moonbattery.gif


« Obama Summed Up in One Picture | Main | Bureauweenies on Three Wheels »


April 20, 2009

Ever Fewer Believe in Global Warming Farce, Even as It's Used to Destroy Economy

Even as our socialist rulers prepare to cripple the economy and intrude in every corner of our lives in the name of the global warming farce, and the mainstream media's relentless barrage of alarmist propaganda continues, only 34% are dim-witted and/or gullible enough to think human activity is making it be too warm out. From Rasmussen:

Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying.

Even among Kool-Aid–guzzling, anti-industry Democrats, only 51% still think manmade global warming is real, even though their tin messiah "has made global warming a priority for his administration." Others have figured out that they're being lied to. Less than half of Americans think Comrade Obama really believes in global warming, despite this:

The Obama administration declared Friday that carbon dioxide and five other industrial emissions threaten the planet. The landmark decision lays the groundwork for federal efforts to cap carbon emissions — at a potential cost of billions of dollars to businesses and government.
The Environmental Protection Agency finding that the emissions endanger "the health and welfare of current and future generations" is "the first formal recognition by the U.S. government of the threats posed by climate change," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote in a memo to her staff.

This means that anything that generates harmless CO2 — i.e., all human activity — will be subject to regulation by the EPA's environazi bureaucrats, on the grounds that 1 in 3 voters is sufficiently simple-minded to keep swallowing the global warming hoax.

The impact of the EPA finding could be dramatic. Using the Clean Air Act, the EPA could raise fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, such as by authorizing nationwide adoption of California's rules for greenhouse-gas tailpipe emissions.
That could require auto makers to produce more hybrid and electric vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid under development by General Motors Corp. The Volt, however, is expected to carry a sticker of about $40,000, or roughly twice the price of a conventional Chevrolet Malibu sedan.

Not to worry, if Government Motors loses money building $40,000 golf carts that only Ed Begley would be caught dead in, the taxpayer can just bail them out.

In electric power, the EPA could force new power plants to include emissions-reduction technology, although it is unclear whether emerging technologies to capture carbon-dioxide emissions would be feasible.
The EPA could order older power plants to be retrofitted, such as with more-efficient boilers, and it could mandate more reliance on wind and other renewable energy if coal-fired power plants can't be made to run more cleanly. That could present technological and infrastructure challenges.

Brownouts and your power bill shooting through the ceiling are only the beginning of what this will mean.

Poverty and totalitarianism are being imposed in the name of a myth that has already outlived itself. They may as well declare martial law and the abolition of property rights on orders from Zeus.

Now the good news: If America survives the current regime with its spirit intact, the backlash will rid us of liberalism for at least a generation.

On tips from Byron and Burning Hot.

Posted by Van Helsing at April 20, 2009 7:50 AM

Comments

"If America survives the current regime with its spirit intact, the backlash will rid us of liberalism for at least a generation."

Not likely. Americans (predominantly Baby Boomers) have become a bunch of inert ass clowns who wouldn't walk across the street even if it meant saving their lives because it might distract from ... [fill in the blank] that is so-o-o-o much more important.

In addition, over half the country has now got its hand in someone else's pocket and they are not about to abandon this "free" lucre, especially when Barry has promised much, much more free stuff all paid for by The Rich.

Welcome to the USSA.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at April 20, 2009 8:21 AM

Its econut overload on NBC (with its green logo), MSNBC, cable networks and even FOX network is droning on about Global Warming as EcoNazis have even invaded "24" with its public service messages at the end of recent episodes and that irritating Janeane Gar-buffalo on the cast this season - hopefully her charactder will get killed off with a bullet the middle of head before the season ends.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 20, 2009 8:29 AM

Isn't it better to leave, y'know, science policy up to scientists, and not opinion polls? A majority of scientists (and I am aware that they're are exceptions) support the theory of man made global warming. Whilst it is still a theory, and a hugely complex one at that, surely it's their opinion that matters?

Posted by: Ben at April 20, 2009 8:30 AM

Isn't it better to um, y'know, doubt the "scientific consensus" when that thing we stupid redneck hicks call "the real world" fails to conform to any of their climate models?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 20, 2009 8:40 AM

Whilst it is still a theory, and a hugely complex one at that, surely it's their opinion that matters?

No, it's not their opinion that matters. It's the facts that they can produce.

