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of a natural atmospheric gas that is absolutely essential to life itself.
we are currently DOUBLING the amount of that “tiny2 thing in the atmosphere. think about it!
Sometimes there are no words available to describe something, and the words of the past with all their baggage, have to be used, leading to misunderstanding and conflict.
that is fine, as i wrote above. but using a “false” term (“secular religion”) without any argument to back its use up, is simply bad practice.
The word “greehouse” is a very misleading analogy for understanding atmospheric science. A clearer term is needed.
the term greenhouse gas is quite the opposite. adding the term “gas” already will tell people, that this is NOT a physical barrier. the term is not a perfect, but an acceptable description of the effect of those gases. the science and arguments behind it are strong and well accapted among scientists.
again, the complete opposite of Dysons term…
No it’s not, I doubt it.
well, Dyson provides ZERO evidence to support his claim. believing in mainstream science is NOT faith based at all!
so far ZERO names of those “sceptical passionate environmentalists” have been brought up. no surprise.
want to hear some names of creatonist “sceptics” while searching? some “sceptic lobbyists? like Jennifer?
Dr David Bellamy is a passionate environmentalist. Anthony Watts (wattsupwiththat.com) drives an electric car. There are many others who are not in the limelight (myself included) who care greatly for the environment, yet do not buy into the AGW alarmist mantra.
i ll grant you Bellamy. (funny, he is part of that group of age 70+ ex-scientists, that make up the vast majority of your “scientific support”)
driving an electric car does NOT make you passionate environmentalist. i think Anthony may have a decent view of the environment, but passionate environmentalist is slightly more…
one is not “many”.
Sod Says……… “we are currently DOUBLING the amount of that “tiny2 thing in the atmosphere. think about it!”
So you think the real problem is exponential growth of CO2?
Well then, sleep in peace and abandon AGW as a concern Sod… exponential growth of a trace element that is insignificant in it’s observed effects, is nothing to worry about.
Specially now with the Speleothems from China and NZ, which show that the Medieval warm period did indeed exist and correlates to the dips and rises of effects as per solar influences on global climate systems. So modern temperature is not unique in it’s rate nor degree. It also shows Mann’s Hockey stick data has problems splicing temperature proxies from Bristle cones and others onto the modern thermometer readings. The speleothems show a record 4000 years long right up until 2.5 years ago, for statistical purposes…. They don’t show CO2 having an effect…. Only natural variation over 4000 years(1800 China. 4000 NZ) including the last 150 years in which CO2 should, according to AGW theory, have had an undeniable effect…. But doesn’t show.
Then there is the last decade… increasing CO2 but decreasing temperature…. Opposite to what the Hypothesis of AGW says should happen and contrary to all models.
Then there is the Tropical Troposphere and the error between it’s modeled warming compared to the surface rate in relation to actual satellite observations of the TT….
Then there is the serious problem with the data obtained by the Surface record and the way that it has been collected… Very few of the stations comply with the regulations set down for them. This makes the Surface record suspect.
…. To maintain an undeterred belief in the Hypothesis of AGW when such a wealth of contradictory evidence and observation abounds……… does indeed devolve into the realm of simple Faith and Belief.
It is where the Fundamentalists of Gaia belief, extremist environmentalists and secularists start rubbing shoulders excitedly in their Sodom and Gomorrah parallels, where only the righteous will be saved. They start to indulge in mutual eco ecstasy. All feelings. No science.
sod; whatever amusement value you had has dissipated; humans are not doubling CO2; Fig 7.3 on p 515 of AR4 shows the anthropogenic proportion of CO2 emissions is 3.67%; table 3, p26 of the DOE report shows ACO2 emissions are 2.91%;
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf
Table 3 also shows the reabsorption of CO2 is 98.5% leaving 1.5% as an ~ annual increase; the ACO2 component of this 1.5% is 1.5/100 x 3.29[average of 2.91 and 3.67] = 0.049% as humanity’s contribution to CO2 increases; on this hangs AGW.
