A Perfect Storm Cometh: Re: Strassel's Propaganda: The Climate Change Climate Change

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Re: Strassel's Propaganda: The Climate Change Climate Change

Sorry, folks, but this crap just needed to be responded to and I no longer have the patience nor the respect for these people to even pretend at polite discussion. They lie, they lie and then they lie some more, so this was written quickly and is likely full of typos and poorly articulated. But, hey, they deserve no better than my worst.

The fruits of her poison pen can be found here, if you can stomach it.

Strassel,

Before we get into your bullshit, here's the REAL science, which you didn't mention because, well, you're a propagandist:

From the US gov't, much of it done while BuCheney were in office:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm

Copenhagen Synthesis Report (Note to propagandist: REAL science inside. May make your head explode.):
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf

And just to make it real simple-like for you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/apr/14/climate-change-experts-predictions

My god, are you just bought? Appeal to Authority: Inhofe's list.

Utter bullocks. Of course, you can hide behind this being an "opinion piece" and not an "article" so you can pretend Inhofe is not a bought-and-paid-for shill of Big Oil/Coal, etc., and accept his "list" as meaning something. Only one problem: It's bullshit. Very few climate scientists therein. And virtually none actually DOING or PUBLISHING any science. Just like you cowards: can't compete, so you JUST LIE.

Funny, but you equate seven hundred fools who ARE NOT doing science and many of whom were bought by EXXON, et al., over the two thousand plus climate scientists who did the science behind the IPCC IV report? Are you completely unbalanced? Do you need meds?

And you LIE about it! You present the final WRITERS of the report, 50 or so you say, vs. the 700 when all they did was WRITE UP the paper. That is how science is done! How the hell would 2,000+ people write a single report together? (Lying is bad. You will go to hell! Don't you know? Where does your Christianity get off to?)

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101

Here's more to consider:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/langswitch_lang/pl

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/inhofes-last-stand/langswitch_lang/in

I guess you dumbasses want your title back? To wit:

Most consistently wrong media outlet:
The Australian (runner-up the UK Daily Telegraph). Both comfortably beating out the perennial favorite, the Wall Street Journal - maybe things have really changed there?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-year-in-review/langswitch_lang/in

Or how about this pile of manure offered up by Inhofe via Moronic Morano?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/langswitch_lang/in

Let's get to your "science," you criminal against humanity:
Earth is cooling. What a damned fool. ALL of the years in the last twelve have been among the warmest in millions of years. ALL OF THEM. Oh, I know you're using 1998 as your start line because THAT IS THE ONLY YEAR YOU CAN START WITH TO GET A TEN YEAR TREND THAT GOES DOWNWARD. (Actually, you aren't. You have never read ANY of the science. That is obvious. You're just the bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece of the far right willing to lie so your children, should you have any, can die for your ideology because your party affiliation is more important to you than your kids, your country, your G_d.) You're too stupid about science to know a ten year trend is WEATHER not CLIMATE. If you look back over the history of the planet you will see many, many short-term trends embedded in long term trends. Look back through the temp record since 1850 and you will see a number of ten year trends that go opposite of the long-term warming. Why? Natural variability. (Go ahead, look it up. You know you want to.)

As for the piece of shit "paper" you started your rant about? Here's what real scientists have to say about it:

"...First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That's not necessarily a problem - perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? - but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don't know is a leading light of the Friends of Science - a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken's rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West's statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this "evidence", they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

Devastating eh?

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting..."

There's more there. Read it if you have the fortitude. (Propagandists never do, though.)

Screw it. You're obviously too embedded in your screwed up fantasy of ultra-conservative politics. Since you are too lazy to do any of your own research, here's where your opinions were created FOR you:

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

I advocate EcoNuremberg for any and all that have lied, are lying, or will ever lie about the state of the environment, for they are killing us all. May you all rot in jail, or, better yet, be left to fend for yourselves with nothing but your limited wits where Climate Change hits hardest.

