Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 04, 2013

Open Thread 2013-18

News & views (not Syria) ...

Posted by b on September 4, 2013 at 12:32 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Yes, definitely enough of syria

And now for something completely uncontroversial [pdf] :)
MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 13:09 utc | 1

Putin accuses Kerry of lying to Congress.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE9830N620130904

The Russian naval buildup in the Med continues

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-04/russia-sends-missile-cruiser-moskva-destroyer-and-frigate-syria

Russia sends missile cruiser Moskva to East Mediterranean
Russia sends destroyer, frigate to East Mediterranean

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 13:48 utc | 2

Sorry, didn't see (not syria). My bad.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 13:48 utc | 3

From Real News, interesting video on the culture in D.C.:

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/hwdvideoshare/viewvideo/76794

Posted by: ben | Sep 4 2013 13:56 utc | 4

Maduro might as well get used to things like this..


..http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/power-cut-paralyses-venezuela

The Norte Americanos can't tolerate a govt. that actually helps it's peons, sets a bad example ya' know.

Posted by: ben | Sep 4 2013 14:25 utc | 5

Fukushima. Neoliberal capitalism at its finest.

I watch Max Keiser but can help to think how wrong he is on the basics. He keeps calling the US economy central planning as if it is something other than capitalism. Sorry Max, this is capitalism! There is no such thing as "real" capitalism because it descends into this no matter what because of the capitalists.

And instead of one word on Syria he discusses Chinese leaders drinking breast milk or some such bullshit.

Max "more of the same" Keiser.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 4 2013 14:50 utc | 6

4) worth watching: "business in this town depends on nothing getting done ..."

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 15:01 utc | 7

Ah yes, Fukushima?

In case you haven’t been following the situation over the last month or so, check out some of the latest developments. ‘The Greatest Threat Humanity Has Ever Faced’: Fukushima Reactor No. 4 SFP ‘An Immediate Problem’ – Building Is Sinking, Over 30 Inches In Places

- Fukushima radioactive leak is ‘the greatest threat humanity ever faced’ – expert
...
- Fukushima Is Falling Apart: Are You Ready … For A Mass Extinction Event?:
...
- Ambassador Murata: Total Number Of Spent Fuel Rods At Fukushima Daiichi Site Excluding The Rods In The Pressure Vessel Is 11,421!!!:
...
- Former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland: ‘FATE Of Japan And The Whole World Depends On No.4 Reactor’

There was, or still is I guess if I were to go back and resurrect it, a Fukushima thread or two back in 2011, and a few voices seemed to recognize and raise the alarm, (I remember PoA getting chastised as out of order or too persistent or something) but if all this isn’t just hyperbole or scare mongering, then if a huge concerted international effort to work toward alleviation isn’t implemented then we’re all toast (probably glowing) and all these other imperial perversities will pale in comparison.

It is really worth paying attention to all, a lot of attention. This isn’t just an isolated instance, it is ongoing and getting worse every day.

signed,
Chicken Little

Posted by: juannie | Sep 4 2013 15:28 utc | 8

By the way Uncle$, the message from EJS read by Jacob Appelbaum was extraordinary and gives me a little hope and reprieve from the feeling of poppies.

Thanks, as always,
John

Posted by: juannie | Sep 4 2013 15:35 utc | 9

b,

I posted another post just before my #8.

It's not here. What's Up?

Am I being censored or what am I doing to get caught in the spam filter?

Posted by: juannie | Sep 4 2013 15:38 utc | 10

@ guest77

Yeah I watch Max Keiser a lot as well. As an anti-capitalist, I do find some of what he says off the ball but generally think he is one of the good guys. I've noticed that he can change views depending on who he interviews. He has had some epic rants against Neo-Liberalism and free market economics, but can just as easily rail against central planning (think his main problem with central planning governments is usually about Central Banks like the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank.

Either way he probably rips into Banksters more than any other TV personality, and is no friend of the US Empire. Plus he is funny.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Sep 4 2013 16:03 utc | 11

some time ago i received a response to an email > r giap and he is doing not too badly as well as can be expected he is still full of fight he has a book coming out soon i will inform when specifics

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 4 2013 16:22 utc | 12

Thanks Noirette, That's good news about our friend, r'giap. I'm pleased to hear that he's doing better.

Posted by: Copeland | Sep 4 2013 16:33 utc | 13

Re the SNAFU called Fukushima ...
I heard a 'revelation' at the weekend that radio-active water leaks previously said to have a radiation level of 100ms actually have a level of 1,800ms.
Wait for it...
The disinfo 'error' occurred because the instrument which produced the original 100ms reading was designed to detect a maximum radiation level of 100ms. The revised figure of 1,800ms was produced by an instrument designed to detect a maximum level of 2000ms.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 4 2013 17:02 utc | 14

Lybia, not Syria. .. Disaster.

Oil production/export has dropped 50 - 70%.

The Independent states that new, private groups have been selling / trying to sell oil on the black market with ‘private tankers’. Selling privately is possible on a small scale - siphoning off and trucks out of Iraq for ex, but this scale is major business that has major political consequences.

from the Independent

http://tinyurl.com/nzb3ru8

Don’t pretend to judge the ins and outs, personalities, but e.g.

from almonitor

http://tinyurl.com/l4ocnrp

from Foreign Policy

http://tinyurl.com/nf8ttuz

Ppl often blame Big Oil for various meddling, nasty aims at control, and so forth, but this is a red herring. The Oil industry can only function in conditions of stability, because of the very long lead line in projects (5-10 years is standard), the vulnerability of the industry as dependent on qualified workers, population on the ground acceptance, endless matériel and spare parts, deliveries etc. of these, i.e. roads and so on; transport, pipeline and shipping routes, all of which are vulnerable, and, lastly the reliance on the solidity and upholding of ‘sharing contracts’ (usually between private/public) which necessitates stable Gvmts, some kind of solid ‘rule of law’ that guarantees going forward without too much hazard. Err, risk as it is now called.

I’m no fan of Big Oil. I’m aware of the argument ‘create strife so the oil can’t be brought up or sold to capture it later’ but in Lybia, for ex., that does not work, unless one is talking about some mystical ideal future decades down the road, imho.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 4 2013 17:26 utc | 15

GAZPROM in Libya

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 18:51 utc | 16

The Independent states that new, private groups have been selling / trying to sell oil on the black market with ‘private tankers’. Selling privately is possible on a small scale - siphoning off and trucks out of Iraq for ex, but this scale is major business that has major political consequences. 

What the majors hate most are independent co's or State Oil Cos, not part of the cartels, willing to lower prices or increase production. Libyan oil is some of the best there is. And it's quite cheap still, to pump it out of the ground

Ghaddaffi was preparing future deals with Gazprom thus cutting out any future prospects for the majors/cartels in Libya. They REALLY don't like that.