AGW is a cult; all religions begin as cults and retain some elements of the cult; the cult is predicated on the supremacy of a figurehead, transcendent or otherwise; AGW’s figurehead is gaia; as I understand it gaia is a self-regulating natural process which has been construed/ anthromorphised by many [all?] greens as a benevolent, maternal deity a la Lovelock; its extreme exponents regard humanity as sacriligeous interlopers; even the more reasonable advocates still prioritise the exigencies of nature [what a nonsensical term and attitude, as though a stage of nature is more preferable than any other, other than in the context of what is beneficial or better to humanity]; it is here that the incoherence of AGW is manifest; nature doesn’t have an aesthetic or morality other than survival as Darwin has so eloquently explained; only humanity can supply an aesthetic and moral preference yet AGW advocates seek to judge humanity by natural standards which don’t exist. It’s a frightening thing to realise that the ultimate judge maybe oneself; religions seek to remove that burden [although the more enlightened religions, as explained by enlightened religious spokespersons such as Bishop Spong, emphasise individual choice, rights and responsibility]; AGW is no different from other cults/religions in that it is prescriptive in designating correct lifestyle and denigrating choice different from the mandatory one. The irony is the ageing, formerly non-conformist hippies who have congregated behind AGW, along with the little tyrants and fascists, blessed with cognitive dissonance, are discordant with both nature and the progress humanity has made in the last century in constructing social contexts whereby true choices can be made.
““secular religion” is a term, that doesn t make any sense. ”
Well supposing I took you to be a moonie. And I figured you needed deprogramming. And supposing me and my coterie grabbed your stupid ass. Took you to basement somewhere, fed you only peanut butter sandwhiches, and argued you science, 24 hours round the clock, for weeks on end, and until the cows come home, and far beyond that, and all over again?
And supposing we finally CURED you. You lying dog.
Would you STILL!!!!!!!! not believe that there was such a thing as a secular religion?
When I was little I always dreamed of being a moonie-deprogrammer. And I aint but never wavered from that ambition in life except but on the surface of things and mayhaps not even that.
“funny, he is part of that group of age 70+ ex-scientists”
Well, if you can’t find an other ad home angle go for the age of the person.
are you guys trying to showcase your lack of understanding of CO2?
yes, mankind is currently doubling it. yes, it will have an effect.
no, it is not supposed to show perfect correlation with temperature over short time spans (notice the CO2 “wiggle” every year).
yes, nature is taking IN more CO2 than normal. (oceans mainly) mankind is the only real addition to it in the atmosphere.
Well, if you can’t find an other ad home angle go for the age of the person.
there is a strange correlation between being a sceptic scientists and being the age were people tend to get slightly senile. FACT.
J.Hansford – don’t worry – your Speleothems from China and NZ will eventually surface and all hell will break out 🙂
“Environmentalism Needs to be Tolerant of Scepticism: Freeman Dyson”
Bringing a knife to a gunfight and maybe ten years too late because the last I am interested in is tolerance. I aint the least bit interested in them tolerating my point of view and my tolerance for their idiocy was used up a long time ago. Somewhere, Somehow, Somebody has to pay. Mass-sackings, Mass-sackings, Mass-sackings. Mass-sackings AMEN.
Don’t ever fool yourselves. We have to make these assclowns endure fearful costs and lamentations, for the way they lied to the public. Else all we will spend our lives doing is waiting for what it is that these nutballs will come up with next, and in this wonderment we shall render ourselves ineffectual at best.
sod,
“there is a strange correlation between being a sceptic scientists and being the age were people tend to get slightly senile. FACT.”
FACT,
There are an awful lot of young people who are utter idiots and will remain so throughout their lives.
While I concede that age alone does not make you wise, it doesn’t mean that ALL old people will become senile either!
As to senility and dementia, unfortunately it’s not necessarily an age related condition.
I found Freeman Dyson’s statement thoughtful and helpful – he probably expresses very well the views of a significant proportion of the population.
I have always found that a certain indicator of the presence of a religious environmentalist is the use of the phrase ‘saving the planet’. How arrogant to think we can do this! The planet has survived and flourished from far worse scourges than us – one only has to think of a simple old ice age in this context – never mind the volcanoes, plagues and asteroids. No, we really have to worry about saving the human race. We seem to be completely unable to govern ourselves in any sort of rational or enlightened fashion and the rants of the global warming alarmists in the face of overwhelming evidence against their AGW hypothesis only serves as a further, pathetic example of our congenital inability to look after ourselves.
“Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. ”
yes, i fell from my chair laughing as well.
