Youthful Infatuation with the Climate Mystery

 The climate gurus and the virtuous young are trying to lead us somewhere. I just wish I knew where.

[Drawing by Kate Greenaway, 1888, illustration for Robert Browning's The Pied Piper of Hamelin]

Global Warming as Religion

Today, I fell upon this great commentary at the website of the American Institute for Economic Research.

AIER has recently had a conference on Global Warming that scientists and philosophers from all sides attended. You can hear a few podcasts of speeches at this page of their website.

This particular commentary discusses the religious aspects of environmentalism. Boy, do they hit that particular nail where it hurts.


[Thanks to Islamfrominside.com for the image.]

Isn't it true that today's greenies sound just like the religious fanatics they so despise. And aren't those businesses laughable that are kowtowing to them.

I read this article about a huge French supermarket chain named LeClerc that is now publishing the "carbon equivalent value" of items for sale right next to the article's price.

Sounds like having a priest watch every bite you eat at the dinner table.

A young secretary leaving the cash register is informed by her receipt that she has incurred a "carbo equivalent value" of 9.28. She asks herself. guilt-ridden: "Could it be the yogurt containers? Or perhaps it's the transport costs of my imported fruits."

The company has calculated this "value" by estimating the carbon emissions caused by packaging production, transportation, refrigeration, stockage, sales, and discarded by-products.

They probably forgot to include the wasted human effort: It costs 50,000 euros to calculate the carbon impact on one product, making 300,000 euros for 20,000 products.

LeClerc pays only 150,000 euros, because the rest is financed by ADEME ("Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maitrise de l'Energie," or Agency for Environment and Energy Management, a governmental environmental organization) and by the local government of the particular region of France in which the store is located.

LeClerc probably includes their share in their marketing budget.

So Who's the Heroic Patrick Moore of the Global Warming Movement?

This man has been an unsung hero for many years now, and this piece in today's Wall Street Journal tells his story.


[Thanks to Wired.com for the photo.]

See also this extract about him.

Like many of us, his heart drove him to espouse the protection of nature and the environment. But unlike most, his intelligence drove him away from the group he had helped to form, Greenpeace, because he observed that his colleagues were letting their emotions take over from the evidence.

It takes courage to renounce one's former partners, especially when one is alone. So who will be the person who stands away from the Global Warming hysteria and starts telling the truth from the inside?

Five Speeches from the AIER Global Warming Conference

In my previous post, I mentioned a Global Warming Conference at the American Institute for Economic Research.

Here are links to five of the speeches that, so far, have been posted to YouTube:

Robert H. Nelson - Theological Aspects of Global Warming

Kenneth Green - Cap-And-Trade vs. Carbon Tax

Claudia Rosett - United Nations, Climate Change, and Money Trails

David Henderson - Government and Climate Change Issues

William M. Gray - Hurricanes Frequently Happen

Other speakers were:

Carl Wunsch
David Chapman
Richard Lindzen
Gordon Michaels
Robert Mendelsohn
Gilbert Metcalf
Peter Wilcoxen
Ross McKitrick
Edward Kane

And I may have missed a few.

You might say that a majority of these could be described as skeptics. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, I suspect the reason is that the believers don't see the worth in such scientific discussions, preferring instead to stir up more media frenzy. It's more efficacious, for sure, than some stodgy academic conference.


[Thanks to Newsbusters.org for the image.]

Global Warming: For Once, An Unbiased Evaluation

I don't know about you, but I'm really sick of reading vitriolic statements from one side or the other of this debate.

The Believers

The believers put across a convincing case, but a few admit that they are willing to deform the science in order to convince the unprofessional public.

You don't believe me? Here's what one "scientific" believer named Stephen Schneider said in the Detroit News in 1989:

"On the one hand, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but [...] which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

So much for the believers. And yes, I think most of them would fit into this category. Please be my guest to disagree.


[Thanks to Time Mag for this embarrassing, didactic, rush-to-judgment cover story of April 2006.]

The Skeptics

The skeptics, on the other hand, are media-impotent, i.e. they can't seem to get their message out there in such a way as to make an impact, even though their science is cleaner. I'm not saying they're right, but they're cleaner.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'll admit I'm a skeptic, but I won't be intolerant of those who are believers--assuming they will return the favor.

What Should We Do?

If even the scientists can't seem to agree on this, then it would seem to be only fair to hold off judgment and action until we know more about the subject.