Scientific consensus used to tell us that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, and that leeches cured disease.

I'm far more concerned with demonstrable fact and reality. Apparently you're not, which is fine, but please stop trying to force others to conform to your opinions and beliefs. It's rude, ya know?

Posted by: cowlove at April 20, 2009 8:41 AM

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 20, 2009 8:52 AM

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, scientists might be better at interpreting the complex facts that people who aren't scientists? I'm certainly not a scientists, but the majority of them seem to agree that man is having an impact of the world's climate. They don't always agree on how that impact is manifesting, but they do agree that something is happening. You want facts? Glaciers are melting. Do think Swiss, German, Coloradan and French ski resorts spends millions every winter to 'create' fake snow to counter-act the increasingly rapidly melting real stuff for fun? Do you think Russian, Canada, the USA and Denmark are lobbying for rights to newly opened Arctic sea-lanes that don't exist?

Posted by: Ben at April 20, 2009 9:03 AM

Then let the scientists pay for it

Posted by: JamesJ at April 20, 2009 9:05 AM

Not all glaciers are melting - many are growing. And THAT IS A FACT.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

There are other sources.

Sure the world is warmer than 200 years ago, but it was getting warmer since the mid 1800s after the end of the Little Ice Age. But man has little if anything to do with it.
1000 years ago it was warmer than it is today and Greenland was truly GREEN - green enough for farms - were the Viking driving SUV's back then?

Posted by: Gorebull Warming at April 20, 2009 9:17 AM

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, scientists might be better at interpreting the complex facts that [sic] people who aren't scientists?

Of course. But you have to understand, when Arctic sea ice is increasing, when global temperatures are dropping, when the sea levels are not rapidly rising, when hurricane season essentially goes "poof," there's only so much doom and gloom you can throw around until people start saying, "wait a second here..." This poll is clear evidence of that fact.

I'm certainly not a scientists [sic], but the majority of them seem to agree that man is having an impact of the world's climate.

Is it the majority of them? I got the impression that it was the majority of the U.N.'s climate scientists. Do you see the agenda they might have? Besides, at what point do we just stop doubting and go with the consensus? Is it when 51% of scientists agree? 60%? 75%? Or, can we take their opinions, examine their facts, and decide for ourselves without having the government intrude and mandate for us?

Posted by: cowlove at April 20, 2009 9:23 AM

I think Global Warming is being advanced more by scienticians than actual scientists. Real scientists don't work by deciding on a conclusion (i.e. human activity is burning up the Earth) and then going out to construct models and cherry pick data that supports their conclusions.

The idea that there is only one ideal Global Temperature and that any minor variation from it is catastrophic is not science.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at April 20, 2009 9:56 AM

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, scientists might be better at interpreting the complex facts that [sic] people who aren't scientists?

Well, that assumes that scientists aren't people. They are people. They have jobs dependent on funding, and their families might not get to eat if they don't get funding. Who controls funding? Politicians. So if the politicians decide that scaring the crap out of people will make them money in carbon-trading credits, are they going to fund studies that say global warming is caused by the sun? Or that there is no global warming at all? Follow the money.

Posted by: Nancy at April 20, 2009 10:22 AM

One of the more useful things I learned in college when learning how to do research is to follow the money before deciding how much weight to give other people/organization's research. Who is paying for the research is almost more important than who is doing the research. If the sponsors of any given research have a significant amount to gain if the results turn out a certain way, you have to be skeptical of the results.

Posted by: butlerj at April 20, 2009 10:54 AM

One of the more useful things I learned in college when learning how to do research is to follow the money before deciding how much weight to give other people/organization's research. Who is paying for the research is almost more important than who is doing the research. If the sponsors of any given research have a significant amount to gain if the results turn out a certain way, you have to be skeptical of the results.

Posted by: butlerj at April 20, 2009 10:55 AM

If the one get his way, and it look like he will, we will see our electric bill go from $100, $200,or $300 to $1000, $2000, or even $3000. Of course we will not be able to pay that much and the first thing the one will do is a price freeze on electric power and gas. Then there will be none. When I came into this world, my family had one light in the kitchen and one in the living room. The heat was wood. The one is sending back to my childhood.

Posted by: shunha7878 at April 20, 2009 10:56 AM

oops, sorry about the double post.