For Sod and Luke
I think that you both need to get out into the country and have a look around. In my job, farming, many of the best farmers are also committed environmentalists and from my conversations most of them are sceptics. Curtis, Charles Sturt University, did research in the Goulburn/Broken Catchment and found that most of the Landcare type work was done by the larger landowners, not the hobby farmers who one would think had the spare money and the Green leanings. In my case I have revegetated and fenced off remnant native vege. of some 60ha and fenced off and protected some 2 kms of permanent stream from stock. I can claim to be an environmentalist (and have got my hands dirty proving it) and having worked most of my life with weather and climate, am happy to describe myself as a sceptic. AGW does not pass the laugh test.
Well P O’Connor – farmers as nouveau environmentalists doesn’t pass the giggle test either.
After 200 years of land degradation and resource rundown you’re now doing some boutique reveg and fencing – well whoopty doo.
Don’t worry mate – it’s just our tax dollars propping you up. Farmers are so sceptical that they need billions in drought aid over decades – and YOU’RE SCEPTICAL – ROTFL !
you pathetic little man Luke!
SJT: ““Faith” is the ability to believe in something for which there is no evidence.”
Where’s the evidence that the glorified random number generators, aka GCM’s, can accurately predict the climate?
Sod: “we are currently DOUBLING the amount of that “tiny2 thing in the atmosphere. think about it!”
No we are not. In any case, 2 X very little = very little. Double the amount of rainfall in the Sahara and nobody would notice.
OTOH, halve the amount of atmospheric CO2 and plantlife would start dying out on a massive scale.
Curtis, Charles Sturt University, did research in the Goulburn/Broken Catchment and found that most of the Landcare type work was done by the larger landowners, not the hobby farmers who one would think had the spare money and the Green leanings.
here is a piece by Curtis:
http://www.gbcma.vic.gov.au/downloads/MGRiverHealthReport/Management_of_water_ways_and_adjoining_land_in_the_Mid-Goulburn_River.pdf
There were significant relationships between adoption of CRP, including fencing erected and number of trees/shrubs planted and involvement in government programs. Given the relatively low rate of implementation of fencing and the low level of confidence in fencing-related CRP, the research team raises the concern that there may be limited implementation of this, and possibly other CRP, outside direct program investment by government.
land owners protect the river side, when the government PAYS for it. simple truth. your source. again.
Luke: “And yes the AGW climate science continues on despite the best efforts…..”
Of course it would, with governments propping it up with massive amounts of taxpayers (our) money.
“you can drown in too much water”
You’re talking the difference between 0.04% and 100%
“too much salt will also kill you.”
A massive increase in salt intake will kill you, however too little salt will kill you just as effectively.
“Where’s the evidence that the glorified random number generators, aka GCM’s, can accurately predict the climate?”
Read the IPCC reports. GCM’s are only a part of the case for AGW, and they are tested against known temperature records.
P O’Connor
With Luke and sod as examples of mainstream environmentalists, farmers are to the 21st Century what Jews were to the Nazis. No such thing as a good …
We commit crimes against the environment if we feed our critics, and crimes against humanity if we do not.
SJT: “…and they are tested against known temperature records.”
And (continually) adjusted with ‘fudge factors’ AFTER THE FACT.
Show me ONE model which actually PREDICTED the current decade’s stasis/downturn in global temps.
Luke:
“-its just our tax dollars propping you up”
You wouldn’t by any chance be in the employ of da gummint somewhere, because if your job is blogging, does that really contribute to the weath of the nation?
Wow! Guys, I produced 30 blog posts today. Just might flog a few to some, err, farmers.
The Bird’s on to you! The new economic paradigm could involve the letting go of Luke. Sorry maate, ever tried fencing, marking sheep, rattling a can, farting in a jar?
WJP, now that was funny! “Sorry maate, ever tried …, rattling a can, farting in a jar?” May I ask have you? And why?
Well you pseudo-sceptics are a hoot – there’d be more tax dollars propping up Birdy as he wastes his time with faux attempts at elections. He would have tried harder but he was on shift work – hohoho ho ho
I guess you rednecks would be the handful that voted for him. You’re probably angry that you couldn’t get any further to the right ….