Anyone not part of their cartels is precieved as a major enemy.

Leaving Libyan oil in the ground is not a problem for the Majors, suits them just fine. Forget whatever you have heard regarding current or projected future oil shortages, it's all nonsense

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 19:05 utc | 17

All past shortages were a complete fabrication by either the Majors or OPEC,

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 19:09 utc | 18

@hmm #1
FYI:
Re Lindzen

"of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."

Lindzen is perhaps best known for his "Iris hypothesis", which proposed that, like the iris of an eye, the earth's cloud systems will act to lessen global warming. Other climate researchers believe that further research has not supported this hypothesis; Lindzen disagrees.
...
Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."

Posted by: juannie | Sep 4 2013 19:31 utc | 19

Ad Hominem.

Pure and simple

You are completely unable to address his argument.

So all you have is ad hom.

Despite what you think it's not a refutation of anything that he said. No matter how much you want to pretend that it is

Try again.


this time try maybe using your OWN WORDS, at the very least try and demonstrate that YOU personally actually have the ability to dispute anything he said.

Try expressing your OWN ideas on the subject

Or don't you have any?


If cut and paste is all you can do, all you then demonstrate is that you really have no idea what you are talking about

any completly clueless individual can run out to the net an c&p the first piece of crap he found on google. I hope you're not a clueless individual, are you, juannie?

If you wish to discuss or dispute, it might be wise first to show that you personally have actual knowledge of the subject. some basic understanding of the theories at the very least. something a bt more than any fool could glean from swallowing what the media feed them. If you cannot do that then you are doing little more than a well-trained monkey could do, juannie.

Next you'll probably start ranting about how anyone that disagrees with you simply MUST be in the pay of the Oil companies.

That is usually how it goes with knee-jerk reactionaries, anyway, in my experience.

Perhaps I have it wrong, maybe you are not a 'knee-jerk reactionary', but your knee-jerk reaction of immediate Ad Hom in reply, does make it appear so.

If you wish to dispute anything Lindzen said than please have the courtesy to try and form, in your own words, a coherent argument against.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 21:07 utc | 20

looking at the source of your ad hom article juannie I notice it is from sourcewatch

Sourcewatch is nothing but a silly wiki that anyone, idiot, genius or obsessive, can contribute to.

Indeed had you bothered to check, juannie, you might have noticed that one particular obsessive called 'bob burton' seems to have cobbled that together. Who he?

It is no more valid than any crap one could find on Wikipedia. The thing about wiki's is that any clueless fool can contribute and it will sit there unless removed by another, who could be equally clueless.

If all you have is a Wikipedia-like ad hom hatchet job, I think Lindzen is safe enough

I notice you zero'd in on funding, juannie.

The CRU, (Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK) holder and collector of much of the data used by the Climate Lobby, was founded by money sourced from both SHELL and BP - as well as generous contributions from the Nuclear industry and many other Large energy Producers, to the tune of several millions pounds Sterling, juannie.

What have you to say about that?

Did those MILLIONS come from the "Good Oil Money" as opposed to the 'Bad Oil Money', juannie?

Do you think the Oil Co's keep the "Good Oil money" in a separate pile from the "bad Oil Money", juannie?


How would one distinguish the Good Oil Money from the Bad Oil Money?

The global warming institute at Princeton was founded using massive donations from Oil Companies,juannie. Those Oil Co donations, totalling at least a hundred MILLION DOLLARS by now, did they come from the "Good Oil Money-pile" juannie, or the "Bad Oil Mopney-pile"?

Greenpeace has an annual operating budget of 10's of millions at the least, juannie - much of that from Corporate Donors, many of them too Oil Co's, energy co's and other nasty corporate pirates. Did all that come from the "Good Corporate Pirate Profit-pile", juannie?

The WWF (World Wildlife Fund NOT the World Wrestling Federation) also has mostly Corporate Donors. Are those funds from the "Good" Corporation profit-pile, jannie? How would you know?

How would you distinguish the "Good" Corporate Profit-pile from the "Bad" corporate Profit-pile?

The WWF's operating annual budget for the US alone is approx 500 MILLION DOLLARS per year, juannie.

They don't get that sort of income from individual donors or street collections, juannie.

If you are going to discuss funding, juannie, at least have the basic common decency to address the funding of BOTH SIDES.

Otherwise you run the risk of just ending up looking like a partisan hypocrite, and I'm sure you are not a partisan hypocrite, juannie, are you?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 21:42 utc | 21

the most damaging figure I could estimate, for funding for sceptic-advocacy orgs, would be somewhere in the region of 40 millions dollars, spread out over the course of 10 or 15 years.

Particularly astute observers might note that this is nothing but a mere fraction of the funding Oil Co's give to Princeton.

and it is a tiny tiny annualised fraction when compared to the operating budget of the WWF

It is also pretty small peanuts when compared to the annual operating budget of Greenpeace.

so like I said, if you want to talk funding, let's do so, but do so honestly.

James Hanson, ex-lead of NASA's Global Warming-related "Goddard Institute", which holds (and grossly manipulates, or "adjusts" as he calls it, without apparent rhyme or reason) a raw-temperature dataset for the US and much of the World, has made least 5 million dollars (on top of the salary he received from NASA) from his (rather hysterical) Global Warming advocacy over the last 5 or ten years.

Not bad, eh?

Nice work if you can get it

Certainly a damn sight more lucrative than Lindzen's gig, no?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 22:03 utc | 22

Sorry about the multiple posts, but there really is so much one could write on this subject that as soon as I finish one post I remember a whole new set of relevant info, so please bear with me, and accept mu apologies for the multiple posts, since that seems to greatly irritate some here,.

It is not intentional I assure you.

===========

Let's address the source of the crude Ad Hominem hatchet-job that juannie posted.

The source-site, from which he lifted his copy&paste-job, is named "Sourcewatch"

Sourcewatch is project of something called the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD),

CMD is funded by George Soros, a corporate pirate if ever there was one. The man almost-literally rapes the economies of various countries that he targets.

the same man funds many of the "Fake Democracy" and "Fake human Rights" orgs that spring up in countries in which the US is about to launch "Colour Revolutions" or "Arab Springs". His well-funded Fake orgs very often work hand in hand with the US State Dept funded NED, considered by many to be little more than a front for the CIA.

THIS is the source you are using as copy&paste material to launch an Ad Hominem attack on Lindzen, juannie?

Really?

Did the Sourcewatch funding come from the "Good 3rd World Ecomonic-Rape Profit-pile" or the "Bad 3rd World Economic-Rape Profit-pile", juannie?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 22:21 utc | 23

The story of the Israeli missile test did not quite add up. Does Israel have submarine launched ballistic missiles? Most likely not – the ballistic "test" missile was launched from an airplane.