Posted by: butlerj at April 20, 2009 10:57 AM

Isn't it better to leave, y'know, science policy up to scientists, and not opinion polls? A majority of scientists (and I am aware that they're are exceptions) support the theory of man made global warming. Whilst it is still a theory, and a hugely complex one at that, surely it's their opinion that matters?

First, scientists do not, and should not, make policy. Policymakers – i.e., politicians - make policy for the polity, to which they are answerable (as scientists are not). Notice the recurring stem of the words in that sentence? Polity: the social unit of organization. Policymaking involves social decisions, weighing social costs and benefits.

Second, AGW is not a theory. It is a conjecture, not even a hypothesis. Laymen use theory to describe a hunch, or what we scientists would call a WAG – wild-assed guess. In scientific usage a theory is something so well-substantiated by repeated and varied experiments that it is considered a bedrock of scientific thought. Gravity is a theory. General relativity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Thermodynamics is a theory. Nucleic acids as the repository of protein coding information is a theory.

And yet even then, theories are overthrown (generally in the sense of being seriously modified). For example, Newtonian mechanics was considered rock-solid up to about 1900. Can’t argue with equations that describe, e.g., motion of billiard balls, correctly, every time, right? That’s what everyone thought. How could Newtonian mechanics possibly be wrong? Everyone believed it; you could validate it with your own eyes.

Then scientists began looking at progressively smaller objects. Newtonian mechanics works fine on billiard balls, but down at the atomic/sub-atomic level, a lot of funky things were noticed that made no sense. A photon was considered a particle, but when one impinged on two slits there was an interference pattern on the opposite side. Huh? Interference patterns result from interactions between two waves. How could one particle act like two waves? The photoelectric effect (for which Einstein actually won his Nobel Prize, not relativity) is another example. Upshot: Newtonian mechanics were overthrown, and recognized as a special case of quantum mechanics.

AGW is a conjecture, a notion. Once someone devises a way of testing it that can falsify the notion, then AGW will advance to a hypothesis, i.e., a provisional explanation currently being tested. So the jury isn’t back on AGW. It hasn’t even been empaneled yet.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, scientists might be better at interpreting the complex facts that people who aren't scientists? I'm certainly not a scientists, but the majority of them seem to agree that man is having an impact of the world's climate.

I am a scientist, and based on my knowledge of, inter alia, infrared spectroscopy, I think it’s laughable, but that’s not the point. The point is that scientific issues are not decided by a show of hands. One man with dispositive data trumps hundred thousand guys, no matter how prominent, with opinions.

William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), the pre-eminent physicist of the Victorian era, and one of the greatest scientists of all time, believed that heavier than air aviation was impossible, thought X-rays were a hoax, and miscalculated the age of the earth from its cooling rate by a factor of 1000 (he didn’t know about radioactive decay, which heats the earth). You see the point.

Sorry for the long rant. This one gets my goat. (Who knew?)

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 20, 2009 11:31 AM

All the HOT AIR round comes from WASHINGTON D.C. and from a certian place in TENNESEE and especialy from a couple of ships the RAINBOW WARRIOR and ARCTIC SUNRISE both owned and operated by GREENPEACE

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at April 20, 2009 11:32 AM

Nancy raises a good point re the sociology of science. Despite not believing in AGW for a nanosecond, if I were still active in research I’d happily bow to it in grant proposals, and keep my views to myself (and in fact did just this when I was active). Why? Easy. If your boss asks you what you think of him, you tell him what you think he wants to hear, to make your life easier. Buck the current, and life gets hard, fast.

Climatologists are on the gravy train right now. They’re a Cinderella field that moved from a sleepy backwater to glamorous center stage, and has seen a tenfold increase in funding at a time when other scientific disciplines fight tooth and nail for 10% increases. Blow the whistle on it and you might as well stand on a street corner recruiting for NAMBLA; you wouldn’t be any less popular in the field. Since funding is divvied up by the scientists (anonymous peer-review of proposals), unpopularity for a scientist = lack of funding = career demise.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 20, 2009 11:42 AM

Some people have made some really good points. Sorry for my surprise, but I noticed that people tend to get shouted down. I'm more than willing to admit that climate science is complex (can anything be more complex than the entire make-up of the earth's eco-system?), but it'sreally hard to deny that something is going on. Many glaciers are melting, the Arctic is shrinking, although not in a uniform pattern (seriously, for those who disagree, do you really think the Canadian, Russian and US are readying to fight for resources that are going to be freed up by melting ice over nothing - even if you do doubt the motives of scientists, do you think the defence department is so suckered in as to plan for such a thing).