Anyway – excuse me if I’m sceptical about farmers being “environmentalists” – let’s see massive soil erosion, soil acidity, salinity, woody weeds galore, and feral pests – vast injections ongoing of tax dollars in drought aid and landcare – and for what improvement? I’m SCEPTICAL – LOLZ !!!
But golly we after 200 years we thought we’d fence a bit that’s left off.
Sod,
Secular religion is a “contradiction in terms” but in this context it is more likely an oxymoron, which is a contradiction used intentionally for rhetorical effect. So I can live with that.
As to the claim that many sceptics are also environmentalists, I can attest to that (I being one of them) but it is also true that many right wing people detest the environmental movement, and they are often the same people that have jumped on the bandwagon of climate scepticism.
Sod says : “there is a strange correlation between being a sceptic scientists and being the age were people tend to get slightly senile. FACT.”
Since when are “strange correlations FACTS? With equal resoluteness I could claim there is a strange correlation between gullibility and global warming alarmism. And then claim it as FACT.
Secular religion is a “contradiction in terms” but in this context it is more likely an oxymoron, which is a contradiction used intentionally for rhetorical effect. So I can live with that.
i could live with that as well. the problem is, that the term actually is the only evidence, that Dyson has. and at that point, the contradiction becomes problematic.
As to the claim that many sceptics are also environmentalists, I can attest to that (I being one of them) but it is also true that many right wing people detest the environmental movement, and they are often the same people that have jumped on the bandwagon of climate scepticism.
well, i would (carefully) claim to be an environmentalist as well. but the claim was about “passionate environmentalists”.
now a greenpeace activist would be the first person on my mind, who fits that term. most people don t, and surely NOT “many sceptics”.
Since when are “strange correlations FACTS? With equal resoluteness I could claim there is a strange correlation between gullibility and global warming alarmism. And then claim it as FACT.
strange correlations are facts, as are less surprising correlations. here is my offer: i ll name you one old “sceptic scientist”, for every sceptical passionate environmentalist you name me
luke, little Will and silly sod and the rest of the AGW advocates still do not address the issue I raised above; that issue is this; AGW is based on the idea that there is a best natural state [eden] which is made inferior and reduced in value by man’s activity; 2 questions emerge from this:
The first is, what is that ideal state which is despoiled by mankind?
The second is, what is an acceptable intrusion/disruption by mankind of that ideal state?
cohenite “AGW is based on the idea that there is a best natural state [eden] which is made inferior and reduced in value by man’s activity…”
the AGW lads should come up to Canada right now and experience how far we have moved from Eden. This is without a doubt the coldest winter in a long time. In December, we had more snow than we’ve had for 40 years, back in the good old days when winters were colder.
I’ve heard all the arguments about trends, and how one bad winter is meaningless. Maybe if those types were here right now they’d get it that theory is theory and that actuality is something else. I heard some idiot claiming the other day that the snow was a product of global warming. Yeah, right!! What about the cold required to produce the snow…is that a product of global warming as well? And where does the cold come from in Canada? Why, it comes from the Arctic, where all the warming is taking place.
It’s in the – 30’s C in the Canadian prairies right now, which is not unseasonably cold, but it demonstrates exactly what the 0.6 C ‘average’ global warming means. Nothing!!
Lukes pathetic attempt at analysis is this?
“….Anyway – excuse me if I’m sceptical about farmers being “environmentalists” – let’s see massive soil erosion, soil acidity, salinity, woody weeds galore, and feral pests – vast injections ongoing of tax dollars in drought aid and landcare – and for what improvement? I’m SCEPTICAL – LOLZ !!!..”
If you own something you look after it. That is why private property ownership is a cornerstone of our economic success over the last 400 years.
If everyone owns something no-one cares and it is used and abused. How many national parks are looked after and cared for? Very few.
sod “are you guys trying to showcase your lack of understanding of CO2? yes, mankind is currently doubling it. yes, it will have an effect”.
cohenite is trying to point out that man is doubling only his contribution, which is about 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. The other 97% comes from Mother Earth…from the oceans and the land. Even though we have supposedly doubled our contribution, that 97% has barely budged. Roy Spencer puts it more succinctly. We humans contribute 1 molecule of CO2 to 100,000 molecules of air EVERY FIVE YEARS. That’s based on the IPCC CO2 density of 380 ppmv. What they don’t tell you is that 97% of that 380 ppmv is natural CO2, not man made.