The real story here may be the so-called "test" missile: Israel now has an air-launched ballistic missile with a range of over 1500 km. (The Arrow anti-ballistic missile under test only flies some 90 km and would not be seen on Russian radar.)

Interestingly, until half an hours ago this missile did not even have a Wikipedia article. It does now: Sparrow target missile

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Sep 4 2013 22:29 utc | 24

@ 20 I said

one particular obsessive called 'bob burton' seems to have cobbled that together. Who he?

I should have said

one particular obsessive called 'bob burton' seems to have cobbled most of that together. Who he?

my apologies.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 22:37 utc | 25

@ 23

someone earlier suggested that rather than it being the Israelis it was possibly the US.

The person that posted it alleged that it was likely the Israelis stepped up and claimed responsibility because the US has some treaty with the Russians regarding such events, to do with prior warning, and since there was no prior warning given to the Russians, someone other than the US needed to claim responsibility so as not to give the Russians an excuse to retaliate in kind.

Or so the theory went.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 22:42 utc | 26

yes, thank you noirette. good to hear news that r'giap is doing better.

Posted by: lizard | Sep 4 2013 23:55 utc | 27

r'giap (Christopher Barnett) is very active on his facebook page...

you can find him there to see what he's up to.

Posted by: beq | Sep 5 2013 1:26 utc | 28

thank you beq for that info, though I would be a bit hesitant using that platform. that said, I contribute to a blog called 4&20 Blackbirds and besides being a thorn in side of servile Democrats, I also feature weekly poetry posts, sometimes original work, often times the work and news of others. hashtag shameless plug.

Posted by: lizard | Sep 5 2013 1:54 utc | 29

The parallels between the Syrian "Rebels" and the Mexican drug cartels are remarkable. From the gruesome tactics, the ability to recruit internationally (most interestingly from former members of the US military) and the strength to directly battle the governments of the countries they operate in, the MOs of the Syrian and Mexican insurgencies are simply too similar to be dismissed as a coincidence.

...


US Knew the Movements of Z40 for 3 Years
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2013/07/us-knew-movements-of-z40-for-3-years.html

For at least three years, United States agencies knew the movements of Miguel Angel Trevino Morales and other members of the Los Zetas, but elected not to report it to Mexico, until just a few weeks ago.

At least since 2011, the DEA knew of the operations and movements of Miguel Angel Trevino Morales. DEA even got their agents to acquire information about Treviño's enemies and rivals in other cartels and within the Zetas, but this information was not handed over to Mexican authorities, federal government sources revealed.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 5 2013 2:54 utc | 30

@noirette - thank you for news of r'giap ... please give him my best.

Posted by: Siun | Sep 5 2013 3:24 utc | 31

@ noirette - thanks for goodword on r'giap

on another note:

SIDON, Lebanon: An 18-year-old was killed Saturday when an Israeli cluster bomb exploded in Hasbaya, south Lebanon. Hisham Abdel-Al, a young shepherd, was working on a farm in the Hallat village when he stepped on a cluster bomb, dying instantly.
Israel dropped some 4 million cluster bombs in Lebanon during the July-August 2006 war, most during the last 48 hours of the conflict, according to the United Nations.Hundreds have been wounded in cluster-bomb related incidents since 2000 and 2006.
The Army’s Lebanon Mine Action Center along with the U.N. and other international organizations have been working since 2006 to remove the deadly ordinance from the south.

Posted by: crone | Sep 5 2013 3:49 utc | 32

Israel’s cluster bombs continue to kill and maim in Lebanon

More than 400 Lebanese civilians — one quarter of them children — have been injured by Israeli cluster bombs since the end of the 2006 war.

“Every day we find cluster bombs in between the houses and in the fields,” said Ali Shuaib, community liaison manager at the Mines Advisory Group, a British organization clearing landmines and other remnants of war in Lebanon. “There are tens of villages like this all over the south.”

Although Lebanon has been plagued by landmines since its 1975-1990 civil war and subsequent Israeli occupation, it faced unprecedented contamination levels from cluster munitions after Israel launched a 34-day war in July 2006. According to Human Rights Watch, Israel’s use of the weapons was the most extensive anywhere in the world since the 1991 Gulf War.

These are the most indiscriminate weapons of modern warfare; 95 percent of all victims of cluster munitions are civilians, according to the organization Handicap International.

Since the cessation of hostilities five years ago, 408 Lebanese civilians have been killed or injured by cluster munitions, 115 of them under 18 years old. Unless properly disposed of, the weapons keep killing and maiming for decades.

What sort of Nazis would drop MILLIONS of cluster bombs in civilian areas where they KNEW what the end result would be?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 4:00 utc | 33

Noirette, oil is in surplus. Banks own tankers, which they fill and store, filled, the keep the price above supply and demand. This has been the case since Spring of 08. (actually, after the crash, it corrected, but pretty quickly returned) Gas, according to supply and demand, should be going for half what it is

Posted by: scottindallas | Sep 5 2013 12:19 utc | 34

Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark has offered a convincing alternative to the almost-dead-in-the-water CO2 theories pimped by the Oil Company funded Global Warming Lobby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffgUxIFnNWM

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 13:21 utc | 35

@35 and that's not a cut and paste? Please bring your own arguments to the table from now on Hmm, lest some of us conclude you are a hypocrite.
Even better quit spamming every fucking thread.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Sep 5 2013 21:13 utc | 36

@35, so you're saying the Oil Lobby is funding the "Warmists"? Does not compute.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 5 2013 22:01 utc | 37

@35, another man looking for a two-fer:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-20/cia-funding-activists-palmer-says/3901986

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 5 2013 22:25 utc | 38

The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university's School of Environmental Sciences. . . . . . . . Initial sponsors included British Petroleum,the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.
Source: Michael Sanderson (2002), The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich, p. 285,  ISBN 978-1-85285-336-5

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 23:19 utc | 39

@37
"Does not compute"

Pretty certain that's a hardware fault ye got there. Probably the cpu on the way out.

@38

Hahahaha

So, someone else said something else, somewhere else, . . . . . . and this is relevant how?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 23:25 utc | 40

The CRU actually had a list of funders on their website for several years.

But in 2008,at the height of the Global Warming media-frenzy, they suddenly removed it.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 5 2013 23:27 utc | 41

How? It demonstrates the lengths a cynical egoist will go to maintain his own privileges. No crime is too great. But raping the posterity of the planet(which, conveniently, no one here will be around for) has to be the worst crime imaginable: worse than all the Holocausts, Purges, Hiroshimas... Perhaps, global warming IS bunk, but given what's at stake, I'd say erring on the side of caution is a given.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 6 2013 0:12 utc | 42

I guess if the millions of autos and factories and power plants spewing gases into the air are such harmless things, I'd suggest "hmm" runs a little experiment for us: go spend a night in your garage with the door closed and the car running. If you don't respond we'll take it that the experiment was a failure.

