The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Immigration and Carbon Emissions
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

iSteve commenter Anoni writes:

I work a bit in the climate field. And it really is amazing how immigration and climate is something that you just simply can’t talk about, you just get to shut up very quickly. I even did a little work on the iSteve idea of exactly how much carbon we are adding by importing half of Guatemala. And my findings basically agree with what Steve found, except it’s a lot bigger importing from Central America rather than Mexico cuz Mexico has much higher CO2 per person. But it’s completely unpublishable. Nobody at an environmental economics Journal would look at it at all. It does drive me crazy how doctrinaire conservatives are about climate change. There is something happening for sure, it does seem to be getting hotter, but it drives me crazier that the left can’t recognize that you simply can’t have immigration at the level we are and do anything about climate change. It’s impossible.

 

 
Hide 230 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon[996] • Disclaimer says:

    This.

  2. Anonymous[358] • Disclaimer says:

    Since when could anyone accuse the hard left/Economist of having intelligence or integrity?

    Another obvious one is the social security/welfare/universal healthcare etc systems etc enjoyed by the citizens of most of world’s advanced economies.

    As Milton Friedman stated *it’s simply impossible to combine uncontrolled immigration with a welfare state*.

    Although in the usual way the left/Economist will lie and lie and lie and bluster their way out of it, the simple truism remains – unless you believe in virtual ‘negative’ money.
    Simply put infinite demand will somehow be funded by strictly limited input.

  3. Mr. Anon says:

    @Anoni

    Nobody at an environmental economics Journal would look at it at all. It does drive me crazy how doctrinaire conservatives are about climate change. There is something happening for sure, it does seem to be getting hotter,…………….

    What do you base that on?

    It “seems” like AGW proponents are getting ever more desparate to invoke a strong-form AGW mechanism for all that ails us. Science is not necessarily about what things “seem” to be.

    • Replies: @SF
    , @AndrewR
  4. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:

    This is a good wedge issue for the ‘right’, whether they believe in global warming or not. Immigration equals climate doom.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Patriot
  5. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    We’re not permitted to discuss population and environmental effects any more, since any references to population (not to mention migration) are automatically labeled ‘racist’.

    And that’s the worst thing that can happen to anyone.

    • Replies: @Marty T
  6. njguy73 says:

    “As tragic as the loss of Planet Earth would be, the loss of our diversity would be a greater tragedy.”

    I’m just gonna use that snowclone for everything from here on out.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • LOL: Rosie
  7. We’re not permitted to discuss population and environmental effects any more

    Welcome to rule-by-Whigs (Communists). Arguments are picked up and dropped and picked up again for expediency. Whatever you do, never engage intellectually with a Whig, they’re religious nutters and any apparent reasoning is expediency or sophistry.

    Defoe’s “The Shortest Way with the Dissenters” was supposed to be satire, but was and is the Truth.

    • Replies: @res
  8. Numinous says:

    I even did a little work on the iSteve idea of exactly how much carbon we are adding by importing half of Guatemala.

    This is an idiotic formulation. You might as well argue that since a rich person in the US has a much larger footprint than a poor person, a goal of public policy ought to be to create more wealth concentration and larger numbers of poor people. And those lost coal jobs in WV or factory job in the Midwest: that’s a swell thing, as people who don’t have jobs won’t need to drive, and thereby won’t add much carbon.

    Were you actually paid to do these kinds of “studies”?

  9. eah says:

    immigration and climate is something that you just simply can’t talk about

    Whatever could the reason be?!?

    In contrast, Paul Ehrlich (a Jew) wrote an extremely/absurdly alarmist book about the dangers of population growth, a book aimed mostly at Whites — perhaps that’s a clue.

    • Replies: @eah
  10. eah says:
    @eah

    Another clue (maybe) — Paul Ryan’s twitter banner.

    • Replies: @eah
    , @AnotherDad
  11. OT – The Plunge for Distance vs. The Distance for Plunge:

    (via Dave Pinsen’s Twitter feed)

  12. “It does drive me crazy how doctrinaire conservatives are about climate change There is something happening for sure, it does seem to be getting hotter”.

    I have yet to know a conservative who denies “something is happening”. But, as you probably know, serious scientists disagree about causes, seriousness, effects, remedies, political implications, money allocation, et cetera.
    What makes me suspicious is the opposition from the progressive side to have any public discussion about that: when it’s proposed you should know what happens. In my humble opinion, if one is so sure to have the truth (which, btw, changed drastically and tacitly from “in 2012 NYC will be under water” to “at the end of the century…”) he should be eager to display his reasons and confute the opposite arguments.

