Team of Scientists Counter U.S. Gov’t Report: ‘Global warming alarm will prove false’ — Climate fears based on faulty forecasting procedures’
May 6th
[Reprinted with permission from Climate Depot]
Global Warming Alarm Based on Faulty Forecasting Procedures:
Comments on the United States Department of State’s U.S. Climate Action Report 2010. 5th ed.
May 4, 2010
Submitted by:
J. Scott Armstrong (Ph.D., MIT, 1968), a Professor at the Wharton School of Management, University of Pennsylvania, is the author of Long-range Forecasting, the creator of forecastingprinciples.com, and editor of Principles of Forecasting (Kluwer 2001), an evidence-based summary of knowledge on forecasting methods. He is a founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, and the International Symposium on Forecasting, and he has spent 50 years doing research and consulting on forecasting. (Armstrong@wharton.upenn.edu)
Kesten C. Green of the International Graduate School of Business at the University of South Australia is a Director of the International Institute of Forecasters and is co-director with Scott Armstrong of the Forecasting Principles public service Internet site (ForPrin.com). He has been responsible for the development of two forecasting methods that provide forecasts that are substantially more accurate than commonly used methods. (Kesten.Green@unisa.edu.au)
Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for the journal New Astronomy. He has 20 years of active researching and publishing in the area of climate change and all views expressed are strictly his own. (vanlien@earthlink.net)
Statement
Our research findings challenge the basic assumptions of the State Department’s Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR 2010). The alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming are not the product of proper scientific evidence-based forecasting methods. Furthermore, there have been no validation studies to support a belief that the forecasting procedures used were nevertheless appropriate for the situation. As a consequence, alarming forecasts of global warming are merely the opinions of some scientists and, for a situation as complicated and poorly understood as global climate, such opinions are unlikely to be as accurate as forecasts that global temperatures will remain much the same as they have been over recent years. Using proper forecasting procedures we predict that the global warming alarm will prove false and that government actions in response to the alarm will be shown to have been harmful.
Whether climate will change over the 21st Century, by how much, in what direction, to what effect, and what if anything people could and should do about any changes are all forecasting problems. Given that policy makers currently do not have access to scientific forecasts for any of these, the policies that have been proposed with the avowed purpose of reducing dangerous manmade global warming—such as are described in CAR 2010 Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7—are likely to cause serious and unnecessary harm.
In this comment on CAR 2010, we summarize findings from our research on forecasting climate. Most of our findings have been published in the peer-reviewed literature and all have been presented at scientific meetings. They are easily accessible on the Internet and we provide links to them.
1. There are no scientific forecasts to support claims that there will be dangerous global warming over the 21st Century.
a) Faulty selection of forecasting methods
Based on scientific research on forecasting, the most appropriate method for forecasting climate over the 21st Century would be a naïve no-trend extrapolation. Due to the substantial uncertainty about climate, it is not possible to forecast even the direction of change and one should not, therefore, forecast changes. As with many conclusions from scientific research on forecasting, this conclusion derives from a finding that is not intuitive: in complex situations with high uncertainty, one should use methods that are conservative and simple (Armstrong 1985; Armstrong 2001).
While much has been made of the climate models used to support forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming, these were used in effect only as tools to present forecasts. The actual forecasts were made by unaided judgment; that is, by judgment unaided by forecasting principles. A substantial body of research has shown that unaided judgment cannot provide useful forecasts in complex situations with high uncertainty (Armstrong 1980; Tetlock 2005), such as is the case with climate.
In other words, if one were to recruit the cleverest climate scientists in the world and give them access to all of the available facts about climate, and ensured that all facts were true and all data were valid and accurate, the experts could do no better at forecasting climate than people with only minimal expertise. And their forecasts would even be less accurate than those from a simple heuristic. This finding is astonishing to those who are not familiar with the eight decades of evidence in the peer-reviewed research literature, and nearly all who learn of it believe that while the finding might apply to others, it does not apply to them.
b) Errors in implementation of forecasting methods
The forecasting procedures described in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report violated 81% of the 89 principles relevant to climate forecasting. For example, the methods and data were neither fully disclosed nor were they easy for independent researcher to access, no reasonable alternative forecasting methods were assessed, and prediction intervals were not assessed objectively (see “Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasts”).