I can't possible imagine any reason to not want to move towards clean energy alternatives and move away form strip mining, deep water drilling, auto exhaust and every other poison these processes generate - global warming or not.

Ruralito said it right: "erring on the side of caution is a given." There is no downside. The best that happens is we clean up our environment and save the world from global warming, the worst that happens is we clean up our environment.

But god forbid.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 6 2013 0:31 utc | 43

So what is your take on the reasoning behind this clearly mad and insane dash to clean our environment hmm?

We know the reasoning behind the idiotic moves that lead to the Fukushima disaster and the BP spill. We know the reasoning behind the unholy decisions that have turned whole regions into moonscapes. That's easy.

But what is the nefarious reasoning behind wanting to limit carbon emissions exactly?

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 6 2013 0:37 utc | 44

Until the 19th C. man shared the atmosphere with other critters, whales, algae. A situation that had remained unchanged since the proverbial Beginning of Time. But no lung can compete with even the smallest internal combustion engine. And there are billions of them churning night and day all over the world. Not including turbines in ships and jets. And all in a century and a half, give or take. That must give one pause.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 6 2013 1:06 utc | 45

44) beijing photograph taken in the middle of the day - no it is not fog

Posted by: somebody | Sep 6 2013 1:16 utc | 46

@42
Not prepared to address in your comment the funding by shell an bp and Oil Co funding in general of these Global Warming advocacy organisations?


That was what you were questioning in you previous comment, no?
Does it still not compute


I never said global warming is bunk, i just suspect something other than CO2 is causing most if not all of it. What i think is bunk is the co2 theories. So if the co2 theories are useless, we are still left with climate changes to deal with either way. Deindustrialisation won't have anyeffect on that at all then.

@43

Your climate/garage metaphor just really realy illinformed. It's a very poor methaphor

I'm all for clean energy. How do you propose to achieve this?

Solar cannot produce anything even close to what we need just to survive the winters, nor can wind nor hydro, neither separately nor all three combined.

Bar hydro, which requires a massive energy investment to start, all the renewables in the world combined could not produce enough energy to smelt the ores needed to make the equipment needed to make the windmills, the solar panels etc.

Only large hydro instalations could poissibly produce enough enery to reproduce a similar installation, but sites suitable for hydro are few and far between, using current tech.

Basically renewables are ok if you don't actually need reliable energy supply. In which case say goodbye to hospitals, any industry at all, winter heating etc

Imagine trying to run an operating theatre on wind-power. Middle of heart surgery and the wind stops blowing, but i digress.

And you both are confusing environment and climate. Different things. Not the same thing at all, and certainly not interchangable in the manner you to seem to uee them.

If CO2 is not responsible for temperature changes, and it looks more and more like it may not be, or certainly no where near as much influence as has been claimed by the Warmist Lobbyists, then this link you both make between climate and environment is essentially spurious.

If your only solutions to environmental issues are malthusian population slaughter dystopias, which are a given under the "de-industrialisation" solutions that you both seem to be proposing, then how different is that to the war-war-war solutions of the Uber capitalists?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 1:20 utc | 47

@46

Irreleveant, as usual

Well done
Consistant as ever

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 1:22 utc | 48

A quick question

What have each of you personally done remove your "privilieges"

How are any of you different from palmer?

You are all "here" courtesy of the "privilege" of electricity, courtesy of the privilege of owning a computer,and all that signifies in terms of resource exploitation etc etc.

Other than the dystopian malthusian outlook, you both seem to favour, what makes you essentially different from Palmer in your day to day behaviour?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 1:31 utc | 49

If we remove all the hydrocarbons, and accept that renewables are essentially useless to supply our needs, then barring some miraculous new energy discovery, all that is left is nuclear.

And juannie already told us about fukushima, so . . ?

Other than fixating on nightmare dystopian futures, what do you propose?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 1:46 utc | 50

Guilty as charged. I even have grand children.

Posted by: dh | Sep 6 2013 1:47 utc | 51

I'm actually not really charging anyone with anything really. We are pretty much in the same boat here.

The malthusian and the dystopian nightmares people scare themselves with, while fashionably cynical and wonderfully depressing, are of little use to be honest. Kind of like a post-modern masochistic guilt-ridden masturbation frenzy.

If that is all that we have in store then why complain about the wars? What is the difference between death by war and death by rapid deindustrialisation. Would not a quick slaughter be preferable to the nightmare futures people seem to fixate upon? How is that essentially any different than what the war mongers propose?

Dead is dead, after all.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 1:59 utc | 52

I'm not a malthusian. Killing a lot of people is too easy. It will be difficult to ameliorate the situation. But doing the hard thing improves the species. Outlawing the private automobile would be a start. The fuel saved could go into keeping the hospitals warm, and much else. Elon Musk's Hyperloop train scheme looks promising. More savings. Cutting back on carrier groups. Savings.

what privileges have I forgone? Now you're just trolling.

My difference from Palmer? Well, I'm not a "billionaire mining magnate." Did that not pop out at you?

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 6 2013 2:04 utc | 53


Hyperloops?

Future dreams

A miracle from gawd

I'm not trolling. Simply accusing me of trolling is lame, but convenient for you.

Genuine questions. Your reaction is itself informative. So "not very much, then"

You keep saying vague things like "clean up our environment" -please specify, globally i presume.

Ok so first off you would need a new political system. Which one? Please don't say communism, because thats really just state capitalism imo.

And anarchism is pointless with this population size. We'd be right back to malthusian dystopia then. No point in going in circles, is there?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 2:17 utc | 54

btw - you mentioned privileges not me. What was your point?

And why does it not seem apply to you in the here-and-now?why only to Palmer? To me that sounds very Agustinian : "lord save me from myself, but tomorrow, not today"

As Palmer is to you, so you appear to a 3rd worlder,

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 2:27 utc | 55

And without Palmers mining, or others like him, we would not be "here"

Resource wars in the 3rd world, and all the death and destruction that entailed, built our computers, so "privileged" you are, whether you admit and accept it or not.

This is not a defence of Palmer, merely connecting the dots. Without our desire for trinkets most of the Coltan mined, for use in computers, mobile phones etc, in the last few 2 decades would still be sitting in the ground. Far fewer Congolese, Rawandans would have died etc etc

So maybe check your own privileges, no?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 2:37 utc | 56

"Kind of like a post-modern masochistic guilt-ridden masturbation frenzy."

You are not a serious person.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 6 2013 2:50 utc | 57

Ok, if that makes you feel better.

