Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Environment

The Continuing Climate Follies

I sounded off again in the New York Post yesterday about the continuing collapse of the climate campaign. Among other observations, it is increasingly apparent that the climategate e-mails have done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam War debate 40 years ago--changed the narrative decisively.  All of Al Gore's horses and all of of Al Gore's men can't put this Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Meanwhile, I have fled to Montana to escape the snow and ice and cold in Washington DC (so how freaky is that?), and the Bozeman Chronicle gave a nice write up to the lunch talk I gave to a property rights group in Bozeman on Thursday about the climate collapse.  Though this was a property rights group, a lot of them seemed equally concerned with the Second Amendment, judging from some of the hardware a few of them were packing.  The story leaves out my suggestion that the US should make any climate assistance to the developing world agreed to at Copenhagen contingent on the recipient nation establishing secure property rights for individuals (Bangladesh rates a measly 20 points on a 0 - 100 scale for property rights protection on one transnational index, for example).  I'm sure if we make this our position at future climate negotiations, heads will explode at the UN.

On tap today: Skiing in Big Sky.  No shortage of global warming snow here.

UPDATE (already):  Absolutely do not miss Walter Russell Mead's latest beatdown of the climate campaign over at The American Interest.  Mead has been writing some great stuff on this, but today he is on fire, and makes me look like a squish.  He says the climate campaign is "doorknob dead."  Small sample:

Now they are just another piece of roadkill on the heartless historical highway-an unforgiving place for people who seek to change the behavior of the world through comprehensive treaties, like the nuclear freeze proponents before them and like the advocates of the Grand Global Treaty Against War in the 1920s. . .   This phase of the climate change movement was immature, unrealistic and naive.  It was poorly organized and foolishly led.  It adopted an unrealistic and unreachable political goal, and sought to stampede world opinion through misleading and exaggerated statements.

Mead harshest words are reserved for that distinguished Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore.
Categories > Environment

Discussions - 13 Comments

Steve's right. That's an online essay for the ages. It is not primarily or most importantly about Al Gore, but no sentences could possibly cause him more pain than the ones it contains.

He sought to be the statesman who served science and the earth. He now either is exposed as not knowing the science, or worse, as not knowing the statesmanship necessary to keep the scientists from blowing their opportunity to warn us about the fate of the earth.

The piece thus reveals the total failure of the synthesis of science and statesmanship that Al Gore pursued as his life's work.

Far more important than Mead's indictment of Gore, however, is his call for future global-warming scientists to come to terms with the body of knowledge (unnecessarily) called political science (which, it should go without saying) is not necessarily to be found in political science departments). There is something ridiculous about these persons who know so much about biological species, processes, and ecosystems, who know next to nothing about what we might call political species, processes, and ecosystems.

Remember there are three things of interest: the "movement" led by Gore among others, public opinion, and the uncertain facts about the world's climate (ill served by some true believers). The movement is in shambles and much of the public has moved on. That leaves the uncertain facts, which don't care about Al Gore or public opinion. Mead, for all his scathing wit, seems agnostic about what the facts might turn out to be.

Well, I'm glad that's all over. Since there's nothing to be concerned about I'm gonna go tank up the Hummer and go off-roading! Look at all that SNOW out there. Snow!! Hahahaha!!!

What "public" has moved on, Mr. Thomas? The vast majority of scientists still believe that global warming exists and a near-just-as-vast number believes that it is influenced by us.

Sure - a bunch of them might be doing it for the cash. But what about the 53% of petroleum geologists who disagree? Are they just more truthful? Or what about the 47% of them who do think human involvement is, in part, to blame? Why the heck would they agree with that?

Perhaps this conspiracy is just so vast that everyone is being sucked in! But I suppose the "public" you might be talking about are those same people who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and who call science a "religion" of the left because they can't imagine how anyone could not have a "religion" to lean on. People like that will always be ready to "move on" from reality (and toward the return of jayzus).

I think you were very skeptical about my comment on the sun being the primary factor in global temperature change. Check out the Nasa graphic and the sun spot graph on this site. http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/26/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/
Ignoring the partisan commentary there is obviously a correlation between sun spot activity and climate. This gets left out of the discussion so often, I assume because there is nothing that can be done about it. With that said, I don't think the public would be willing to make the changes in lifestyle if they could only influence climate a small percent.

Brutus - yes, I was skeptical (that's not the same as close-minded), but for good reason, I think.

A myriad of studies refute the supposed correlations between the sun and global warming:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Well jez, Craig, you and have I something in common. Ain't that amazing. I just tanked up my Ford F350, F520, and Ford Bronco and went for a joy ride in all three. Isn't driving gas gluzzing trucks a blast!!!!

F520?? That's nothing. I drive an F5000000RX Diesel.

So I typo'ed it - typical liberal. Here I am being nice to you about something we have in common - your Hummer and my big trucks and you just turn into Charlie Mason. Be happy for one hour - try it - you make like it.

Cowgirl, relax. Read this carefully. I wasn't mocking you for your typo because I didn't know that you'd made one. As far as I knew, there actually is such a thing as an F520. I must confess that I don't pay a lot of attention to all of the model numbers for all of the trucks that are on the market (does that make me elitist?).

I was merely trying to jokingly indicate that I have a truck bigger and badder than yours. (Pssst... I don't really have a Hummer, nor an F5000000RX Diesel.)

I'm plenty happy, thanks, but still curious as to who Charlie Mason is...

I think she means this guy.

I can't wait for further follow-ups here at NLT on "ClimateGate":


I'm sure this one will get a LOT of coverage here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_hacked_e_mails

This is also very pertinent to how these FoxNews and Drudge-propelled "scandals" are usually just massive piles of BS:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007020039

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14927