    • Replies: @Travis
  13. conatus says:

    Don’t forget David Gelbaum’s 106 million to the Sierra Club with the attached caveat that they NEVER…EVER talk about the damage immigration does to the environment or they would never get any more money from him.

    “It was a very bad day for the cause of protecting America’s wilderness and resources some years back when the Sierra Club secretly took over $100 million in tainted donations from Wall Street investor David Gelbaum. The enormous contribution came with strings attached, namely the stipulation that America’s flagship green organization would not mention excessive immigration as harmful to the environment generally and resource preservation in particular.”

    from here:

    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/tsc_24_4_walker.shtml

  14. No one with a memory denies that the climate is changing and generally getting warmer. The Icelandic glacier I visited only three summers ago is about 250 yards shorter now. Cold winters are rarer – though the UK had a mega-freeze this year, it was only 10 days or so long. In 1963 it was sub-zero for a couple of months.

    How much this is man-made is the contentious issue. The UK approach appears to be to close our coal mines and nuclear power stations, then close our manufacturing industry in favour of Chinese goods, which apparently are free of CO2 emissions. Then when the power cuts begin, pay the Chinese to build new nuclear power!

    Also on the topic of immigration, it doesn’t half produce a lot of hot air, as people ponder what to do with the great-grandchildren of The Windrush Generation ™.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/violent-london-inside-the-life-of-street-target-a3890091.html

    I put Dianni’s case to Charlie Ransford, world-leading expert from ­Chicago on the use of the public health model for tackling serious youth violence. “Dianni’s case is typical,” he said. “There is this moment of impending violence brewing in a community that everyone knows about and people want to help but they won’t tell the police. So what’s the solution? It’s about having people to call who aren’t the police but who have the authority to step in and sort it. People who have on-the-ground credibility and have won the trust of the high-risk youth. We call them violence interrupters.”

    In Dianni’s case, this person is Hashi. But can Hashi intervene to keep Dianni safe? “Not on my own,” he said. “That’s why we need the full public health model to kick in. It brings all the service partners together to create a supportive network for high-risk youth. Dianni needs mental health support for his ADHD, training to be a chef, maybe to be re-housed and even relocated — and it needs to be done with urgency.”

    In March, the public health model was given the green light by Lambeth council to be piloted in the borough as part of a 10-year strategy to “fundamentally change how Lambeth addresses violence against young people”. A report to the council’s cabinet set out the “first steps” by convening “a new board specifically to tackle serious youth violence” that will “adopt a public health approach”. Community organisations such as Hashi’s Young Lambeth Cooperative, statutory authorities and Lambeth police are all meant to work collaboratively under the new board.

    Dianni smokes 5 spliffs a day, has no job (but has money and a large collection of boxed trainers) and a criminal record dating back to age 12.

    It was easy for Dianni to slip through the cracks. He lived with Ruth, who came from Jamaica in 1962 and had seven children, so Dianni grew up with his mother and loads of uncles, aunts and cousins around him. “Dianni was the apple of my eye,” she said. “He can kill you with words. Like his rap songs, they are good.”

  15. Anon[190] • Disclaimer says:
    @Numinous

    It made perfect sense to me. Eating beans and riding donkeys in Guatemala is much less of a footprint than piling into a 20 year old SUV and getting the 405. The second part of your comment was a ridiculous straw man.

    • Replies: @Numinous
  16. Jason Liu says:

    Either way I’m pretty sure tolerance > climate change for most liberals

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  17. Anonymous[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    This is a good wedge issue for the ‘right’, whether they believe in global warming or not. Immigration equals climate doom.

    Maybe, but be careful. A worst-case scenario would be where it ends up being like the ‘Dems are real racists’ counter-argument so beloved of establishment Republicans–that is, a counter-argument which is too clever by half.

  18. m___ says:

    Another one,

    Climate change and the vegan wave.

    Will getting rid of cows get rid of Co2, will eating vegan accomplish this? What about vegans producing a substantial amount of Co2, that was belatedly left to cows and other grazers by our ancestors? We see some flatulence upping to be predicted here.

  19. SF says:
    @Mr. Anon

    The planet is warming, based on 60 years of data. That is incontrovertible, although depending on where you are and what the recent weather has been, it might seem to be cooler. https://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

  20. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    I don’t think this works. AGW has been turned into a morality tale whereby developed countries need to redistribute their wealth to others to compensate them for harm done.

    This can be carried out by actual transfers of money, capital or abolishing ourselves. It is also a zero sum game whereby the more Westerners suffer, the better it is, as that means others must be benefiting.

