On climate, Greens got it easy. They get to tell everybody what to think or do and nobody really questions them except a few they ridicule as ‘deniers’.
Greens say earth is warming, no question, their science ‘is settled‘. Their models are perfect. Warming is anthropogenic – caused by human produced CO2, even though there are other bigger sources of this vital, grass growing gas. We gotta stop making CO2 or we gotta put it somewhere, regardless of cost. They say this WILL work, they do not say this MIGHT work. And they say if we do not, catastrophe WILL result, oceans will rise, New Orleans and Bangladesh will flood, deserts will form, ad nauseum.
But just to make sure, they demand– in the failed Copenhagen treaty– that nations commit to controlling the result, the TEMPERATURE of the earth. Earth – Obey Earthlings, obey Al Gore!
Deniers say Bring it on. Vikings once raised cattle and made wine (or at least beer) in Greenland. Gotta love beer–and a Viking lassie or two!
Which makes Greenies go nuts. Earnest folk those. For green fireworks, just visit a discussion/ forum debate between greens and deniers. Discussion?
Since greens want to impose costly solutions on the rest of us, the onus, imo, is on greens, not deniers to answer questions. Deniers just stand in for failed corporate journalism.
Deniers say different things.
Denier #1 says Humbug, the earth is NOT warming, despite what glaciers are doing, its actually cooling. Edmonton broke records -47degC. Arctic sea ice may be recovering. He also notes the spin switched from global warming (deniable) to climate change (duh, always changing).
Denier #1A remembers the 70s cooling scare, the Y2K scare , the swine flu scare, GWB’s special WMD scare and is tired of scare tactics.
Denier #1B is a bit longer winded so I’ll get to the Bs later.
Denier #2 says the earth MAY be warming, but it will not be warming for long. These things go in cycles, driven mostly by the sun. Such warming / cooling cycles have been repeating for centuries since the last ice age. Into this group, put deniers that say that CO2 makes little or no difference to temperature trends, since it still boils down to the sun, if you’ll pardon a lousy pun. As I said, corn and cows once grew on Greenland.
Denier #3 says, yes, the earth IS warming – and has been since the ice age ended. So what? Flooded Bangladeshis should buy homes in Greenland? Consult real estate speculators not climatologists!
Denier #4 says, yes, the earth is warming but humans are NOT responsible because….
Denier #4A says the amount of CO2 humans produce, even if measured in billions of tonnes, is small compared to what nature produces. These deniers question the whole idea that reducing human CO2, EVEN TO ZERO, would solve the problem. Partly this is because …..
Denier #4C says it is the slightly increasing heat from the sun that drives CO2 out from melting permafrost, warming oceans (like bubbles in a glass of water) and desertification that is mostly responsible for CO2 increase. This means temperature (heat) increases BEFORE CO2 not the other way around as we are told every day. If that is the case, then trying to lower CO2 instead of building sea walls is like standing in front of a freight train. When oceans rise, step back.
Denier #5 says that yup the earth is warming and yup, human CO2 is responsible. But why do I have to give up my democratic rights and protections? Huh? What’s that got to do with it?
Well, that’s just the thing. It said so in a leaked draft of the Copenhagen treaty, which zealous greenies never bothered to read (link below), Clause 38. Says a UN body, the COP (Council of Participants), will rule governments (that’s your government) and will levy taxes onto you. That’s taxation without representation. Elected representation. I thought 1776 settled that. So why would they do that? And why do we not hear about this on TV? Ask a denier.
The denier looks further and comes to believe the science has been corrupted per the email fiasco and manipulated by the IPCC, which he says is a political not a scientific body. Can’t scientists speak for themselves?
Then there’s that pesky little funding issue. Greens say deniers are funded by big oil. Funny, I thought it was the other way around – I’ve been funding big oil for years already! But if the funding argument is good enough for greenies, its good enough for me. So, deniers say that supposed-to-be-skeptical climate scientists are dependent on funding, so its kind of squishy if the science were to ever show warming is not anthropogenic. In such a case, the report is simply not published, or, as deniers say, suppressed. If published, the scientist is just relabeled a denier. End of orthodox career. Deniers are also suspicious about the input data, especially temperatures collected in/ around ever larger/warmer cities. Then again, the IPCC mandate is to study climate – on EARTH. What if ice caps are melting ON MARS? What would that tell us? Gosh — ITS THOSE DARN ROVERS!! Seriously, that would kinda do something to the anthropogenic theory, no?