Just looks like you avoiding the questions i asked, tbh.

Here's a serious question, "do you have any idea the amount of energy required to not only research & build, but also operate, that fruitloops thingy you mentioned?"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 2:58 utc | 58

A post-modern masochistic guilt-ridden masturbation frenzy is what happens after Malthusian soma induced multi-tasking..

Posted by: dh | Sep 6 2013 2:59 utc | 59

You get that too, eh?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 3:07 utc | 60

Paranoid, or just not paranoid enough? ...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 6 2013 3:46 utc | 61

High-Traffic Colluding Tor Routers in Washington, D.C., and the Ugly Truth About Online Anonymity"

“Have you heard about Tor?” I am routinely asked via clear text email.

Yes, I know about Tor, but we need to take a much closer look at what remaining anonymous online really requires.

First of all, since this is a long post, I don’t want to waste your time. If you’re a computer expert or network engineer, etc. you will already know this stuff. If, however, you’re a casual computer user who doesn’t know much about the underlying principles of information systems, this will be way over your head. If you’re a casual computer user who is thinking about anonymity online, this article might be useful for letting you know some more about what you don’t know.

A lot of times, ignorant people refer to things they don’t understand as “tinfoil.” (The gatekeeper Left loves this term.) What follows, however, is so far out that it seems like tinfoil even to me. But then again, I haven’t been targeted by a death squad for my activities online, like some people are in many countries around the world. So, is it tinfoil? For you, maybe. For people struggling against repressive regimes, maybe not.

When I use the term “tinfoil” below, I’m not making fun of you, I’m making fun of myself, and the roles I’ve had to play in corporate IT departments. You don’t know tinfoil unless you’ve worked in a corporate IT department. Corporate IT is a technocratic pyramid built on paranoia, surveillance and fiefdoms of specialized knowledge and privileges (rights and permissions). Since all modern fascist organizations are essentially the same, I hope that my grim experiences within these organizations will help you understand more about the nature of the dire situation that we’re all facing.

If you think that you’re thinking outside of the box, my main purpose in writing this is to inform you that there are actually boxes within boxes, and that if you plan on engaging an opponent as powerful as the American Corporate State (or any other maniac fascist regime), it’s not going to be easy. I don’t know how many boxes within boxes there are. What I do know is that the U.S. Department of Defense built the underlying technologies that make the Internet possible. They built “this” world.

So, you want to be anonymous in a world that was thought up by the U.S. Department of Defense?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 11:08 utc | 62

Global Warming Scientists and Oil co funding:

The alliance between the oil giant BP and the University of California, Berkeley, stands out because of its $500 million price tag, its commercial scope and the potential for BP to exert excessive influence over the academic research. But it isn’t an isolated case.

The second largest such partnership is a 10-year, $225-million deal Stanford University signed with Exxon Mobil and other energy firms in 2002 to fund a Global Climate and Energy Project.

Tin-foil hats? anyone?

Let's hope that all that funding came from the "Good" Planet-Raping Profit-pile"

Rather dwarves Mr Lindzen's paltry 2,500 per day, no?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 6 2013 11:20 utc | 63

"Your climate/garage metaphor just really realy illinformed. It's a very poor methaphor"

I think it is quite apt. These are, after all, two closed systems: your garage in which you'd quickly die of C0 and how whole wide world.

I'm all for clean energy. How do you propose to achieve this?

The same way we've done everything. Public funding until it is economically viable. It could hardly cost a friction of the defense budget. There have been huge technological feats man has taken on and conquered. But, like all risky venutres, it should be practically public funded.

Solar cannot produce anything even close to what we need just to survive the winters, nor can wind nor hydro, neither separately nor all three combined.

Bar hydro, which requires a massive energy investment to start, all the renewable in the world combined could not produce enough energy to smelt the ores needed to make the equipment needed to make the windmills, the solar panels etc.

The world has huge sums of money and people are desperate for jobs. All these things you mentioned like solar and would have their place alongside the fossil fuels while the research is completed and the transition works

Again,see the Africa's new building spree with China. The time right to make investment sin big infrastructure because they are money generators and will, even if it takes decades, pay for themselves as well as providing clean energy..

"Only large hydro instalations could poissibly produce enough enery to reproduce a similar installation, but sites suitable for hydro are few and far between, using current tech."

"Basically renewables are ok if you don't actually need reliable energy supply. In which case say goodbye to hospitals, any industry at all, winter heating etc"

"Imagine trying to run an operating theatre on wind-power. Middle of heart surgery and the wind stops blowing, but i digress."


If what you say is and remains true eve through advances in technology, then a solution must be found. Certainly places such at nursing homes ad hospitals could use other types off power if the must. This is about reducing drastically, not simplistically saying "we must get rid off all CO emissions 100%!"


And you both are confusing environment and climate. Different things. Not the same thing at all, and certainly not interchangable in the manner you to seem to uee them.

Possibly, but fact is that they go together like Peanut butter and jelly, and have the same groups are usually focused on both issues. They largely deal with the same corporations as well.


If CO2 is not responsible for temperature changes, and it looks more and more like it may not be, or certainly no where near as much influence as has been claimed by the Warmist Lobbyists, then this link you both make between climate and environment is essentially spurious.

Again, removing the pollutants, the CO2 emissions (while being sane about how it gets done) these are good things matter what the conditions are regarding global warming being real. You have many scientists saying this. Why not say, okay, lets not do what the Pols are afraid of, that it will slow the economy, but lets show people we must get things under control.

If your only solutions to environmental issues are malthusian population slaughter dystopias, which are a given under the "de-industrialisation" solutions that you both seem to be proposing, then how different is that to the war-war-war solutions of the Uber capitalists?

Mine are not at all, and I am one who is very concerned that "energy efficiency" - like tax rate to day - will be as a bludgeon on the average citizen while CEOs fly on their Boeing 747's to a place that is an hour drive. In essence we'd be, in essence we are now. The point is that solar planes can make a huge difference, taking a house of the grid at a low price. Batteries and some minor hardware are required and that is all.

No one is considering a Malthusian solution at all. The fact is other countries in the developing world use very little electricity, and our country reduces its energy consumption, others may begin the same (or maybe would have before this Syria debacle). We have to get the rich countries down to an acceptable level and bring the rest of the population a starting basis for their own industrialization.

.... I'll ask again: "What is the nefarious reasoning behind wanting to limit carbon emissions exactly?"

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 7 2013 8:48 utc | 64

dih @64 first not block text should read: "your garage in which you'd quickly die of C0. Now multiply it times 1000000000 and you have all those cars, trucks, factories, plants into our atmosphere whit, like the garage' contains finite space.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 7 2013 8:50 utc | 65

You really don't understand the climate at all

It REALLY is NOT a closed system at all. Certainly not in the way you imagine.