Those who were responsible for making the forecasts had no training or experience in the proper use of scientific forecasting methods. Furthermore, we were unable to find any indication that they made an effort to look for evidence from scientific research on forecasting. It is perhaps not surprising then that their implementation of their forecasting method was inappropriate.
c) Failure in validation testing
The forecasting procedures used by global warming alarmists were not validated for the situation. To address this oversight, we conducted an ex ante forecasting simulation of the IPCC forecasts (from the organization’s 1992 report) of a .03°C per year increase in global average temperature.
We used the period from 1850 through 2007, a period of industrialization and exponential growth in human emissions of carbon dioxide. In a head-to-head competition involving 10,750 forecasts, the forecast errors from the IPCC model were more than 7 times larger than the errors from a model more appropriate to the situation, the aforementioned naïve extrapolation. More importantly, the errors were 12.6 times larger for the long-term (91 to 100-year forecast horizons). (See “Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making.”)
2. There are no scientific forecasts to support the actions advocated by global warming alarmists.
a) Our findings apply not only to the alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming, but also to the unsupported claims that various actions (e.g., “buying local,” carbon taxes, subsidies for alternative sources of energy) would be beneficial
To assess actions properly, one would need to forecast all the costs and benefits. For example, we examined the procedures used to support the claim that polar bears are in danger of extinction and should therefore be listed as an endangered species. The claim was made in the face of evidence that the polar bear population has been growing in recent decades. (See “Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit.”) As with the IPCC’s climate forecasts, we found faulty forecasting procedures. Indeed, only 15% of relevant forecasting principles were properly applied. An example of a faulty procedure is the construction of 45-, 75-, and 100-year forecasts based on an analysis that used only 5 years (2001-2005) of calibration data on polar bears and ice.
We judged that the polar bear population forecasting process to have been affected by political biases. See also Dr. Armstrong’s testimony on this issue to a U.S. Senate Committee in January 2008.
b) A failure to consider the costs and benefits of reasonable alternatives
For responsible and rational policy making, it is necessary to obtain forecasts for a set of alternative decisions. One alternative would be to take no action, and another would be to monitor the situation until there is scientific evidence on actions that would lead to beneficial outcomes. On this matter, basic economic rationality in the form of cost/benefit analysis aligns with basic science: reasonable alternative hypotheses must be tested in order to have a good chance of identifying the truth.
3. A political argument, the “precautionary principle,” has been used to block a scientific approach to forecasting climate and making decisions.
The purpose of scientific forecasting is to reduce uncertainty in order to facilitate wise decisions. The so-called “precautionary principle” claims that uncertainty is a reason to make dramatic changes. It has the effect of marginalizing rational scientific study. Rejection of the rational scientific approach to decision making was mocked in George Orwell’s 1984, in one of the three slogans displayed on the Ministry of Truth building, “Ignorance is strength.” (Our essay “Uncertainty, the precautionary principle, and climate change” describes the anti-scientific nature of the “precautionary principle.”)
In the case of global climate change over policy-relevant time scales, there is little uncertainty. Proper scientific forecasts provide extremely accurate forecasts. Climate varies, but our validation study showed that simply extrapolating last year’s global mean temperature resulted in a mean absolute error of only 0.24°C for fifty-year ahead forecasts. It is difficult to imagine how policy makers would benefit if this error were reduced further, even to 0.0°C.
4. Using a new, but validated forecasting procedure known as structured analogies, we forecast that the global warming movement will be shown to have raised a false alarm and to have been responsible for precipitating decisions that caused long-term harm to most people.
We are conducting an on-going study to examine earlier forecasts of manmade disasters such as the global cooling movement in the 1970s, and the environmental movement’s campaign to ban DDT. We have been actively seeking such analogous situations, especially from the people responsible for promulgating alarming forecasts of manmade global warming, to see if there have been any widely accepted forecasts of manmade disasters that proved to be accurate or where the forecasted disaster was successfully prevented by government actions.
In all, we have identified 72 analogous situations, and we judge 26 of them to be relevant. Based on an analysis of these 26 similar alarms with known outcomes, we found that none were based on forecasts derived from scientific forecasting procedures, and all were false alarms. Government actions were sought in 96% of the cases and, in the 92% of cases where government action was taken, the actions caused harm in 87%. (“Effects and outcomes of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method”).
We are providing full disclosure and inviting inputs at publicpolicyforecasting.com. A page of the site devoted to our Global Warming Analogies Project provides a list of the 26 analogies and links to descriptions of some of them. We also seek evidence that might lead us to revise our analyses. We will provide an update of the project at the 4th International Conference on Climate Change on May 18, 2010.