But those treaty words still bother me. Which brings us back to
Denier 1B, 2B, 3b, 4B which I’ll just call
Denier #6. I wanted to get to #6 since the title would sound cool. Cool is a good thing, unless you pay a heating bill.
Denier #6 claims there are people with a globalist mindset who are trying to take over the world. Like Lex Luthor, though I reveal my age!
Drumroll. Denier #6 -the maestro. Are conspiracies real? This denier stopped believing anything after Bush and his WMDs. I used to socialize with a bunch of communists in my 20s. They showed me commie flyers filled with conspiracy theories. CIA, FBI, M5, whatever. Back then, I had naive faith in investigative journalism and so didn’t believe a word. Imagine my consternation decades later, reading in the prestigious Atlantic Monthly, that thanks to Clinton’s declassification, all those crazy ‘conspiracies’ turned out to be true. But conspiracy is a great word to tar your opponent with, right greenies?
The problem, say #6 deniers, is that the globalist conspiracy is not a conspiracy at all! Conspiracies are supposed to be clandestine, spy vs spy things. Both Bush and Obama have openly emphasized the so called New World Order in their speeches. Is that secret? Is the United Nations clandestine? Globalist thinkers, speakers, negotiators, writers, supporters go to work every day, just like everybody. They work at the UN (home of IPCC), IMF, International Court, World Bank, a host of NGOs, consulting firms and think tanks (remember Trudeau’s Club of Rome?). Are they clandestine? Well, sort of, eh! Like all those trade treaty negotiators.
But the money to run global organizations has to come from somewhere. Gee, a global carbon tax would do the trick! Here’s some links pondering this possibility. Call them deniers if you like.
There’s nothing (much) wrong with globalization. We only have one planet. Human footprints smother it while technology shrinks it. But we are beginning to see what unchecked global corporations have done to environments, employments and the political process. Who can blame greens in their earnest desire to fix things (or at least make a good living at it). Its the monopoly aspect that bothers me and should bother you…. the old adage, power corrupts, absolute power …… Does anyone still regard the UN as a paragon of virtue these days? Did you vote for your UN rep? Do Canadians / Americans want to be outvoted by all those failed states? Many would agree on humanitarian grounds, but just wait till they get some real power.
Then there’s denier #7. That would ruin my title so lets not call him denier since he is not denying anything. This is the person who looks at the actual treaty wording as a guide to what greens want. Lets review. The treaty calls for a COP (Council of Participants) to order (rule) your government to levy carbon taxes, raise money to compensate Developing countries, and to cut carbon emissions 40%, eventually by 80%. Eighty (80) Percent. 80%. Oh, you’ll have 40 years to do this so don’t worry. Hmm. On top of that, just in case they need any additional monies, there’s that clause (38) requiring Earth to obey Earthlings, or else.
1. What does 80% reduction of carbon look like? Keep in mind fuel makes/ runs EVERY object, machine, item, even food, around you, for the past few hundred years. So how do you go about getting rid of 80%. Hey, conservation is great, I and the family are pretty good at it, but 80%??!! Yikes.
The recent carbon tax in BC, touted as a success, is stepwise tapping into the easy stuff while wisely avoiding tax grabbing and democracy issues (not a treaty). While I believe this may run into unintended consequences, as Australia discovered, BC’s gradualist approach makes good sense, as least till limits emerge, economic or social. I’ll tentatively join with greens in celebrating a modest success while cautioning against the kind of excessive zeal that spawns blogs – & deniers!
2. Alternative energy is great– I make some. Its tough to make it work and pay in a practical/ affordable way, although I did find one solution. You hear about Germany (and all those great jobs). But its all subsidized (boast – except mine) through FITs (feed-in-tariffs), or directly, under a public utility. Greens counter that lots of stuff is subsidized. Big oil, rural electric, rail, big dams, etc. OK, but – nobody doubted that those technologies worked and were desired by the public. Does the definition of workable include building three systems instead of one? Is it working if Ontario has to dump wind power in the US at a cost? Unintended consequences?
I’m all for subsidizing experiments and new inventions. But this subsidy issue hinges on asking
- how long it takes for devices to recover construction energy–the energy cost of energy? I understand that is measured in years, even decades, especially those free standing tilting solar units with a huge concrete base. Double if a tornado hits.
- who pays, especially for FITs. Essentially poor taxpayers subsidize rich taxtakers who can afford to buy solar panels or windmills. This is the guarantee I am supposed to give up my democracy for? Ouch.