And despite my informing you of this, you will probably ignore it completely, and continue on regardless in your mistaken belief, safe in theknowledge that you beliefs are rock solid.

This is the problem with greenies in general. They actually are often appallingly ignorant of the basics, regarding this subject, yet have no conception of how little they actually get right.

Regarding your comments on renewables it is clear that you also know very little about that subject,.

Solar is only really viable in places with lots of sunshine, sydney, or california for example, but the majority of the world's population do not live in such places, the further one moves from the equator the less viable it becomes, and despite what you claim, it actually costs quite a bit of investment.

You don't for one second, in your reply, consider the fact that the vast majority of the world's people simply can not afford that investment. Which is fairly typical of the attitude of the average well-fed western greeny imo.

Germany is now, after more than 15years subsidising solar energy, about to stop subsidising. I can guarantee the bottom will fall out of that market the second subsidies are removed.

And batteries? You seem to have no idea of the environmental costs of both producing and dispisposing of these things. Once again it is clear that you have not ever actually examined this issue.

Almost all the rest of your comments regarding the future viability of renewables are frankly wish-waashy pie-in-the-sky nonsense. They really are no different from saying

"and then . . . , . a MIRACLE from gawd will occur, cheap energy willspring forth in abundance, and save us all, praise gaia, amen"

I initially asked "what do you propose?" But so far all you propose is vague nonsense about renewables somehow destined to undergo a massive leap in productiveness, merely on your say so alone. Sorry but the future does not work like that, ask any engineer.

You also seem to be claiming that co2 is a pollutant, if have understood correctly

This is just dangerous ignorant nonsense. Real medieval"Dark Ages" thinking

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 10:02 utc | 66

"You also seem to be claiming that co2 is a pollutant, if have understood correctly"

It is a pollutant in the sense that its very abundance in the atmosphere caused by man (even if you don't believe global warming is related to that).

But for the again: What is the nefarious plan behind off of this? What is the main goal behind those who would so recklessly try and develop renewable energy.

As you don't believe global warming is am actual phenomenon, I wouldn't imagine you care about renewables.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 7 2013 10:10 utc | 67

Your comments about garages and claims about co2 are no different than me saying,


"If i stuck your head under water for 20 minutes you would die, therefore water is poisonous"

Seriously "dark ages" thinking, the exact polar opposite of science, and you don't even know it, nor care it seems

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 10:14 utc | 68

What you do or not imagine is immaterial, but you clearly know little about any of the science

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 10:16 utc | 69

One example of your lack of knowledge or perspective are your comments on "abundance"of co2

CO2 is measured in parts per MILLION.

Calling that abundant is just hysteria born of ignorance

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 10:18 utc | 70

@68 your lack of of honesty is truly astonishing. Of course there are more dangerous gases that we cannot eliminate without a serious program to eliminate CO@. And I've never called it a poison, though it is a form of pollution.

If all you have to do is o claim you are some kind of expert on the matter, with the rest of us being dupes, it's not really very convincing.

For the second time you've attacked my word usage when the meanings are obvious to someone having an honest discussion. The "Abundance" meaning, more than it likely it is more abundant today than at anytime in recent history.

So do you have an honest argument? You still can't seem to manage the "why" of your theory. If you don't believe in the science, that's of course your opinion. But if you try to spread your ideas but can only answer questions by alluding to vague matters of funding followed by accusations that we somehow support some kind of massive culling of humanity, then I'm not sure that you've got much of anything.

Again, what's the plot? Someone wants to get rich? Holy shit, in the USA?

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 7 2013 11:20 utc | 71

Please point out one dishonest statement.

Please provide reliable verifiable evidence to support your silly claims.

(I did make 2 slight errors, I said "Princeton" when i should have said "Stanford", and I said annual operating budget for US WWF was 500 mil, when I should have said "250 mil")

Your rather desperate-looking ad hom in reply is a pretty good indicator that you cannot support your claim regarding dishonesty. That just making the claim of dishonesty is all that matters to you in this instance.

So far you all you have done is repeatedly demonstrate that you really don't know what you are talking about

No one but a charalatan would claim that a rise of 200 parts per million over the course of about 150yrs can be described as "abundant"

Simply repeating the word "abundant" doesn't make it a valid claim.

And regarding honesty- I made very specific accusation regarding Oil Cos funding, nothing vague about them at all, and to claim that there is, is pure dishonesty. And I also provided proof for those accusations, which you of course have ignored completely.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 11:56 utc | 72

Again, calling co2 "pollution" is pure nonsense. Voodoo science if ever i saw it.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 11:58 utc | 73

The reason funding came into the conversation is because one of your fellow co-believers in the new secular religion posted an ad hom hatchet-job earlier, making claims of oil co funding of Dr. Lindzen, in a vain attempt to discredit him. The implication being that no one should listen to him because he got money for doing some work.

I have shown that a whole bunch of AGW-promoter Orgs have also recieved funding from Oil Co's. I also showed that the amounts that they recieve are far far larger, exponentionally so in fact, than anything given to people like Lindzen.

You have ignored this completely, and quite predictably, because it is very very inconvenient for you as it contradicts your beliefs regarding the nature and scale of funding by Oil Co's,


So, using the "logic" of juannie, if you were honest, and not hypocritical, you would apply the same standards to all those that have been in reciept of money from Oil Co, but of course you do not.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 12:15 utc | 74

primarily to ruralito and guest77,

Please be aware that you have engaged (you are feeding) a troll. I am not responding to hmm. I won’t engage him/her. I started to respond to his first post after my reference to Lindzen but then discovered a rash of defamatory posts immediately following and recognized the signature of disruptive trolling. So I declined to even answer him/her as his/her loud shouting would only drown out any of my attempts at rational discourse. So this post is for you two only and not the arrogant know it all.

First, as I was beginning to reply to hmm when he/she so shrilly disrupted me, my reference to Lindzen was not an Ad Hominem but merely to point out the possibility of conflict of interests and to alert him/her to that possibility (I thought I was being informative and cordial before I experienced him/her in his/her attack mode) . I actually respect Lindzen (admittedly reserved) which was obvious, if one were to be astute enough to pick up on the first line of my reference. His long standing contribution to Atmospheric Science is quite worthy of respect. However, even the most esteemed can go astray as I, and many others in careers of Atmospheric Science believe. Lindzen has been trying to refute, maybe honestly, the CO2 global warming scenario since I first became aware of him in the early 90's. But most every theory he has accordingly presented has been refuted by many in the field. I won’t spend my time searching out these rebuttals and referencing them. If you are really interested just google (I actually prefer the more secure duckduckgo.com search engine) something like “Lindzen refuted”. You will find yourself in a plethora of links which if followed will substantiate my claim. Lindzen lost credibility to most in the field when he first denied receiving funding from energy companies and was found to be lying (see my post at #19 this thread) and then when it was discovered that he had been denying tobacco’s link to lung cancer. (Also see the link at my #19 post) My best bet is that he is an ideologue of the flavor that has to discredit any evidence that to circumvent a social disaster, massive government and world cooperation is required. Something the profit oriented free market (i.e. corporate free reign) is unsuited to solve.

