Why deniers cannot support the Climate Change theory.
Greens got it easy. They go on a protest, they don't have to pay, they get to tell everybody else what to think, what to do and nobody really questions them except a few oddball deniers.
Just to be sure, let me lay out the green case. Tell me if I got it wrong.
Greens say earth is warming, no question, their science says so. Warming is caused by CO2 produced by humans, even though there are other bigger sources of this vital, tree growing gas. What we gotta do is stop making CO2 or we gotta put it somewhere. They say this WILL work, they do not say this MIGHT work. And they say if we do not, catastrophe WILL result, water will rise, New Orleans and Bangladesh will flood, deserts will form, and earth will become virtually uninhabitable. Sounds like falling sky to me.
But just to make sure, they demanded, in the recent failed Copenhagen treaty, that nations commit to controlling the TEMPERATURE of the earth. Earth - Obey Earthlings. Earth - obey Al Gore!
Deniers say Bring it on. Vikings once grew grapes in Greenland. Gotta love those grapes and a Viking lassie or two in - Paradise?
Which makes Greenies go nuts. Earnest folk those greenies. If you want to witness fireworks, just visit a discussion/ forum debate between greens and deniers. I use the word discussion loosely, if you know what I mean. Better than real fireworks, cheaper and no pollution. Verbal pollution doesn't count.
Since greens want to impose solutions on the rest of us, the onus is on them, not deniers to answer ALL questions put by those who they are asking to shoulder the burden. Deniers just stand in for a once great media.
In the interest of progress, let us try to get a handle on what deniers are actually saying. I use the plural since deniers seem to be saying many different things.
Denier #1 says its all hocum. The earth is NOT warming, despite what glaciers are doing, its actually cooling. Edmonton down to -47degC tonight, a record. Arctic sea ice recovering, that sort of thing.
Denier #1A remembers the 70s cooling scare, the Y2K scare , the recent swine flu scare, the GWB's special WMD scare and is a little tired of silly scare tactics.
Denier #1B is a bit longer winded so I'll get to that 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, and such warming / cooling cycles have been repeating for centuries since the last ice age. Into this group, I will 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, grapes once grew on Greenland. Or was it Daneland? Whatever.
Denier #3 says, yes, the earth IS warming - and has been since the ice sheets melted. So what. Maybe some Bangladeshis want to buy summer homes in Greenland. Real estate agents take note.
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 increasing heat from the sun that drives CO2 out from melting permafrost, warming oceans (like bubbles in your water) and desertification processes that is mostly responsible for the increase in CO2 levels. 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 our CO2 instead of building sea walls is like standing in front of a freight train. When the water rises, 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 says so in an early draft of the Copenhagen treaty, right there in black and white. Clause 38, link below. Says a UN body, the COP (Council of Participants), will rule governments, that's your government, and will levy taxes onto you. Thats taxation without representation. Elected representation. I thought 1776 settled that. So why would anyone do that? And why did we not heard 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/ or manipulated by the IPCC, which is a political not a scientific body. Can't scientists speak for themselves? Some may be geeks but surely we have a right to hear from the horses mouth without politicians at IPCC telling us what to think. 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 paying big oil for years already, but I digress. If the funding argument is good enough for greenies, its good enough for me. So, - deniers say that supposed-to-be-skeptical scientists are getting their funding from the IPCC so its kind of squishy if the science were to ever show the earth is not warming. In such a case, the report is simply not published, or, as we say, supressed. Deniers are particularly suspicious about the input data, especially that collected from weather stations in ever 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? I think you can guess -- ITS THOSE DARN ROVERS!! Seriously, that would kinda do something to the CO2 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. Cooling is a good thing. I guess.
Denier #6 claims that there are people with a globalist mindset who are trying to take over the world. Like Lex Luthor, although I reveal my age. Conspiracy theories now, eh? This must sound completely bonkers - stay with me.
Drumroll. Denier #6 is the maestro of us all. You call him the 'conspiracy' nut. This denier stopped believing anything after Bush and his WMDs. I used to socialize with a bunch of commies in my 20s. They showed me commie flyers filled with conspiracy theories. CIA, FBI, M5, whatever. Skullduggery. Back then, I had faith in investigative journalism so didn't believe a word of it. Imagine my consternation many 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 any argument with, right greens?