Those figures come from the IPCC itself, as cohenite has pointed out. It is you who is showcasing his lack of understanding of CO2 by hanging onto a doubling of essentially nothing. Ask yourself what the variability is in the 97% that comes from natural sources.
J. Hansford “… In my opinion it is better handled within the idea of Christian compassion…”
I am not arguing against your Christian statements, so please don’t take what I am saying in that vein. I do take issue with your statement about ‘Christian compassion’, however, as if it is different than natural compassion. We humans are born with the capacity for love and compassion and Christians are only one group who try to express that. Love and compassion are part of our intelligence, which operates separately from our normal conscious thought process. In other words, we have the capacity for intelligent action, like love and compassion, but we often override it with learned thought processes and experiences.
This notion of environmentalism as a religion came to me originally from Michael Crichton. I took exception to Freeman Dyson railing against socialism, seeing socialists as being behind the global warming hysteria. That position from Dyson suggested a lack of compassion from him and I commented to that effect in my long retort. Michael Crichton, on the other hand, I regarded as a sensitive, compassionate man. His comments about environmentalists was far more intelligent than what I read in Dyson’s comments. Crichton practiced what he preached, being environmentally conscious himself.
With regard to environmentalism as a religion, I have been unkind to those genuinely religious people who live a life based on compassion by inferring that all religious people are zealots. I certainly did not mean that.
As J. Krishnamurti and the theoretical physicist David Bohm pointed out in their dialogs, the root meaning of ‘religious’, is ‘to be serious’. To practice anything religiously is to practice it seriously. As J. Hansford pointed out, compassion is a basis of Christianity, but one would find that hard to accept when observing the practices of certain religious people. Compassion is a feeling that comes when we observe the plight or the struggles of another, whether human or animal. It cannot exist in the ego-state, where the focus is on our own needs and desires.
When I refer to environmentalist as religious fanatics, I’m refering to those religious types who force their belief systems on others to the exclusion of compassion. They have no feelings for others, and no tolerance. In this global warming debacle, top scientists such as James Hansen, and David Suzuki, here in Canada, have suggested people be jailed for being skeptical of the popular global warming paradigm. Greenpeace goes out of its way to break the laws in countries and rub peoples’ noses in their skepticism. I find that little different than the practices of certain religions where people are ostracized for failing to believe in a particular brand of religion. How one can proffer to be serious and compassionate, yet turn his/her back on another for essentially nothing, is beyond me.
I’m sure there are environmentalists who have compassion for others but I’m not hearing any of them speaking out. Just as no scientists from the HIV/AIDS school of thought stepped forward to protest the cruel treatment of Peter Duesberg for his skepticism, no AGW advocates are stepping forward to protest insensitivity towards global warming skeptics. That’s part of the reason why I see them as being akin to religious fanatics.
SJT flapped: “The only reason there is so much extra CO2 in the atmosphere is our burning fossil fuels.”
and you knew this how????
any evidence for this giant leap of logic?
because Hansen and the IPCC said so???
must be some version of Papal infallibility operating here? yes?
CoRev: “Now that was funny….”
,
I was merely suggesting some career options for Luke should his luck run out. Haven’t we all faced a bit of adversity from time to time and dare I say disappointment?
And yes I’ve done fair share of fencing of the barb wire kind, and no matter careful you might be, you never escape unscathed. I’ve marked heaps of cattle (as in de-bulling), sheep are a special case in that, oops ( watch out Luke! don’t swallow that one!). As for rattling a can, we are forever being accosted by street corner fund raising critters, who are not averse to abusing non donators. And farting in a jar is the ultimate in recycling, bit inconvenient, but hey, it’s the cause!
Dear Jennifer and commentators,
In Australia we use Australian English not American English. Therefore we spell “sceptical” with a “c” and not with a “k” as the Yanks do in “skeptical”.
And yes AGW is certainly a secular religion with the non-scientist Al Gore as High Priest and non-climatologist Tim Flannery as an acolyte. Both of them are doing ever so nicely from promoting their snake oils that Mr Gore recently made a $35million investment in his own name with an Investment Bank in the USA as well as buying a huge gas guzzling motor-yacht. All this when he had only $2million registered in total assets when he campaigned for the US presidency some 8 years ago. He also now has several mansions which are continuously floodlit at night. All aboard the gravy train!!!