Based on our structured analogies study, we forecast that the global warming movement will be found to have been raising false alarms, and that the negative effects of the movement will continue to be felt for many years.
Conclusions
Those who make alarming forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming have appealed to the “precautionary principle” in order to justify their calls for drastic actions. The latter appeal is made in response to uncertainty about how and why climate changes. We have shown that the alarming climate forecasts are not based on scientific procedures. Calls for drastic action are neither logical nor responsible.
Policy-makers should halt and reverse actions to try to change the climate. There is no scientific justification for making energy more expensive and reducing economic efficiency. If policymakers fail to reverse their anti-energy policies, we forecast that people will suffer further harm from unnecessarily expensive energy as well as from unintended consequences of climate change policies.
References
Armstrong, J. S. (1978; 1985), Long-Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1978; 2nd Edition, 1985.
Armstrong, J. S. (1980), “The Seer-Sucker Theory: The Value of Experts in Forecasting,” Technology Review, 83 (June/July), 18-24.
Armstrong, J. S., Green, K.C., & Soon, W. (2008), “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” Interfaces, 38, No. 5, 382–405. [Includes commentary and response]
Green, K. C. & Armstrong, J. S. (2007), “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts,” Energy and Environment, 18, No. 7+8, 995-1019.
Green, K. C. & Armstrong J. S. (2010), “Effects of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method,” Working Paper.
Green, K. C., Armstrong, J. S. & Soon W. (2009), “Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making,” International Journal of Forecasting, 25, 826-832.
Tetlock, P. E. (2005), Expert Political Judgment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Heretic Video of the Week
May 5th
Adam Carolla Complains About Electric Cars. It is not suitable for work due to language, but that doesn’t change the accuracy of what he is saying.
Al Gore Not Worried About Sea Level Rising: Buys 8.8 Million Dollar Ocean-View Villa
Apr 29th
From the Los Angeles Times:
Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.
The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
No editorial comments needed here. This one kind of speaks for itself.
Heretic Video of the Week
Apr 24th
Lee Doren put out a video not too long ago talking about how the temperature decline was hidden by Mann’s famous Hockey Stick:
![obama-green[1]](http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obama-green1-64x64.jpg "obama-green[1]")
What an Eventful Earth-Day So Far…
Apr 22nd
What an Eventful Earth Day So far
This Year’s Earth-Day festivities include many things around the United States. I myself have five cars outside idling, but that pales in comparison to what’s going on in the Gulf of Mexico or what President Obama is doing.
Burning oil rig sinks in Gulf of Mexico from CNN:
An oil rig that was burning in the Gulf of Mexico for more than a day after an explosion has sunk, the U.S. Coast Guard said Thursday.
Lt. Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesau of the Coast Guard announced this latest development as an aerial search resumed for 11 workers who have been missing since the explosion on the rig Tuesday night off the Louisiana coast.
Crude oil was leaking from the rig at the rate of about 8,000 barrels per day, Coast Guard Petty Officer Ashley Butler said. The Coast Guard also is preparing for possible leaks of up to 700,000 gallons of diesel fuel but can do little to protect the environment until the fire is out, Butler said.
Wow, that’s pretty Epic. Good thing we’re not allowed to drill in Alaska, because you know… getting oil from the ocean is so safe and efficient.
Then there is President Obama out-doing me for gallons burned to celebrate Earth Day. He did this last year, but this time he gets help from Joe while crippling New York City in the process:
The parallel visits of Air Force One (a 747/VC-25 aircraft) and Air Force Two (a 757/C-32A aircraft) will delay dozens, if not hundreds of commercial flights at Kennedy and LaGuardia and other nearby airports as no-fly zones are implemented. Jets will be forced to circle and burn more fuel as they wait for the VIPs to come and go. Their security contingents consisting of dozens of cars, SUVs and helicopters will burn even more. Throw in thousands of commuters’ cars and delivery trucks sitting idle in traffic as law enforcement closes large swaths of the city and you have yourself a very Earth-unfriendly day.
Keep up the good work guys. You do us here at the Church of Global Warming proud.
Cap & Tax, Faulty Computer Models, and an ‘F’ for the UN IPCC
Apr 19th
From Reuters:
The United States released a new draft report on climate change on Monday, one week before the expected unveiling of a compromise U.S. Senate bill that aims to curb heat-trapping greenhouse emissions.
The report, a draft of the Fifth U.S. Climate Action Report that will be sent to the United Nations, says bluntly: “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced … Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
And the key to all of this is of course…. giving them more power and control:
Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They’re now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons.