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. But, both Bush and Obama have emphasized the so called New World Order in their speeches. Is that clandestine? Is the United Nations clandestine? Globalist thinkers, speakers, negotiators, writers, supporters go to work every day, just like you and me. Some take their lunch in a bag. They work at the UN, IMF, International Court, World Bank, a host of NGOs, consulting firms and think tanks (remember the Club of Rome?). Are they clandestine? Global corporations are their first cousins. So whats not to understand? Having once been a cheerleader of such myself, I can understand their thinking, their earnest desire to fix things (or at least make a good living at it). Its only the monopoly aspect that bothers me. You know the old adage, power corrupts, absolute power ...... Does anyone still regard the UN as a paragon of virtue these days? Just wait till they get some real power. Did you vote for your UN rep?
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, eventually by up to 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 I mentioned about Earth having 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.
2. Alternative energy is great, I have some, or more precisely, i make some. Its tough to make it work and pay in a practical/ affordable way, although (boast) I did find one way to do it. You hear about Germany (and all those great jobs). But its all subsidized (boast - except mine). Greens counter that lots of stuff is subsidized. Big oil, rural electric, rail, big dams, etc. But - nobody doubted that those technologies worked at the time. Of course, I'm all for subsidizing experiments and new inventions. But this subsidy issue hinges on asking how long it takes for the device to recover the energy that was used to make it. What is the energy cost of energy? I understand that is measured in years, even decades before the energy input is recovered. Unless a tornado happens by. So what public subsidy amounts to is having poor taxpayers pay rich taxpayers who can afford to put a solar panel on their roof costing tens of thousands. This is the guarantee I am supposed to give up my democracy for? Ouch.
3. Sequester CO2 you say. Ok, what does that look like? Big pipes running out of Big Smoke, how far, to where, how big? Imagine transporting significant smoke out of NYC. What diameter of pipe? 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 a guarantee. Regardless, 80% is a near complete dismemberment of our fuel driven production and distribution systems. Well, not complete. You can be sure the people running the show will get all they want. They will still fly to future Copenhagens. Armies will still drive tanks and jet fighters. Ordinary citizens will be driven into penury, serfdom even, though that ancient word sounds impossible to modern ears. Give it time.
4. Lost in all of this is peak oil, a major source of carbon, perhaps even peak coal. If peak oil really does arrive, prices will jump and there will be no need of any carbon tax. Peak oil by some accounts is here or even passed so this makes me even more nervous about the all fired rush to sign any treaty NOW. Seems like the big boys know what is coming and want to close the gate before the truth gets out.
5. What if greens are wrong (about the human bit), the science is wrong (about causation) and the water rises anyway. Sun didn't obey Earthlings! We didn't pray hard enough or sacrifice any virgins. Got hotter anyway. Economy (& democracy) wrecked for what? And 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, let's forget about New Orleans. Bangladesh, Florida - who knows. Better discuss it though because that seems a far more likely outcome than any CO2 fix.
Unless, of course, Global Cooooling sets in. If that happens, do you think carbon taxes will be revoked? As I recall, income tax was a temporary measure. Any bets?
Did big bad oil companies put these diabolical ideas in my head? Do I have some shares of big oil in my pension? Lets assume they did and I do. The questions still seem reasonable to me and before i make any commitment, especially one that destroys my democratic protections, I want answers, independent answers. Since the IPCC and their cabal of scientists has lost credibility in my books because they have no competition, I would even encourage big bad oil to fund for instance, an expedition to Mars to find out if their ice caps melted too. Organized by the biggest baddest denier i can find. Hey, I want something for all the money I gave them! And put a greenie on board to make sure its on the up and up. Or a denier 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 greenies are willing to give the public. My purpose is to get you to think about things without prejudice, investigate as you can 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 politician listen to you. Its your future.
PS. What is the real travesty of the manic focus on global warming? The incredible intensity of the debate has distracted us from the real problems Earthlings face such as overfishing, farm erosion, stressed ecologies, ocean dead zones, garbage gyres, mercury and other poisons, etc., etc. And some human activities probably do exacerbate global warming, never mind CO2. I certainly encourage all the downsizing, smaller footprints and put my money and family toward that end, and would gladly support a general energy reduction effort. Much of those SUVs and suburbs are wasteful. But let us be honest about the realistic (engineering) prospects, process and consequences for all concerned. And leave my democratic protections alone.
My first attempt to delve into the denier world