Greg Pollowitz, global warming hypocrite
July 26, 2010 2:33 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Over at “Planet Gore” (National Review’s blog dedicated to mocking the reality of global warming) Greg Pollowitz approvingly quotes a column claiming “the warmists” (Pollowitz’s word) are guilty of “attribut[ing to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world.”
Seeing Greg Pollowitz, of all people, pretend to disapprove of using “almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world” to bolster an argument about global warming is utterly hilarious. It’s like seeing Andrew Hayward complain that his neighbor’s dog relieved itself in his swimming pool: Even if it's a legitimate complaint, he probably isn't the best person to make it.
See, Greg Pollowitz routinely points to “almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world” in a lame attempt to undermine the scientific reality of global warming. Actually, he doesn’t constrain himself to “unusual” weather events: If it snows in Moscow in February, Pollowitz pretends that means global warming is a hoax. (Record high temperatures in Moscow in December, however, somehow escape his attention.)
It should be in the upper 90s to 105 around here. It was 65 when I got up this morning and it's 84 now with thunderstorms in the area. We haven't hit 100 yet this summer. No complaints from me, but it is unusual.
As climate change warms the nation, giant Burmese pythons could colonize one-third of the USA, from San Francisco across the Southwest, Texas and the South and up north along the Virginia coast, according to U.S. Geological Survey maps released Wednesday.
And I loved this post on Watts the other day. Classic. The evidence is unequivocal though, so no need to worry.
Climate change, by contrast, is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself. The earth doesn’t include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning.
Far from being responsible for damaging the earth's climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them. Were the earth determined to freeze Canada again, for example, it's difficult to imagine doing anything except selling your real estate in Canada. If it decides to melt Greenland, it might be best to unload your property in Bangladesh. The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we're gazing into the energy future, not because it's unimportant, but because it's beyond our power to control. -- Robert B. Laughlin - professor of physics at Stanford University and a co-recipient of the 1998 Nobel Prize for Physics
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
Still waiting for your reply.
Bring Wes along with you.
You may need his help.
Ready for that debate on AGW?
The rules are simple - stick strictly to peer-reviewed science. Not blog rants.
Your pals at WUWT won't be able to help you. They're a bunch of retards.
You can reach me via my site.
I'm a very busy guy.
Now you seem to have a lot of time on your hands.
While the former may be true (I'll take your word for it), the latter certainly isn't. Throw a 4-year-old boy, sole provider status and a multi-pronged personal economic plan into the mix and you get a "busy guy" without a lot of time.
This recent period of activity on MMfA was an enigma and while I think I will actually truly free up some with some obligations in the next four weeks, the time I will gain will be alloted to a truly important endeavor that certainly takes precedence over the little game we are playing.
Since I know you will likely be the only one returning to this closing thread, I feel free to publicly elaborate. Once my main contract expires (though I thought I had reached that benchmark twice before already) I will be working on a book for a sick friend. It is a project that we assessed will take approximately 450 hours but I more than owe him. When the timing is right I will be devoting the bulk of my discretionary time to it and to him.
I am confident you will still be game when the time is right, though I do think you need to revisit where we left it (and this one addresses the off-MMfA notion). The "challenge I accepted" and "debate I promised" seems a bit off considering I never agreed to allowing you to dictate all of the rules, or as I put it then, "If when the time comes we do sort out an actual discussion, rest assured you will not be its sole architect, or 'we won't play.'"
Not that I can get in deep at this point tonight, but one of the "sticking points" I noted was your attempt at censoring all political discussion. We are on MMfA so tell me, why would we do that? Isn't politics the greater portion of why you are here?
I can only speak for myself, but to not engage in a political discussion regarding the most important political science story of my lifetime seems quite odd, no? It is almost as though you are attempting to silence me politically. Whether inadvertent or intentional it does not matter, but I will absolutely not be muzzled and will continue to speak out against the AGW political movement (especially so given that my time here will unavoidably be very limited).
I do look forward to discussing the science with you as well, but it seems we need to deal with those more basic arguments as to what is to be the argument. We will get specific with the science (Would you consider this one peer-reviewed?) as we have in the past and I am quite confident that my case is far stronger than yours so it will actually be an enjoyable task, but politics are so deeply intertwined in this discussion that you might just take your toys and go home due to some of the commentary.