    The final point I was just told outright yesterday by a South Asian MBA working in finance. Lovely bloke. Poisonous belief.

  21. Has anyone thought that maybe our de facto Open Borders policy is due to the lobbying efforts of Big Asswipe™?

    Every new rear end that gets imported from the third world starts using luxurious multiply toilet paper rather than the leaves, rags or creek beds they’re used to using after elimination.

    • Agree: Clyde
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @Alfa158
    , @Clyde
    , @Clyde
  22. @Numinous

    This is an idiotic formulation. You might as well argue that since a rich person in the US has a much larger footprint than a poor person, a goal of public policy ought to be to create more wealth concentration and larger numbers of poor people. And those lost coal jobs in WV or factory job in the Midwest: that’s a swell thing, as people who don’t have jobs won’t need to drive, and thereby won’t add much carbon.

    It doesn’t sound like you think it idiotic, but rather too clever and too true for you to engage on its terms so you need to dismiss it with a false reductio ad absurdum.

    There is often a difference between “goals” and effects. It’s undeniable that increasing the U.S. population increases the net carbon footprint of the U.S. Bringing a Guatemalan to the U.S. to live instantly increases his consumption of carbon intensive consumer goods and services several fold his use in his home nation.

    Incidentally, I don’t think your formulation with regard to public policy making energy use cost prohibitive for the lower classes to reduce carbon emissions is at all far from the mark. That’s what proposed increases in fuel taxes etc. are meant to do.

    • Agree: ic1000
  23. I am skeptical of the solutions, not the causes…
    the left wouldn’t care about ‘climate change’ unless it was of HUGE use to them the same way they don’t give a damn about women when more useful muslims come along… Big banks are set to make BILLIONS off of ‘cap and trade’ and gain more control and influence.

    The way climate change is framed the ‘solutions’ give the usual corrupt alliance of the progressives and multinational corporations huge amounts of control over society.

    Recognizing that mass immigration and third world population growth is a major cause and the solution is limiting both, is a huge LOSS to them.

    • Agree: Antlitz Grollheim
  24. The link between immigration and climate change already is publishable, … provided the arrow of causation runs the other way!

    I suggest Anoni try publishing under the following rubric:

    The Sin of First World Carbon Emissions Means We Must Import Tropical People! Now! Now! NOW!

    Publication guaranteed.

    P.S. Don’t mention the carbon emissions of Asian countries that don’t take tropical “refugees”.

  25. Patriot says:

    Anoni nailed it!

    It turns out that human activities create greenhouse gasses, and rich countries produce much, much more greenhouse gas (and nearly every other type of pollution) than poor people. Hence one way to greatly INCREASE greenhouse gas is to move millions of people from poor countries to rich countries.

    I laugh at Californians. Because of massive immigration, Califurnia population grew from 10 million to 40 million IN MY LIFETIME!!
    This has caused such a severe water shortage that politicans have suggested moving soms of the excess population to the Pacific Northwest, where there is more water. But a good proportion of California’s high popuation came from wet and rainy Central America, where there is plenty of water. Not one word fron these idiots about solving California’s water problem by moving people back to wet Central America, let alone reducing immigration into water-stressed California.

    • Agree: Travis, Mr. Rational
  26. WJ says:
    @Numinous

    It’s only idiotic to an idiot. To anyone that can actually analyze and think rationally it is clear. Add more people from a low carbon output per capita country to a high carbon output/capita country and you will increase greenhouse gas emissions overall.

    On top of that you have the local environmental catastrophe that any population increase imposes – water demand, human wastes in the water, farmland ground up for housing, local air pollution (Denver,LA) and on and on.

    The fact that we are still even debating if immigration from the third world is an environmental problem, is discouraging. That’s truly settled science.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Numinous
  27. Anon[103] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alec Leamas

    Have you shills managed to find a way to spin the extremely high pCO2 of the atmosphere during the Late Ordovician Glaciation yet?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  28. istevefan says:

    Immigration supporters foresaw the contradiction between more immigration and environmentalism and decided to nip it in the bud by coining the term “The Greening of Hate”. This effectively ended all discussion of the matter by linking yet again another subject to the charges of racism.

    From my searches it appears this woman, Betsy Hartmann, is the one who coined that term.

    Not to be outdone the $PLC came out with their own version of Betsy’s term and called it “Greenwash”

    A quarter of a century ago, John Tanton, a white nationalist who would go on to almost single-handedly construct the contemporary, hard-line anti-immigration movement, wrote about his secret desire to bring the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental organization, into the nativist fold. He spelled out his motive clearly: Using an organization perceived by the public as part of the liberal left would insulate nativists from charges of racism — charges that, given the explicitly pro-”European-American” advocacy of Tanton and many of his allies over the years, would likely otherwise stick.