3. Sequester CO2. Ok, what does that look like? Big Pipe running out of Big Smoke – how far, to where, how big? OK, sometimes its practical. Imagine however, transporting significant smoke out of NYC. What pipe diameter exactly? Imagine a small town trying to pay for miles of pipe. Boggles the mind. I want to know a whole lot more before any commitment, especially an irrevocable treaty.
You could say 80% is just a pipe dream! Well, not completely. You can be sure, treaty or no, the people running the show will get all they want. They will still fly to future Copenhagens. Armies will still fuel thirsty weaponry. Ordinary citizens though could well be driven into penury, serfdom even, though that ancient word sounds silly to modern ears. Give it time. This is the burden greens ask me to bear, and why I resist.
4. Lost in all this is peak oil, a major source of carbon, perhaps even peak everything. This makes me even more nervous about the all fired rush to sign treaties NOW, just like the recent spate of Trade Treaties. Seems like the big boys know what is coming and want to slam the door before the opportunity passes. Never waste a good crisis. In fairness, peak oil does seem stalled for now -by fracking- but what about fracking worries (earthquakes, leaks, burning taps, etc). So when peak eventually does arrive and prices jump, will carbon taxes be repealed? Do pigs fly?
5. What if greens are wrong (about anthropogenicism), the science wrong (about CO2 vs other causes) and oceans rise anyway? Sun didn’t obey Earthlings! Not enough virgins sacrificed. Got hotter anyway. Economy (& democracy) wrecked. Having wrecked the economy, the maker of tools, what tool will be used to move whole cities or fix dykes around Holland or, umm, well, forget about New Orleans. Better discuss it though because it seems far more likely than a practical, democratic or honest global CO2 treaty.
What if Global Cooooling sets in. If that happens, do you think carbon taxes will be revoked? Income tax was a temporary measure, no?
Did big bad oil companies put these diabolical ideas into my head? Do I have some shares of big oil? Lets assume they did and I do. The questions still seem reasonable so before i make any commitment, especially one that destroys my democratic protections, I want answers, trustworthy answers. The IPCC and their cabal of scientists has lost credibility in my books – no competition, much incentive, general science malaise. Political correctness means big oil must hide. To remove bias, we must develop a good process – adversarial, scientific? We should encourage big bad oil to fund an expedition to Mars to find out if their ice caps really are melting. Organized by the biggest baddest denier. Hey, I want something for all the money I gave them! And put Suzuki on board for good measure. Or deniers on the IPCC.
My purpose is not to persuade you if deniers are right or which denier point is right. That is up to you, which is more responsibility than greens want to give you, the public. My purpose is to get you thinking without assumptions or bias, and decide what your democratic protections are worth. Take your time, don’t fall for the bum’s rush they’ve been giving us. Make your democracy listen to you. Its your future.
The Real Tragedy: our manic focus on a GENERAL CO2 solution has distracted us from SPECIFIC (solvable) problems: overfishing, farm erosion, stressed ecologies, deforestation, desertification, ocean dead zones, garbage gyres, mercury and other poisons, etc., etc. Don’t forget my Agenda 21 overpopulation thing! Some human activities (suburbs, deforestation) undoubtedly exacerbate global warming, never mind CO2. I certainly encourage downsizing, smaller footprints and put my money and family toward that end, and would gladly support a DEMOCRATIC energy reduction effort/ tax. (A pollution (not Carbon) tax is probably the ideal if possible.) SUVs and suburbs are wasteful on many levels. But let’s be honest about the realistic (engineering) prospects, process and consequences for all concerned.
Finally, stop the destruction of my democratic protections.
Draft Copenhagen Treaty:
Afterword. I almost decided not to put a comment box here after discovering over 500 comments on this blog on a similar topic. Lefty Greenies are nothing if not dogmatic / prolific on these things.
That blogger says he’s a tenured prof so perhaps you’ll let him bear the cost of adding a few % more comments if you feel inspired by my humble effort. I had promised to review their comments which hopefully I’ll get round to in due course. I’ll keep an eye out for anything that references this blog.
Another blog I just noticed on deniers:
This one is more humorous but as with many, blogger Boutilier sets up straw men then knocks them down. Maybe he will discover that deniers come in all shapes and sizes, some more considered than others. What I need to do is have a better look at our critics to see what they’re really made of. This one thinks that doing a 5000 mile unicycle trip would persuade people to join his cause. I would have been more impressed if he tried to build some low carbon device/program that many could use instead of trying to persuade the govt to bludgeon me for taxes or whatever. At least he used his (presumably) real name. Most don’t.
Till then, I remain your curmudgeon in denial.