I could go on until dawn but I am off or I'm dead in the morning. I will keep my eyes open for the right window and a now-rare AGW MMfA post to continue our discussion. In the meantime, we must lay out our blueprint for discussion. It certainly sounds like our plans differ. I'm not so keen on the control-freak front, or hadn't you noticed my stance on AGW?
Almost forgot, while I appreciate your work on your timeline, it is missing many key dates I look forward to discussing with you, but I'll save the charges of cherry-picking until next time (for a discussion about science you sure do expose a lot about your politics there). Cheers!
But we can play that game. Geologic time is very slow. We may not be able to "control" climate change, but we may be able to affect it to some degree. Even if our activities only change it by .01%, that could mean hundreds of years. Hundreds of years could mean the difference between having the technology to survive the change and not having it.
-- On the scales of time relevant to itself, the earth doesn’t care about any of these governments or their legislation. It doesn’t care whether you turn off your air conditioner, refrigerator, and television set. It doesn’t notice when you turn down your thermostat and drive a hybrid car. These actions simply spread the pain over a few centuries, the bat of an eyelash as far as the earth is concerned, and leave the end result exactly the same. --
What is more important... extending the lifespan of the human species, or protecting today's corporate profits?
You offer two assumptions. The first is "should we bother or not?". That's a frequent question and I reject the premise completely. It's not an either/or proposition...suggesting that we either do everything in our power or we do nothing at all...pretty silly.
The premise should be "what effect can we have and its outcome" followed by "is the cost worth it?". Put me in the camp that says we can have little affect and the costs would be astronomical.
Your second...another faulty premise that it's the human species vs. corporations. One without the other can't survive...their futures are inextricably linked.
With absolutely no snarkiness intended...your arguments are suited for second grade learning level.
So, a few centuries is the "bat of an eyelash"? In geological terms, yes, but tell that to the generations who might live during that time span. Is your lifetime merely a gnat fart? According to Laughlin, it is.
And, speaking of sophomoric arguments..."human species vs. corporations. One without the other can't survive."
Actually, that isn't true. We can survive without corporations. We did it for thousands of years. Corporations have been with us for even less than the "bat of an eyelash".
Your assumptions just fall flat...even when trying to save us gnat farts of humanity from our own ignorance.
You'd make a great christian with faith like that.
Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.
I like to drop that every chance I get, and given your comment, I figured you'd like it. Get ready to pay down your "climate debt." And BTW Sustainable Development will hurt the poor more than the rich in case you thought you would be feasting. That's a fact. Crunch those numbers for yourself and see. Here's the draft for additional figures. Cheers!
tut tut...I'll take the bet...rather than alarmist malarky.
And this has been explained to you before. It's not the EARTH that concerns us. It's the people ON the Earth that we're worried about, you weasel.
I see you're back from your 6mo contract.
Oh goody.
Now you seem to have a lot of time on your hands, judging by your posts.
Care to take me up on my challenge?
We can discuss the science of climate change - just the science that you claim is false. And don't go off on IPCC or Gore. That ain't science. That's a deflection from reality.
Nope. Just stick to the peer-reviewed stuff. And no, not the blog-reviewed stuff that you denialists seem to use.
I can see about setting this up on my site. But, it may take a few days as I'm a very busy guy.
You can always contact me via my site.
And feel free to enjoy the timeline I put together. It really puts Gore, the hockey stick and the IPCC into perspective.
When you get yours, just let us know.
The fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) is a physical phenomenon in which a certain system behaves as if it were composed of particles with charge smaller than the elementary charge. Its discovery and explanation were recognized by the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics.
From the same article.
Carbon dioxide from the human burning of fossil fuel is building up in the atmosphere at a frightening pace, enough to double the present concentration in a century. This buildup has the potential to raise average temperatures on the earth several degrees centigrade, enough to modify the weather and accelerate melting of the polar ice sheets.
Opps, doesn't prove your disposition does it.
His whole point was that the earth doesn't care, from a geological standpoint. Humans could be killed off, due to global warming, (or nuclear war) and the eath won't care. It will continue to exsist right up until the sun burns off all its hydrogen and expands enough to consume the earth.
Do you think we will still be around then???
You catch on quick. When mother nature decides to change...we are utterly powerless to stop her. Our trick for survival is adapting to those changes...not trying to change mother nature to suit our conceptions of the ideal climates around the world.