In completely unrelated news, the air travel incident over the EU is blamed on flawed computer models. But we all know how little computer models play into the Global Warming debate… oh wait…
The ONLY reason this is coming out now is because those in power currently (Obama, Pelosi, etc) want to quickly rush through a cap-and-tax bill like they did the healthcare bill.
In completely unrelated news, the air travel incident over the EU is blamed on flawed computer models. But we all know how little computer models play into the Global Warming debate… oh wait…
The ONLY reason this is coming out now is because those in power currently (Obama, Pelosi, etc) want to quickly rush through a cap-and-tax bill like they did the healthcare bill.
This also helps to hide the news of the IPCC getting a big fat ‘F’ in their research.
“We’ve been told this report is the gold standard,” said Canadian global-warming skeptic Donna Laframboise, who runs the NoConsensus.org site and who organized the online effort to examine the U.N.’s references in the report, commonly known as the AR4.
“We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have been nowhere near a scientific journal.”
Mark my words, their going to rush this thing through. There has been too much bad press in the topic of Global Warming lately. They tried feeding us this line using the cho-cho train and the airplane noises. That didn’t work, so now comes the cramming of the spoon.
As Mann’s “Hockey Stick” is attacked, the Church steps in to defend it
Apr 15th
An article by Fiona Harvey, Environmental Correspondent for FT.com highlights the attempts of an environmentalist to hide the bad news that their precious hockey stick is coming under serious attack. Though I do not think the intent was to bring a negative light to the efforts of the leaders of this religion (note the tone when talking about “Skeptics”), sometimes you simply cannot report something as positive. She should have taken Al Gore’s technique and simply ignored it. Let’s take a look at what she is saying.
A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming skeptics have been making for years.
Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.
The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.
Okay, she goes out to remind the readers that those who disagree with global warming are “skeptics”, a derogatory term used by the environmentalists. Then she goes on to tell us how the scientists who were responsible for hiding data, and using “tricks” to change data were behaving themselves. Yea… because when someone says “try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with” that totally makes me think there was “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice.”
The e-mails were hacked last autumn from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They caused a storm, as they appeared to show scientists manipulating and concealing data.
“Appeared” huh?
Although Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy – exonerated the unit’s scientists, it criticized climate experts for failures in handling statistics.
“It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded.
Why would this be surprising? These people are trying to save the planet! Good God, man, they don’t have time to fact check or talk to a statistician before throwing numbers around! I mean, they don’t even have enough time to use all the temperature data, so they have to be selective about what temperature data they use… wait, what?
The hockey stick graph was a key part of the scandal. In the e-mails, UEA’s Professor Phil Jones referred to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures suggested by certain sources of data. A similar trick was used in the hockey stick graph.
This is a fun one. Look at how the hockey stick graph completely ignores the Medieval Warm Period. That’s some trick.
Michael Mann's Hockey StickThe actual temperature record
The UEA scientists said that “trick” merely referred to a scientific technique – an explanation accepted by some skeptics, including Lord Lawson, former Tory chancellor.
Oh my, is she trying to paint some skeptics in a positive light by saying this explanation was already accepted by some of them? Doubtful. She is using those she disagrees with to try to prop up those who she agrees with. That’s like using Tom Coburn to prop up Nancy Pelosi by saying “See, republicans like her, this is one republican I agree with.”
Prof Hand said his criticisms should not be seen as invalidating climate science. He pointed out that although the hockey stick graph – which dates from a study led by US climate scientist Michael Mann in 1998 – exaggerates some effects, the underlying data show a clear warming signal.
Of course criticisms should not be seen as invalidating the science! After all, global warming can’t even be invalidated by cold winters or record snowfall. They have written this one so that nothing can or should invalidate their dogma.
He accused skeptics of “identifying a few particular issues and blowing them up” to distort the true picture. The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. “If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so thick of an attempt to be one-sided. The fact that there are issues with their science religion help to show those of us who are not lost in the faith of manmade global warming that there are indeed serious issues with the data. The scientific method itself is designed specifically to tear at these errors to progress science. When you have people like Michael Mann bitching that it’s not fair because some “skeptics” are going after the issues behind their science, it helps to point out how little actual science is being done here.
The report into the science produced by UEA, which came from a panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a scientist and former Shell chairman, was the second investigation into Climategate in the UK. The first, by a committee of MPs, also found the scientists innocent of manipulating data, though it said they may have breached Freedom of Information legislation.