Global warming is not really a debatable subject any longer. A year ago it was published in a study by the historian of scientist Naomi Oreskes that over 97% of scientists working in the field of Atmospheric Science accepted the evidence that global warming was happening and that accumulation CO2 in the atmosphere was the main cause. The latest I’ve seen is that out of 13,950 peer reviewed climate articles between 1991 and 2012, only 24 reject global warming. Way past 97%. Keep in mind that the thousands of scientists who are in agreement about global warming come from all national, ethnic, ideological and political persuasions. That makes nigh impossible for me to accept the deniers claim that it is a massive conspiracy to get more government funding for their careers.

As was pioneered by the tobacco industry, there is a large industry (if need be I will supply company names in the field) that uses the finely tuned PR techniques of creating doubt and uncertainty that hire out to any corporations who are in need of distorting the truth or outright lying to support their profits from government action to protect people. If challenged (not by hmm, I won’t respond to or engage him/her in any way even in the almost certain event of his/her defamation and taunts) by anyone interested in honest discussions I will supply references to back up any of my claims, except of course those which I honestly own as my beliefs or opinions. (e.g. hmm is a troll; of course that is denied by him/her but what troll wouldn’t make that denial. It is only my suppositions based on the tactics of loud, bandwidth eating, arrogant, defamatory posts. I actually believe he/her is an old troll that got banned here some time ago, but I accept that as only my supposition and don’t claim it a fact.)

Oh and one more thing. Green energy is viable, see:
German power exports soar amid green energy revolution
or:
Germany Continues Exporting Electricity: Renewables Driving Down Prices Despite Closing Reactors

or the search: Germany energy exports

Thank you for your efforts to counter hmm but I would advise that that is a useless exercise. Best to ignore the taunts and useless rhetoric and just scroll past anything with that name attached. That’s what I will be doing from now on so I won’t even see any of the of his/her almost certain vitriol.

Posted by: juannie | Sep 7 2013 19:24 utc | 75

Hahaha

Well done. Just like i predicted, accusations of trolling, acusations of being of some alleged political persuasion held to be heretical by those such as he, accusations of being somehow in the pay of somebody somewhere.

Not a word of evidence to dispute anything i said, nope.

Constructed a fake moral high ground and planting himself right at the pinnacle of that self-fabricated mound of puritan aloof self-righteousness. Then throw in the mythical 97% conscensus, for good measure

What was it einstein said, "why quote 100 when just one would do" - when you're reduced to relying on conscensus for a scientific pseudo-arguement/rebuttal you've pretty much conceded, even though you'll never admit it.

Oreskes "study" has major flaws in both methodolgy and conclusion, as do all the mythical 97% studies, and there are several doing the rounds.

The original was the Zimmermann/Dunne paper which was so embarrassingly transparently fraudulent that Oreskes had to have a second go because you could literally see daylight through the gaping holes in both the methodology and conclusions.

It was based on an online survey and Z/D had to eliminate almost 90% of those that actually took the survey before they got to a figure with which they were happy. In the end the sample size, after eliminating most of the respondents, was a mere 75.

Hard to get more blatantly fraudulant than that really. All the other 97% claims rely on pretty much the same fraudulant eliminationist methodology.

And funnily enough they all come up with the exact same figure, which statistically is very suspect since they claim to have used different source databases, which indicates either an astonishingly high level of statisticaly unlikely prescion, or just plain old fraud.

It's like saying north korea is led by a populist because surveys say 97% of north koreans love the dear leader.

Well done juannie, you reacted pretty much just like I predicted you would.

Not a word about the clear evidence of Oil Co financing, even though he brought it up in the first place. Congratulations, a blizzard of strawmen as a smokscreen.

Regarding the links about germany, no mention of the massive subsidies, no mention of the law that dictates that Power companies have to pay wind producers even if they cannot use the power produced. With a fake market like that, and massive suvsidy no wonder it is profitable!

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 20:27 utc | 76

Oh what a tangled web . . . .

". I actually respect Lindzen (admittedly reserved) which was obvious"

Well of course you do, dear.

Why, simply everyone knows that posting excerpts from a very obvious ad hom hatchet-job is the very very highest mark of respect anyone could show toward Dr. Lindzen.

Oh yes indeedy.

And furthermoar, anyone even hinting otherwise is clearly nothing but a well paid Oil Co shill.

You've outdone yourself in ridiculousness on this one, juannie.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 20:37 utc | 77

Blast from the past? Or, present day america?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 8 2013 0:46 utc | 78

"(I remember PoA getting chastised as out of order or too persistent or something)"

Yeah, its why I commenting here. It made no sense to me that b would offer an "open" thread that wasn't really "open". Lost alot of respect for him.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 8 2013 1:29 utc | 79

Meant to say "stopped commenting here".....

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 8 2013 1:30 utc | 80

@1 I have to say hmm, if self-aggrandizing irritating dicks like yourself are the face of "climate truth" no wonder it is a tough sell.

I love that you seem so very dearly attached to the free market. Which is funny because with your comment about "well-fed greenies" I had to assume your making all of your million comments on MoA hunched over in some rice paddy in Vietnam.

But anyway, the article. Man, proving once and for all that the vile poison of the American political system seeps into to every crevice it can.

The article reads like some serious cranky neo-liberal bullshit. I'm not surprised he's been busted not once but twice hiding his corporate pay checks from the public. This isn't a debunking of climate science, it's a four page complaint about the "system" that he has to somehow find an excuse that he's been left out of it. Shit, and he must have spent like 15 minutes coming up with that clip art model of how "scientists", "the media", and "politicians" interact. Very thorough, extremely detailed.

Sorry, this is just a peek through the eyes of a scientist with a particularly politicized worldview, that's all. He should have left it for the sociologists.

I've heard you "there-is-no-way-billions-of-people-and-millions-of-cars-and-factories-and-power-plants-working-everyday-24-hrs-a-day-could-possibly-change-this-planet" folks make some outlandish excuses for your untenable position, but I think describing Climate Science as a modern day example of Nazi Eugenics science takes the cake. I don't even know what to say. I don't see any other way of reading it except as Dr. Lindzen must feel that the extermination of millions in a massive terror war is pretty much the moral equivalent of, say, millions of people deciding to buy a Prius?