A clue, Wesley, even the idiots who have convinced folks like you that global warming/climate change is still debateable don't believe it. It was a "wedge issue" pushed by the Bush campaign because Frank Luntz and others decided that it would be one issue that Bush could utilize. George W. Bush's multi-million dollar "ranch" house is a state of the art environmentally friendly "green" house. In other words, wesley, you been had but a bunch of unethical politicians.
Better to continue on as we are, progressively poisoning the world until it shakes us off like so many fleas, than to prolong our meager existence by altering the way we do business...that would be "too expensive".
Live fast and die young!
Is that about right, Wesley?
Nope...just that the outcome is better served if we adapt to the changing climate...rather than the silly attempts to beat mother nature.
Adapt away.
Who get's the water?
Too bad you don't. Mother nature isn't responsible for the amount of CO2, and other pollutants, that humans pump into the biosphere.
Our trick for survival is adapting to those changes...
So, do you suggest we develop gills? Learn to live on less food?
Specious arguments all. You brought up the quote by Laughlin, taken out of context, to prove some sort of point.
Pollowitz is still acting like a hypocrite.
For example, when sea levels rise, those people living on the coastline can't just say to the people living 100 meters away from the coastline "hey, back up 100 meters, won't ya?", and those people can't/won't say to the people living 200 meters from the coastline "hey, give up your rights to the property you own/farm/inhabit right here so that I can move inland another 100 meters!"
There's no way that the people of the world can adapt that way.
There's no place for all the people who today rely upon drinking water from dying glaciers to move! Their children and grandchildren will suffer from wars and famine before the later generations will finally be able to move, but then other parts of the world will be suffering from dramatic climate changes that'll happen 50 or 100 years from now!
The 6 billion people on the Earth can't adapt like that. It's not possible. And so ANYTHING we can do to mitigate the troubles we have coming upon us would help - to suggest that no remedy will resolve the problem, and therefore it's useless to try to fix anything because we're "utterly powerless" is ridiculous.
You doofus.
You think that climate change on a much quicker scale than we've ever seen before, on a globe much more crowded with people than ever before, with national boundaries and property rights that didn't even exist when we last had global climate change shouldn't concern us?
What a doofus!
In case you missed my reply to you above, my challenge still stands.
You know where to find me.
Any time.
The issue does not lend itself to such. The production of pure carbon from the atmosphere at a good price is a useful comodity. Merely a part of what are things to wean us of indescriminately burning hydrocarbons. Can't say if that one will pan out, but it or other such innovation will be a part of the way.
It's the path the world is on. The UN calls it the "Golden Economic Age" A1 Scenario and I've mentioned it plenty before so I won't bore you again (well, yeah, I probably will). The bottom line I repeat though is that the world's poorest 80% (and to a lesser degree the 20% who already have relative wealth) will be twice as wealthy by 2100 following Golden A1 than they would be if we continue to be herded toward the green fantasy B1 scenario, old faithful, Sustainable Development.
You do realize that going the B1 SD path "unequivocally" prolongs human suffering and environmental degradation, don't you?
That is the very reason I have invested so much time here and other places, to hopefully get at least some people to revisit their "consensus" notions of the "robust" AGW theory and realize that they have been fooled by poorly-disguised political science masquerading as the real thing.
Hardly anyone believes I am an environmentalist due to my "defection" but alas it is true. But I am a scientist as well. I have studied the theory and feel that it has fallen absolutely flat on its face despite the heavy propping. Really I am rather angry at that fact, that such naked political zealotry was allowed to commandeer a movement that is truly important to me.
I love life. I love nature. I, unfortunately in some respects, have infinite sadness for the pains of the Earth and its inhabitants. I carry around past sorrows that will stay with me forever because I have true empathy for living creatures. That rhino image will join the countless other man-made horrors catalogued in my brain. I get mocked here for confessing to live-trapping houseflies, but I do give a bleep and am more certain than ever that this disgustingly ugly movement has all to do with global control and offers nothing resembling environmental salvation. I wish more folks would see it here but I do take solace in the fact that more and more people are waking up.
On the other end of the spectrum, SLRTX is a good example of a somewhat like-minded empathetic individual who has, in my opinion tragically, taken the opposite stance. He, as a scientist too, takes the safe "consensus" route and, to my knowledge, questions little about the theory and the assumptions of the models and their predictions. So to him the Medieval Warm Period was localized and temperatures today are "unprecedented" for at least the last 2,000 years and positive feedback will rule (or ruin) the roost and so on. That's because SLRTX bought into Mann's shtick, as has most of the crowd here who have studied and accepted the theory.