Note how Fiona also makes it quite clear that Lord Oxburgh (how dare he to attack the Church) is a scientist, but couruppted by being a former Shell Oil chairman. Try this with every Church member you know. The moment they bring up studies funded by or influenced by Big Oil, try asking them if studies funded by Big Oil are biased, what about studies funded by environmentalists? Those too should be biased, right? naaa. “Its not evil when we do it” will most likely be the response you get.
An investigation into the scientists’ handling of FOI requests is still under way.
Yea, and I bet it is as open and non-biased as it can be. Riiight.
Apparently a Scientific Divide Over Global Warming is New
Apr 6th
I had to go all the way to Myrtle Beach and WMBF News for this one:
Former Vice President Al Gore’s name has become synonymous with global warming. Gore pressured the public, saying people are solely responsible for global warming, and created a “go green” mania.
However, Gore’s movie, The Inconvenient Truth, has much opposition that the public may not know. Ian Plumber of Adelaide University says climate data has been massaged, and there is complete obstruction.
This kind of thing has been going on for a while now because of the film’s political nature and extreme bias. Your first inkling that this is a political issue of course is the fact that Al Gore is the spokesperson for it. But I guess of Perez Hilton stands behind the film then everything is A-OK.
“Because you get one upward trend recently, will mislead a lot of people,” another well-known scientist, Dr. Bill Gray, said as he noted global warming could be over-hyped.
The earth is warming, but scientists remain divided on the cause. Gore makes an argument of a positive correlation between hurricanes and tornadoes.
And others have made an argument as to the positive correlation between the reduction of pirates and the global average temperature. You can make a positive correlation between any two items if you wish, but the climate system is not made up of just to items (Humans and Carbon Dioxide), as many church members seem to forget.
“The same year that we had that spring of big hurricanes,” he said. “We also hit an all-time high of number of tornadoes in United States.”
Kevin Pence of the National Weather Service agrees that we’re seeing more storm reports, but isn’t quick to put the charge on global warming.
There are others out there who think this way… this is nothing new.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=484LQLMr584
“We think that has to do with, you know, folks having cameras on their cell phones, video recorders, education,” he said.
This is a fun one. When this is brought up the conversation usually goes like this:
Eco-Fascist: warmest in a hundred years bla bla bla, I love Al Gore bla bla bla
Me: 100 years eh?
Eco-Fascist: Yeah.
Me: Think those temperature records of 1908 are accurate?
Eco-Fascist: Yeah.
Me: Like… Satellite accurate?
Eco-Fascist: ummmm… sure.
Me: *Bitchslap*
So are our green efforts even making a positive impact? The truth is, despite drastic green efforts, carbon dioxide may never go away because it’s life cycle can be anywhere from 50 to a thousand years.
“It’s not like we can take a vacuum cleaner, turn it on and suck all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and we’d be good to go. It’s not the case,” Pence explains.
With only 30 years of satellite data, the convenient truth is there’s a lot of research that still needs to be done.
Thank you WMBF A lot of research still needs to be done.
And until people take all science into account instead of just the science that agrees with their new world order, this will continue to be defined as a religion.
Freedom of Choice doesn’t count unless it’s abortion
Apr 5th
Okay, so maybe the headline is a little eye-catching, especially for a global warming website. I don’t like to get into many political arguments outside of this topic because honestly I love to win arguments, and it’s so easy against the members of the Church. But I want to use the whole abortion example while pointing out a bit of news that hit this weekend.
In the world of eco-regulation, my Automotive Freedom of Choice feels opressed as of late. Oddly enough, the same folks who claim “Choice” is a right are in the same political segment that wants to deny you your “Choice” at every turn.
Barack Obama aims to drive gas guzzlers off the road with greener laws For decades they have thundered along America’s highways and choked up parking lots, a symbol of extravagance unchallenged by politicians, emissions standards or common sense.
Ok wait, seriously, “unchallenged by… common sense”? we can all see where this article is going. This is probably in the editorial section right? Nope.
They are the four-wheel-drive behemoths known to the US Government as “light trucks” and to consumers as SUVs (sport utility vehicles) — but their easy ride as the world’s most conspicuous mobile polluters ended this week.
Wow, they can’t even hide their contempt.
In a coup that achieves something President Clinton promised but never delivered, President Obama has forced the big three US carmakers, and their unions, to accept tough mileage rules for cars and SUVs. The rules will cut emissions from vehicles by more than a third over the next four years.