I will say though that his trying to combine Global Warming, Nazi Eugenics, and a misrepresentation of Soviet science made my bullshit meter hit red. I thought I was suddenly reading a Glenn Beck newsletter or something.

But he really hits it here:

He claims another cost is that global warming has become "a religion" that "gives meaning to peoples lives"? He gives no evidence of a single person that treats it that way, but lets give him the benefit of the doubt. Is that really awful that people see some calling to reducing their carbon footprint? I mean, on the scale of crazy things that people do to add meaning to their lives, where does "trying to use less plastic bags this week" fit in exactly? Maybe somewhere between becoming a Hare Krishna and going to Guyana and drinking poison kool-aid?.


"Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated"

Funny that he notes that the Wall Street Journal is the vanguard of the movement to deprogram these poor brainwashed liberals who don't want to use as much gas. Rupert Murdoch, saving the world from using less gas one article at a time.

Then right after stating that global warming becomes some people's "religion" though he can't seem to point to a single person who has done so, he then says "people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal." So it follows: people who believe in global warming may end up becoming jihadists. Okay, is YOUR bullshit meter going off yet?

In spite of it being a proven fact that government funding of research has made THE big contributions to electronics, aerospace, and many other branches of science by their having "essentially a monopoly" on science funding (yeah, because corporations, by and large, avoid r&d like the plague...socialize the costs, privatize the profits is the name of that game). But the author, ever the optimistic little cow heading over to where he knows the grass must be greener feels this limits "freedom" and makes scientists into something more resembling lazy government funded slum lords. Did Ayn Rand write this shit? This guy wants to go back to the days when Ben Franklin was flying kite in a storm, he should switch from climate science and start building a fucking time machine.

In conclusion:

Global Warming Hippies: The Saddam-Assad-Hitler.


........

Yeah man, have fun out in the political wilderness with this bullshit. No wonder you're such a bastard. I would be too if everyone thought I was crazy.

Anyway, I'm sure Exxon will personally thank you when they make their billionth dollar this month. Count on it.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 8 2013 2:22 utc | 81

Most normal people are usually smart enough to realise that saying "defend with jihadist zeal" is what's referred to as "a turn of phrase"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 8 2013 3:00 utc | 82

Unfortunately though, most normal people cannot recall the fact that global warming was an issue for environmental campaigners detested by the capitalist system for several decades before it became an object of big business manipulation, phony 'carbon taxes' etc.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 8 2013 3:52 utc | 83

Funny that one gets labeled as self-aggrandising for merely pointing out to someone, that clearly does not fully understand something, that they do not fully understand it. That's not arrogance, it's just stating fact

Your repeated insistence that the atmosphere is a closed system is just plain wrong.

That you refuse to accept that, or even consider it, preferring instead to resort to sreaming bastard and dick just because someone dared to correct your complete mis-characterisation of the nature of the atmosphere is pretty much all the confirmation one needs of Lindzen's comments regard "defending with jihadist zeal"

That juannie, who claims to have knowledge of this subject neglected to correct your ill-informed garage/atmosphere methaphor is telling enough in itself

Regarding your refusal to accept the limitations of renewables as a viable alternative source of energy : you seem to have no conception of how far the avg citizen of the 3rd world, and even many 2nd worlders, are from ever being able to realistically consider investing in such things as solar.

The initial outlay is far too prohibitive.

And even if a whole village clubbed together, whatever system they might manage to purchase would be likely too weak to provide anything more thanbarely enough power for one medium-sized refridgerator, without any freezer capacity - and that's for a whole village, remember.

Regarding wind power, the sea-based wind-farm owners have recently discovered that the actual lifespan of their equipment is actually slightly less than half it's initially projected life span of 25yrs.

This has a very very serious effect on the long-term economic viability of such projects, something not even alluded to, let alone discussed, in any of those wind-power puff pieces linked to by juannie.

These are all very important things to consider in relation to renewables and their viability, now and in the future.

Simply attacking me for informing you of the aforementioned unpalatable facts won't alter any of the above.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 8 2013 4:21 utc | 84

Rowan - the CRU was founded in 1971.

Quite a few decades ago now.

Shell and bp were in there from the start.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 8 2013 4:23 utc | 85

As one of the founders of the elite “Club of Rome” put it so famously:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
http://hubpages.com/hub/Club_of_Rome  - Alexander King, founder and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the”Club of Rome”, the environmental elite think tank in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 -  http://www.amazon.com/First-Global-Revolution-Report-Council/dp/0671711075

Anyone that thinks that the "Club of Rome" has your or my (or anyone's but their own) best interests at heart is extremely naive

Posted by: hmm | Sep 8 2013 4:36 utc | 86

So, Tokyo has been awarded the opportunity to host the Olympic Games.

Think there has been a media curtain over the situation at Fukushima??? Think the Japanese government has been purposely hiding the severity of this crisis from the rest of the world?

You ain't seen nuthin' yet. It will be almost impossible to get accurate info about the Fukushima nuclear emergency now.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 8 2013 15:16 utc | 87

b and barflies, Jeffrey Kaye just posted this excellent bombshell at FDL...

US Covered-Up for Decades the Largest Use of Biological & Chemical Weapons in History

Posted by: CTuttle | Sep 9 2013 0:51 utc | 88

@88 CTuttle, thanks so much for posting. I have to read it a little at the time, such upsetting info...

-------

Case Against Assad Based on ‘Common Sense,’ Not ‘Irrefutable’ Evidence

Taking the White House campaign for a military strike on Syria to the Sunday morning shows, chief of staff Denis McDonough admitted that the administration lacks “irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence” connecting Syrian President Bashar Assad to the use of chemical weapons.

AP via Time:

“This is not a court of law. And intelligence does not work that way,” White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said during his five-network public relations blitz Sunday to build support for limited strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“The common-sense test says he is responsible for this. He should be held to account,” McDonough said of the Syrian leader who for two years has resisted calls from inside and outside his country to step down.

Posted by: crone | Sep 9 2013 2:01 utc | 89

I knew the Sunday media blitz would turn up some gems.

;-)

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 9 2013 2:36 utc | 90

how it all started......

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge , 1895
*We have a record of conquest, colonization and expansion unequaled by any people in the Nineteenth century. We are not about to be curbed now.*

http://web.archive.org/web/20080224083801/http://pnews.org/ArT/Xray/EmPire.shtml">http://pnews.org/ArT/Xray/EmPire.shtml">http://web.archive.org/web/20080224083801/http://pnews.org/ArT/Xray/EmPire.shtml

Posted by: denk | Sep 9 2013 12:30 utc | 91

link
http://tinyurl.com/ovmvake

Posted by: denk | Sep 9 2013 12:33 utc | 92

The comments to this entry are closed.