Insultingly though, he wishes to ignore the political element, I am certain willfully. By doing so he ignores the 10,000-pound elephant in the room and that's a travesty. He avoids the political argument because he knows "unequivocally" that it is an argument he cannot win (despite his thoughts otherwise, he cannot win the scientific argument either).
Bringing it back to our topic, and because he's one of the very few still in the audience (looking for his debate), I think I capture my sentiments about the prospects of Sustainable Development vs. the status quo pretty well here replying to SLRTX some months back. I do think it's worth a read, but here's an excerpt in response to his contention that "[p]eople will suffer":
The impact that will affect people will be due to the premature forcing of the world onto the path of sustainable development. Please get off of your green high horse and get a clue. The IPCC itself says that B1 Sustainable Development will slow worldwide economic growth by $200 trillion per year by 2100! Helloooooo! You get that? That's "trillion" with a "t" my friend.
How do you think the sustained restraint of economic activity over the next century under the B1 scenario you so desperately crave will make people suffer? Poverty already kills 10 million children per year. Your ilk claim to be progressive, but you seem to care not a bit about the prolonging of human suffering that will undeniably take place not because of AGW, but rather because of sustainable development.
Add to that these stats I offered last year: About one-quarter of the world's population has no electricity at all; 1 billion people have inadequate access to water; 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation; and 2.5 billion use biomass to cook. The deaths associated with these deficiencies number in the tens of millions each and every year!
So for every year we are forced toward the SD Utopia Hansen et al envision, we sentence more of these unfortunate souls to death, and we ensure that desperate people turn more and more to the resources at hand, their environments, for salvation. It is therefore a death sentence for much biodiversity as well.
All of these resources redirected toward the AGW debacle and its CO2 bogeyman, resources that would have served environmental and humanitarian causes far better and to much greater effect, will have been squandered. And the liberties of freedom and the fruits of free enterprise that have so enriched us will have been squandered as well as we allow these oh-so-benevolent powers to restrain our wealth. It really is akin to slavery.
If they have their way, my son will be far poorer than he would have been going Golden. Sounds swell. Oh, and everyone around him will also be poorer so I am sure that strife will be minimized with the B1 scenario. Thanks though. I'll be sure to raise my son to thank the warmists in kind. It will be a valuable life lesson, the death of a theory and a coup via logic, truth, science and persistence. I like the sound of that considering where we are at in this debate. I think I have used the bulk of my discretionary time here with yet another rant (something SLR frowns upon I'm sure) so I cut myself long and finally return to your words:
The issue does not lend itself to such.
That is the crux of our disagreement. You have apparently honed in on the catastrophic part of CAGW and have allowed it to dictate your mandates. I have not and propose that the mechanisms being proposed and enforced are almost all pain for very little gain.
The advancements in energy production are taking place as we speak as you yourself duly noted. It is happening. Putting on the economic brakes as we are so perched at this unbelievable time in history is the antithesis of the solution and thus an abomination, especially true amongst the poor. The catastrophe is of our own making but it is not AGW you should worry about. Concern yourself instead with the direction you are being led.
While you see uncontrolled poison, I optimistically see inevitable progress toward the ideal balance. Review the scenarios. A1 takes us where we are better equipped to afford to be great stewards so much faster than B1. Despite all of humanity's warts and all of our horrors, past and present, there will be a day when life on Earth needs us to save it. There will be another actual catastrophe that threatens mass extinction. It isn't AGW though and hopefully will not happen for thousands of years yet, but I would bet that some day in our future we will provide much of life a reprieve from some calamity to which they would have otherwise succumbed. More irony I suppose. The species most responsible for Earth's wounds will some day likely spare her from another far more devastating wound. Or at least I hope.
As for the state of the "consensus" science uses to propagate Sustainable Development, in my admittedly limited estimation CO2 is not remotely the climate driver the models make it out to be and each year the case against CO2's primary role grows stronger. The science and empirical data simply do not support AGW despite all the wailings of Mann et al. That is the fun I will have with SLRTX when the opportunity truly arises, and if "terms" are agreed upon (not quite there yet despite his current delusions, lest he forgot this). We are long overdue in returning our attention to the immediate environmental and societal ills we should be addressing. Until next time...