Temperatures have been increasing, and for those who reply that its only a fraction of a degree (or negligible), then I would say that we are still missing a great deal of data, and don't know the ramifications of even such a small increase on our eco-system.

I admit that I do believe (although, I don't think you can 'believe' in science, it's just science, it just is) in man made global warming, but even if you're skeptical, then surely you'd want more research, more funding, to help explain the demonstrable changes that are happening. To just say 'oh, it's sun spots', and recline on your deck-chair in the warm mid-January sunshine seems foolish. When a poll like todays Rasmussen comes out, your all over it. There have been several studies released recently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage

from NASA, the NSIDC, and from both Oxford and Cambridge Universities that say the Arctic is shrinking, and shrinking fast. Surely, at least some of these scientists are honest, and not in it for all the rewards the acceptance of global warming theory will bring.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 20, 2009 12:42 PM

Temperatures are NOT increasing, even by fractions of a degree; they've been dead flat for about 10 years and have started falling. The ice is growing generally, not just in specific places. It's nothing like a majority of scientists that support AGW, just the IPCC and some government crackpots scraping for their funding. AGW is in fact the second-to-most recent platform for the international communists to grab power (the most recent being the banking system "failure"). Both are manufactured crises.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at April 20, 2009 1:39 PM

Many glaciers are melting, the Arctic is shrinking, although not in a uniform pattern

Is that really true? How do we know? We are told this, but we have no way of determining it independently of those who would like us to believe just that. Rule #1 of scientific research: before trying to explain a phenomenon, maked damned sure the phenomenon actually exists.

(seriously, for those who disagree, do you really think the Canadian, Russian and US are readying to fight for resources that are going to be freed up by melting ice over nothing - even if you do doubt the motives of scientists, do you think the defence department is so suckered in as to plan for such a thing).

First, I’ve never heard anything to this effect. It has that “urban legend” feel to it.

Second, even if it’s true (and frankly it sounds a bit fevered to me), it’s prudent to make small provisions against even against remote possibilities. Trashing the world’s economy is not a small provision.

Third, you’re holding out the Defense Department as a bastion of sagacity and judgment? I love it. What a delicious sense of humor! /g (You are aware that at one time the Defense Department had a program on using psychics to divine Soviet secrets, right?

Temperatures have been increasing, and for those who reply that its only a fraction of a degree (or negligible), then I would say that we are still missing a great deal of data, and don't know the ramifications of even such a small increase on our eco-system.

First, it’s not clear that temperatures are increasing. Temperatures historically (on the geologic timescale) have oscillated all over the place. (Note that oil and coal deposits reflect what used to be...jungle at one time.) To conclude that the climate is getting warming based even on a few hundred years’ data is like concluding that the stock market is going up based on a few minutes’ trading, or that flipping a coin always yields “heads” because it’s turned up “heads” twice in a row.

I admit that I do believe

“Believe” is the operative word.

but even if you're skeptical, then surely you'd want more research, more funding

Continued research, continued funding. Not more funding, certainly. We can’t afford that, thanks to the stimulus bill. We as a nation are going to be eating Hamburger Helper a long time because of that.

from NASA, the NSIDC, and from both Oxford and Cambridge Universities that say the Arctic is shrinking, and shrinking fast.

Argument from authority. Reread the bit I wrote about Lord Kelvin. ‘Nuff said.

I also had a senior position in one of those organizations, and I can assure you it’s hopelessly, laughably screwed up.

at least some of these scientists are honest

Yeah, but which ones? /g

Seriously, though, consider this. If the atmosphere were likened to the population of the US, total CO2 would amount to 150,000 people (out of 300 million; 500 ppm). Anthropogenic CO2 would correspond to ...4500 people (3%). (No one disputes these numbers, btw. These are hard data.) Is it plausible that the mere addition of 4500 individuals – who are absolutely identical in every respect with 150,000 already here – would suddenly have catastrophic consequences?