This is also the conclusion reached by a number of both believers and skeptics at a November 2007 conference at the American Institute for Economic Research.

The AIER is the only "think tank" I know that can honestly claim it is impartial. Most of the others, even places like Cato, have monied donors who are trying to get their point across, albeit a good point in many cases.

AIER has no such donors, relying instead on purchases of their newsletters and publications by the public, and on charitable trust income, the use of which the original donors purposely cannot predetermine.

AIER's recent 2/4/08 Research Reports summary of their November conference on Global Warming should be useful to all impartial thinkers. The article is entitled "Are We Frogs in a Pot," and was written by Michael Rizzo, Ph.D., one of the Institute's researchers.

The conclusion is apt:

"The range of views expressed at our conference suggests that the debate is far from being over, and that there is still time for much-needed rational discussion."

In other words, it is much too early in this scientific debate for governments to be involving themselves in trying to solve a problem that we understand very little about, indeed even whether there really is a problem.

A full run-down of the whole proceedings will come out later this year. Contact AIER for the publication date.

Sometimes we lay people get frustrated with the slow-motion speed of science and with scientists' constant need to "do further research," but it's either accept our human frailty or make huge mistakes that cost us much, much more in the longer run. The public execution of Italian astronomer Giordano Bruno in 1600 comes to mind.

So be impartial, allow others to disagree, and inform yourself. If you do that, you'll be way ahead of the politicians, scare-mongering media, and hysterical, unscientific "scientists" like Schneider.

Global Warming: A Great Skeptic Video (For Once)

Economists and climatologists are in disagreement even among themselves about the reliability of the science behind the global warming scare.

To be informed, you must open your mind and listen objectively to both sides of an issue. This is difficult; most of us have deeply ingrained social, cultural and personal reasons behind our opinions.

But to be the best we can as thinking animals, we should be able to put our prejudices aside at least long enough to hear both sides of an issue, wouldn't you agree?

We have all seen everything there is on the pro-GW side, but how many of you have sat down to watch a thorough piece on the skeptic position? Find the link below to a good one that might hold your attention for more than five minutes, if you let it.

For those of you who are believers, I ask you to give at least your full attention for one hour and a quarter to the other side.

Once you've done so, you can always retain your original belief if you wish, but you'll do so with the knowledge that you have made a small effort to be objective.

Without this minimum of effort, you really should give a disclaimer before you express yourself, something like:

"I believe in the global warming theory, but I've never really looked at the other side."


Link: sevenload.com

More Nonsense from the GW Community

You won't believe this latest, about the moose. Here's an article from a German publication called Spiegel.de, which claims that "the poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change". Did you know that a moose produces 4,620 pounds of CO2 in a year? I sure didn't. This is claimed to be the equivalent of that produced by a car after an 8,000 mile journey.

You know, I guess this really needs no further comment. So I've done a drawing that I hope you will enjoy.

An Economist's Conference on Global Warming

There is going to be a fascinating conference in November, and I hope all interested parties will attend. It will take place in the gorgeous Berkshires of Western Massachusetts on November 2 and 3, 2007.

Please see the flyer, and information about AIER past conferences.

Here are some names to whet your appetite:

Richard S. Lindzen
David Henderson
Ross McKitrick
David S. Chapman
Richard Stroup
Carl Wunsch
Claudia Rosett
Gordon E. Michaels
William R. Cotton
William M. Gray
James Mills
Robert O. Mendelsohn
Gilbert Metcalf
Peter J. Wilcoxen
Kenneth Green
E. Calvin Beisner
Robert H. Nelson
Edward J. Kane

Some of the questions they will address:

Is it happening? Is mankind the principal cause? If so, what can be done about it within reasonable allocations of scarce public resources? Do the proposed solutions make sense from scientific and economic perspectives?

You can also phone (413) 528-1216 for more information. See the American Institute for Economic Research's website.

Global Warming Mania: Cartoon of the Day

This is really getting ridiculous. Now, the UN and other hysterics want to blame cows for global warming.


[Click on the cartoon for a larger version.]

Think I'm kidding? Here's a couple of quotes:

"Meanwhile, another U.N. report says livestock - especially cows - create nearly one-fifth of greenhouse gasses." (Source)

"Professor David Beever, an expert on nutrition with feed producer Richard Keenan and Co., said that grazing has been found to be one of the main reasons, which contributes towards the formation of methane in cows." (Source)

Good grief.