There is a new film coming out in 2009 that clearly demonstrates the link between environmentalists’ efforts to prevent DDT from being used in developing nations and an increase in malaria related deaths. The film’s title is Not Evil Just Wrong.
To view a preview of the film, visit the following website and click on link on the
link that says “Must See Film of 09.”
http://www.hootervillegazette.com
Documentary films such as this usually do not get the publicity they deserve. There are concerns that environmentalist will attempt to have this film banned in many area. Please help us get the word out. Thank You!
The Hooterville News
Gordon Robertson January 4th, 2009 at 9:19 am
You just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the CO2 cycle.
The best estimates I’ve seen are that human caused CO2 is about 3.5 to 4% of the total that goes into the atmosphere each year. Roughly half of that amount is the extra CO2 that stays in the atmosphere each year currently. Of course that does not mean that half the human generated CO2 stays in the atmosphere, just that the natural systems for whatever reason cannot sink all of the extra human caused amount, hence the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Now it may be that warmer oceans are releasing some dissolved CO2 or that other natural sinks are not working as effectively as previously or it may be that the rate of production of human generated CO2 is greater than the natural sinks can cope with. In any case the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and if we burn enough coal ,oil and gas will likely double.
The issue is what this will do. We have estimates that range from very little to catastrophic with the catastrophic end depending on a string of assumptions of dubious veracity.
Then we must decide on a response. There does not seem to be any large scale evidence that our technological civilisation can survive with drastic cuts in energy use so the problem becomes one of finding alternate sources of energy that do not depend on burning oil or coal. If you really, really believe CO2 is a problem you should be campaigning for a large scale urgent program to replace coal burning power stations with nuclear power stations. Wind and solar don’t cut it.
As for your love of unions, I’ve been a member of a couple in my time for a short while. Can’t say it did me any good but I’m sure some union officials were making a nice living.
You have of course seen the bank accounts of your union leaders and their families and so can make the statement that the union is clean.
The UAW seems to be doing their members a lot of good, no? Likely negotiate them out of a job by crashing the business. Nice!
As for where I found out about unions – by reading the papers. We had one union “running through ” businesses in Victoria a few years ago causing damage and intimidation, in another case a small business with no union members working there was picketed and prevented from operating to try to force its employees to join the union. It wasn’t so long ago the Australian waterfront was cleaned up after years of unconscionable rorts which put up costs for eveyone in the country.
Do you seriously think that anyone would take any notice of a union if there wasn’t the intimidation and not so subtle threat of violence which the police will do nothing about in this country?
SJT and Eyrie:
What, then, caused natural CO2 sources and natural CO2 sinks to track each other so closely as to keep atmospheric CO2 levels more-or-less constant over the hundreds or thousands of years before man started burning fossil fuels?
Robust answers, please.
To view a preview of the film, visit the following website and click on link on the
link that says “Must See Film of 09.”
http://www.hootervillegazette.com
Documentary films such as this usually do not get the publicity they deserve. There are concerns that environmentalist will attempt to have this film banned in many area. Please help us get the word out. Thank You!
i urge everyone to watch the trailer of this on youtube. it makes the claim that scientists are inventing catastrophic scenarios. (funny, they don t.)
on the other hand, the film (and denialists in general) nearly ALWAYS talk about the catastrophes that would follow a minor reduction in CO2 output.
(you will notice how cheap and bad the film is when watching it. “normal people respond to al Gore”. very useful part of the scientific debate!)
Weeping whilikers; sod, you can’t be real; admit it, you’re a committee.
Peter; “Robust answers, please.” That’s a bit unreasonable when you’re assertions are hardly robust; consider;
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TDdxO2FHJPs/SQ2wsVEvoxI/AAAAAAAAACs/DGM5SR0OWWQ/s1600-h/Sea-level_Ice_Temperatures_CO2_20ka_Graph.png
Or this;
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
Or this;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
Whenever I hear anyone use the term “social justice” these days, I’m certain that I’m reading an idiot. People who talk about abstract, relatavistic and opinion based concepts like “social justice” as though they had real and objectively based existence make me shudder. I fear them as much as people must have feared church inquisitions in the middle ages. While Dyson correctly identifies environmentalism as a new secular religion, he seems to be blind to the secular religion within his own world view.