Here’s another point. While CO2 is ca. 500 ppm (i.e., 0.05%) of the atmosphere, water vapor is a few percent (ca. 20 mm Hg out of 760 mm Hg at sea level, depending on humidity). Water has a hefty permanent dipole moment, has a whacking great transition electric dipole moment (which is why microwave ovens are tuned to it), and self-associates into clusters that smear out the O-H stretch and H-O-H bending absorbances. Consequently H2O absorbs across a whole range of IR frequencies centered on 3300 and 1600 cm-1. CO2, by contrast, has two IR-active bands, both needle sharp (because CO2 doesn’t self-associate) at 2346 cm-1 and as second around 1600 cm-1 (IIRC; the first one is diagnostic, and memorable). If the IR absorbances were weapons, H2O would be a shotgun, while CO2 would be a rifle. And someone’s trying to convince me that CO2 is the critical factor in warming? No sale.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 20, 2009 2:19 PM

I've already pointed out the advantages of warm wheather vs cold wheather MANY TIMES!! so I won't go into that. INstead I will point out what EVERY warming believer seems to promote.

Have you ever seen the "natural disaster" movies where there is ALWAYS some renegade "scientist" who has a wild theory about the impending disaster? The scene always goes something like this:

RENEGADE: "The world will be destroyed!"
EEEVIL, SELL-OUT, CORPORATE FUND ACCEPTING SCIENTIST: "But the insterments, years of study, observations and experimentation of dozens of scientists around the world say you're wrong."
RENEGADE: "I still trust my GUT FEELINGS!"

That's what the warming believers are expecting: some hot shot "scientist" who will prove the old-fogies wrong by depending on his/her "gut feelings" instead of research, observations, experiments and years of study.

Posted by: KHarn at April 20, 2009 3:05 PM

Since Al Gore doesn't believe in this farce enough to give up his multiple homes and private jet travel, why should we believe it?

Posted by: V the K at April 20, 2009 7:17 PM

HYUK,HYUK,HYUK A CHEAP AND EFFICIANT WAY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING USE DUCT TAPE OVER THE MOUTHS OF ALL ECO-WACKOS TO CUT DOWN ONHOT AHIR SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK HYUK,HYUK,HYUK

Posted by: Flu-Bird at April 20, 2009 9:16 PM

Isn't it better to leave, y'know, science policy up to scientists, and not opinion polls? A majority of scientists (and I am aware that they're are exceptions) support the theory of man made global warming. Whilst it is still a theory, and a hugely complex one at that, surely it's their opinion that matters?

y'know,sooooo pwned!

Posted by: dean at April 21, 2009 1:07 PM

Posted by: dean at April 21, 2009 1:07 PM

...?

Posted by: cowlove at April 21, 2009 1:53 PM

The minute I heard B. Hussein Obama say the words "cap and trade" I knew we were in deep trouble. The nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, used to operate on the principle that if a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth. That's what we have going on here folks." Follow the money" is right. If anyone is interested in education about the subject of climate science a very good place to start is the Heritage Foundation website where one can access presentations recently given at the 2nd Conference on Climate Change by prominent scientist from all over the planet and guys well versed on the economic impact of massive spending to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The words "I believe" don't change the facts. Anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention to the climate, which changes regularly by the way, and "believes" it's getting warmer due to manmade CO2 is living on a different planet than the one I inhabit. Has anyone on this post recently experienced a really warm winter? Thought so. Just the facts ma-am. And follow the money. While you're at it prepare for socialism. Or do your best to fight it. I prefer USA to USSA.

Posted by: Jerry at April 21, 2009 3:15 PM

There's some good anti-alarmist info on "Climate Change" at:

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/globalwarming.htm

This is a wee bit dated, but still good stuff.

Also,

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org

This site is up to date. It is also linked to the Moncton - Gore "Climate Change Challenge".

Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge on March 14, 2007:

*************************************************
Climate Change Challenge

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous”, to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.

Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.

Given at Carie, Rannoch, in the County of Perth, in the Kingdom of Scotland, this 14th Day of March in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand And Seven.

God Bless America ! God Save The Queen !

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, Scotland
011 44 1882 632341
monckton@mail.com
*************************************************

"...a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate..." Now THAT would be fun to watch!!!!

Makes me proud of my Scots heritage, too.

Of course, Former Vice President Al Gore has declined. I guess the "Planetary Crisis" and "Saving The World" isn't serious enough to risk taking a chance of being humbled and humiliated debating one of the Iron Lady's advisors.

Posted by: TonyD95B at April 21, 2009 6:51 PM