No comments:

Where We Stand

Economic Crisis

Peak Oil
* Peak production appears to have occurred in 2005 or 2008. Certainly, production has been on a plateau since 2004-5. The recession and the high prices from last year caused falling demand. This is brought on lower prices. That caused new production projects to be slowed, delayed or stopped. Because starting up projects takes much longer than shutting them down, this will likely lead to oil shortages if the economy and demand rebound, certainly by 2012 or so.

UPDATE Nov. '09: The new IEA World Energy Outlook revised **downward** to 105 million barrels a day it's projections for future oil production. What they are saying is, over the next 20 years, we won't be finding much oil. Whistle blowers, one still employed, one not, say even this is wishful thinking. We agree. We have thought so for two or three years. They also say the decline rate is higher than admitted - and it was already 4.2%!!! This means we are looking at, what? Six percent? Eight? At six percent we lose the equivalent of Saudi Arabia every two years. Of course, we aren't finding that much new, recoverable oil each year and haven't for decades. Where's the extra coming from?

** Peak occurred from 2005 to 2008. It is slightly possible we could exceed past production in the next two years *if* there is economic growth as there is some spare capacity and some new spare capacity came on this year. There appears to be just enough new oil coming online - or there would have been if projects hadn't been shut in due to the economic crash - the next two years to barely stay even. After that, decline will have eaten away two Saudi Arabias and it will be impossible to reach a new high.

* Production surpasses new oil discoveries by a margin of 3 :1 or 4:1. This is unsustainable.

*The global economic downturn may decrease these numbers, which would help slow the fall down the back slope of the decline curve.

* The "Export Land" Model (.pdf) shows increased consumption in oil exporting nations leads to decreasing exports. Exports dropped by 3% in 2006. For oil importing nations, this means oil availability falls 2x to 3x the global decline rate.

* Current prices make some alternative energy projects economically infeasible. While oil is depleting and declining, the low prices and economic crash are impacting our ability to ramp up renewables to replace fossil fuel-based energy.

* OPEC has announced (1/2/08) future production is in peril. Many believe OPEC cannot raise their current production by more than 3 million barrels a day. Ever. Or can do so only at the cost of future production. I.e., they must choose between their own citizens and the rest of the world.

* A nice, but older, overview (.pdf). Its age, 2005, makes the time lines a little longer than seems probable. Still, excellent forecasting.

People & Power - Peaked - 06 Jan 08 - Part 1.
(Part 2 can be found on youtube.)
An excellent overview of Peak Oil right now.

Climate Change
* James Hansen, et al., published some very important papers (article) this year. Conclusions are thus:

1. The world is at @ 392 ppm CO2, but irreversible climate change happens at just 350, which we passed decades ago. This is why time is shorter than it seems.

2. The goal now is to stop warming at only 2 degrees C. This will still mean seas rising a meter or more and climate change globally, but we may be able to stabilize there. It also means reducing carbon emissions by 90% by 2100. That's creating an entirely new energy system in less than a century. We did that already, but that was when there was virtually no infrastructure in place.

3. Action must be taken in a very short time period. Waiting ten years is almost certainly too long. The silver lining that comes with Peak Oil? It may give us no choice but to act sooner rather than later. The solutions for Peak Oil and Climate Change are the same (except for bio-fuels.) This situation is unprecedented in human history.

* The Arctic melted to an extraordinary degree in 2007 and nearly as much in 2008 - despite perfect conditions for 2008. This is THE canary in the coal mine. Back in February, when the first of three IPCC (Those rock-n-rollers of recent Nobel fame.) reports came out and didn't include ice melt in their projections, I was stunned. Various scientists, also. I knew viscerally that change was coming faster than they stated. Much faster. The summer melt validated that view. Hold on to your hats. f you know anything of Chaos, bifurcations, tipping points and non-linear systems, you're probably as scared as I am.

* New findings of methane being released from the Arctic permafrost and sea floor, along with increased atmospheric methane are ominous signs we may be well past key tipping points. There have been massive, abrupt climate changes in the past due to the release of methan clathrates from the sea floor.

The Big Melt - Arctic ice melt accelerates by 20+%.

Fair Use Disclaimer

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Re: Strassel's Propaganda: The Climate Change Climate Change

No comments:

Post a Comment