SJT “The fact that you and others have fallen for Spencers deliberately misleading logic just shows how dishonest he is in this debate”.
What is misleading about taking IPCC figures and breaking them down into visualizations we can understand? Gore went the opposite route, trying to terrify people with gigatons of CO2 being emitted and no mention that 50% is absorbed right off the bat. He failed to point out that gigatons are not even as spit in the ocean compared to the size and mass of the atmosphere (The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion metric tons). A quadrillion is 10 to the 15th power; a billion is 10 to the 9th power.
Spencer took IPCC figures and painted a picture of what it actually means in molecules. It was the IPCC revealed that anthropogenic CO2 is only a fraction of the natural CO2 produced by our lands and oceans. They actually used those words in AR4. They also provided a graph that cohenite linked to. It was the US Department of Energy that made the IPCC graph into a table. What was the IPCC hiding by not providing a table and percentages? Using the IPCC graph and/or the DOE table, one can easily calculate that man-made CO2 is about 3% of all CO2 produced. Why were they trying to keep that from us?
The IPCC also spat out the CO2 atmospheric density of 380 ppmv. They did not explain anywhere I have seen that the 380 ppmv represents the 97% natural CO2 + the 3% man-made CO2. In other words, man is adding about 11.4 parts of CO2 per million parts of air. All Spencer did was convert the parts per million to molecules per million, which is very basic science.
He subdivided the 380 molecules per million of air to 38 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molecules of air, using simple math and dividing by 10. Then he multiplied the 38 molecules by the average increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to man, which is about 0.6% per year. That came to 0.228 molecules of CO2 per 100,000 molcules of air. To get a round number, he multiplied by 5 to get 1 molecule of CO2 added by man to 100,000 molecules of air EVERY FIVE YEARS.
Where is the dishonesty in that? Spencer took IPCC number and broke them down into units that could be mentally visualized. Anyone with a science background knows you could get 100,000 molecules of CO2 on the head of a pin, but how many pinheads of air are there in the atmosphere. That’s the whole point.
Gore wants us to freak out because several billion tons of CO2 have been put into the atmosphere by humans. Several billion tons is still 3% of the total number of billion tons put in the atmosphere by the lands and oceans.
If the 97% of existing, natural CO2 did not create global warming, how is it possible for an additional few percent added by man to create a problem? If anyone is misleading anyone here, it’s the IPCC, Al Gore and all the AGW advocates who play with big number without telling the whole story.
Bushie from Burnet “In Australia we use Australian English not American English. Therefore we spell “sceptical” with a “c” and not with a “k” as the Yanks do in “skeptical”.
Hey, Bushie…wouldn’t that make the pronounciation ‘septical’, as in septic tank? We know a sceptre is pronounced ‘septre’, although Scottish is Skottish. It has a lot to do with the kind of vowel that follows. Usually an ‘sc’ in English, followed by a soft vowel, like ‘e’, make the ‘sc’ soft (scene, sceptre, science), whereas following a hard vowel it becomes hard (scab, scant, Scot, scum, scorn).
I hate to tell you this, but your derivation comes from French and Latin. Since Canada is bilingual (French and English), we Anglos have had it up to hear with French being shoved down our throats. Most of us have nothing against the French (Quebecois) it’s the legislation requiring both French and English be used on many things. If you don’t mind, I’ll stick to the Yank version, and be skeptical.
I hope you don’t spell ‘sketch’ as ‘scetch’. 🙂
Eyrie “In any case the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and if we burn enough coal ,oil and gas will likely double”.
I understand your carbon cycle ‘theory’ perfectly well. If you look at the DOE table 3, page 26 here:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf
It’s all laid out for you. This data applies to the 1990’s, but even in AR4, that’s the best you’ll get from the IPCC as well. They seem to have forgotten to update.
The DOE tells us 11700 MMT of CO2 were added to the atmosphere per year. That’s about 11700/793100 = 1.5% per year. Spencer uses the figure 0.6% per year and you’d have to ask him about that. As a scientist, I’m sure he’ll have his reasons. How many years will it take to double the CO2 in that case? That’s assuming all those figures are correct and that the carbon cycle operates as they claim it does.