This here is where we get into the crux of my argument. The government regulating mileage rules for vehicles. You know how there’s this whole push now for vehicles that get better mileage? Yea, that’s all you. The consumer. When gas hit the high in 2008, people wanted vehicles that got better mileage. (I personally used that time to go out and buy something that got less mileage, my suburban. The deals were just too good to resist.) Amazingly the people who make stuff, listen to the people who buy the stuff.
Capitalism (I know, something the church members typically despise with a passion) keeps itself in check because unlike the government, if we decide something is not cool, it fails and is replaced with something better.
Where does this whole abortion thing come into play? Let me get to that.
From 2016, new cars and SUVs will have to deliver an average of 35.5 miles per gallon (42.6 miles per British gallon), comparable for the first time with European and Japanese requirements.
Now, all of the members of the Church of Global Warming that I communicate with are all into Pro-choiceness. It just seems to be the way that segment of the political spectrum blends. (I won’t get into my contempt for the term “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice” as I don’t think it’s about life or choice… we all want life and choice. The issue is whether or not you think people should be able to have abortions.)
The next time you have a eco-conversation with someone, ask them their opinion on the government regulating the hell out of automobiles to force the manufactures into making what the government tells them to make (The government, because remember, if we choose, it would be with our money, not a political party), ask them what they think of the idea of letting the people choose and having no government regulation.
The answer you are likely to get will range but will most likely include bits of nonsense like:
- People are not smart enough to make the right choice
- Look at all the SUVs sold now, that’s just wrong
- If we don’t force better mileage on people, it will never happen
So then what about Abortion? Exactly. How can anyone be into “Freedom of Choice” but yet in the same conversation, be against your Automotive Freedom of Choice.
To take it a step further, the end-all-be-all last resort for all CoGW members is always been “Well, even if we’re not sure, shouldn’t we take steps to keep it from happening just in case?” or “Better safe than sorry.”
Then try turning that around on the whole abortion thing. If we can neither confirm nor deny that what makes a person a person is or is not there from the start of the human life cycle, they why not be “better safe than sorry”?
They will undoubtedly spout something about how the woman’s right to choose, bla bla bla. Well, I am tired of my Automotive Freedom of Choice being compromised because someone things I shouldn’t be driving what I enjoy to drive. Who the hell are you to tell the people that make my products that they have to make something different? Can you imagine if the government started regulating organic food to the level that they regulate automobiles? That would never stand.
But somehow, this does. No, my golden rule is still as follows: Smaller Government > Larger Government. And in the case of automotive regulation, all they are doing is making the cars/trucks/SUVs more expensive at the cost of our Automotive Freedom of Choice.
“Respected” Scientists: Humans are too stupid to stop climate change
Mar 30th
In line with what James Cameron said about “you have your head up your ass” when it comes to climate change, British scientist James Lovelock thinks you are too stupid to solve the problem of climate change. From the Guardian.co.uk:
I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change,” said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. “The inertia of humans is so huge that you can’t really do anything meaningful.
Do you like that? You are not as evolved as you need to be to deal with this… you are not as evolved as him or James Cameron obviously because they see it and you do not. How intellectually elite of them.
I think it’s funny how this article is worded. Too stupid to solve the problem of climate change? I submit that many are not so stupid as to be pulled into Cameron and Lovelock’s religion. If they want the support of someone like me, all the must logically explain how the Holocene climatic optimum, Roman climate optimum, and medieval warm periods were the fault of humans.
This whole thing boils down to the Saul Alinsky approach of simply ignoring those who do not agree with you because your argument does not hold up.
At one point, I was doing a Google search to learn more about the Holocene and Roman climate optimums, and I had stumbled across a Yahoo Answers question that reminded me of this same tactic. In the Yahoo Answers question (in which the author asks what the roman climate optimum is, but obviously already has their mind made up that it means nothing) the author refuses to accept any information from those branded a “Skeptic”.
So, if Everyone who dares to say anything contrary about man causing global warming, then the Church brands them a skeptic (or a modern day heretic) and completely ignores what they have to say. Whilst the “Skeptics” actually come to their conclusions using data from everywhere (generally, there are always examples of bias) the members of the Church of Global Warming pride themselves in ignoring data.
This is lock step in line with James Lovelock’s comment and something Saul Alinsky would be proud of.
Rules for Radicals, Rule number 5:
Ridicule, especially against organizational leaders, is a potent weapon. There’s no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force concessions.
Too stupid to solve the problem of climate change? No. We are too smart to fall for your tactics, and too open minded to limit our information to only the church approved dogma.