According to Jaworowski, an expert on ice core proxy methods, the IPCC are corrupt. Even if he’s only half right, that’s not good news. We all saw what a mess they made of the hockey stick and how they tried to cover it up in AR4. He has questioned their figure of 270 ppmv of CO2 in the pre-Industrial era, claiming it could be 50% higher. Part of his reasoning is that ice under tremendous pressure, and methods used to extract it, remove a significant number of isotopes from the ice, so the CO2 density reads lower. If he’s right, or only partly right, what does that do to your carbon cycle? Jaworowski insists the IPCC cherry-picked the 270 ppmv value, ignoring other impelling data and theories
The IPCC used to spread innuendo about an imminent disaster, but this year they suggested there’s no hurry. That’s all I’m saying. I’m for reducing emissions, just not in a panic, where terrible mistakes could be made and where people could suffer economic hardships. Remember that CO2 is still a trace gas in the atmosphere at about 0.03%. Doubling it wont make much difference because the science behind it, based on computer models, is plain wrong. Considering that the atmosphere has a mass of several quadrillion metric tons, what difference do you think 11000 MMT per year will make over a century?
Spencer produced his 1 molecule of man-made CO2 added to 100,000 molecules of air every five years to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem. 11,700 MMT of CO2 per year sounds like an awful lot, but broken down, it’s 1 molecule of CO2 added to 100,000 molecules of air, every five years. That is part of your exponential carbon cycle.
With respect to unions, our leader is paid based on the journeyman rate. Our journeyman get about $65000 Canadian a year, meaning he is paid under $100,000 a year. I know the guy personally and have known him for 20 years. He doesn’t come across to me as the kind of sleazebag crook you have in mind.
Eyrie “Do you seriously think that anyone would take any notice of a union if there wasn’t the intimidation and not so subtle threat of violence which the police will do nothing about in this country”?
That’s the point you don’t seem to get. A unionist has nothing but the strike and his willingness to do what it takes to make that strike work. No one could stop Hitler with negotiations and unfortunately it came down to extreme violence to get the job done. If you rely only on negotiations, employers will play different games to put pressure on you. If they don’t think you’ll fight back, they’ll run all over you. They’ll ultimately use the courts, who will use the cops and fines to hurt you. Of course, the courts are run by laws which are passed by anti-union governments influenced by unscrupulous employers.
It’s a game, and the media plays its part by painting the unionists as gangsters or bikers. Of course, people like you buy into the media drivel and wont go talk to unionists to get their side of the story. I know there were crooked unions around and there still might be. I know workers have used unions to hide behind to get good money and do nothing to earn it. Those are not the unions or unionists I have come to know. Most of the jobs I have worked on are run by skilled guys who put in a good days work. The guys we work directly under, like A and B foremen, are union too, and they make sure you keep your nose to the grindstone. The part played by the union and the contract is to make sure they don’t push your face right into the grindstone on behalf of the employer.
I have worked non-union a significant protion of my life, and have not had a lot of complaints. Then again, I was working in a technical field where relationships were cordial between employer and employee. That’s not often the case on construction sites. For some reason, construction bosses tend to be pushy and insulting. I could not imagine enduring them without a contract and a union to back that contract, but even with both of those, life on a construction site is not always a piece of cake.
When you have your manhood insulted on an ongoing basis, only to drag your butt home, dead tired, and have to show up nexy day to do it again, you can become a little testy after a while. When your contract expires, and your employer starts treating you as a twit, offering you cuts in salary, benefits and conditions, and threatening you with scabs to replace you, violence can rear its ugly head. The media always blames it on the unionists and portrays them as troublemakers. Then again, what would you expect from some pussy who makes his living criticizing people and gets his job only because he kisses the butts of the employer creed?
I’m a contractor now, even though I keep up my union membership. I have always understood the employer’s point of view and needs, and have been willing to give a good days work for the dollar he pays me. I would never abide a slacker working for me or someone who wasn’t willing to earn his wage. At the same time, I don’t expect to pay a guy a salary he has trouble living on just so I can enjoy a higher style of living. The employers in our bargaining unit are all millionaires. They haven’t suffered in the least paying us union wages and benefits.