    In the ensuing decades, nativist forces followed Tanton’s script, making several attempts to win over the Sierra Club and its hundreds of thousands of members. That effort culminated in 2004, when nativists mounted a serious effort to take over the Sierra Club’s board of directors, an attempt that was beaten back only after a strenuous campaign by Sierra Club members and groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center. The attempt was a classic case of “greenwashing” — a cynical effort by nativist activists to seduce environmentalists to join their cause for purely strategic reasons.

    Now, the greenwashers are back. In the last few years, right-wing groups have paid to run expensive advertisements in liberal publications that explicitly call on environmentalists and other “progressives” to join their anti-immigration cause. They’ve created an organization called Progressives for Immigration Reform that purports to represent liberals who believe immigration must be radically curtailed in order to preserve the American environment. They’ve constructed websites accusing immigrants of being responsible for urban sprawl, traffic congestion, overconsumption and a host of other environmental evils. Time and again, they have suggested that immigration is the most important issue for conservationists.

    My take is that the left knows there is a contradiction between environmentalism and immigration and thus decided to trot out their A-bomb charge of racism to prevent its discussion. Based upon their reaction this means we should hit this subject hard, very hard. It’s a winning issue and it is not hard to connect the dots, even for normies. Now all we need is Trump to tweet about it to get the ball rolling.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Mr. Anon
    , @Anonym
  29. ic1000 says:
    @Alec Leamas

    The mainstream’s framing of the worsening inequalities in the U.S. over the past half-century is perhaps not off topic to Alex Leamas’ comment or the OP. Since 1965, the nation has been welcoming large numbers of immigrants who are, overall, much lower in human capital than the typical American. For both acknowledged cultural and unacknowledged HBD reasons, the impact is multi-generational, perhaps permanent.

    There are many contributors to the persistent trend of rising inequality. But, for sure, mass immigration is one thing that’s not even a thing in that regard. Flooding the country with low-skill workers (and their dependents) has no effect on the stagnant wages of the bottom 10% and even the bottom half of households.

    In fact, I sleep better at night knowing that well-paid media personalities and tenure-track academics are protecting me and my fellow citizens occupants from hatefacts like this.

  30. Patriot says:

    Do NOT recycle or conserve energy or avoid eating endangered fish or participate in any other “ecological” activities, because all of these treat symptoms, instead of the actual cause, and are thus useless because they don’t solve the problem.

    Virtually all of our 100′s of environmental problems derive from having too many people. Recycling beer cans or buying an electric car fools you into thinking that you are helping, but you are not. In fact these activities actually make things worse, because while you are busy wraping newspapers to take to recycling, they are importing another million immigrants who will increase pollution in america by 1,000,000. Over the 50 years of massive immigration, the new American citizens and their children will add 100,000,000 million people’s worth of pollution and environmental damage to USA. OK, you gaved 1/2gallon of water today. Meanwile each of those 100,000,000 immigrants and their children flished the toilet 5 tines that day, used 10 Kw of energy, produced a bag of trash, etc. YOUR RECYCLING IS MEANINGLESS,

    Government and business push recycling on gullible and stupid Americans because it distracts them, thus allowing businesses to continue to import more and moreand more cheap labor.

    A physician who treated only symptoms (say nausia or headache) instead of attacking the actual cause (such as overpopulation of an invading pathogen in your body ) would be fired.

    Don’t be distracted by attacking smptoms. Instead, attack the problem — TOO MANY PEOPLE IN USA CAUSED BY TOO MUCH IMMIGRATION.

    • Troll: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  31. Patriot says:
    @Anon

    Love it: MASSIVE IMMIGRATION IS CLIMATE DOOM

    MASSIVE IMMIGRATION IS MASSIVE ECOLOGICAL DISTRUCTION

  32. istevefan says:
    @Alec Leamas

    Here are some numbers from wikipedia, but from 2013.

    The US puts out over 16 tons per person which is an improvement over the 20 tons they estimated we put out in 1980. However:

    * Guatemala puts out only 0.9 tons per person.
    * El Salvador 1.0
    * Mexico 3.9

    So converting one of the above to an American, with an American lifestyle, would appear to increase that person’s CO2 footprint on average.

    Even though we’ve cut our per capita usage down from 20 to 16, which is about 20 percent, we’ve grown our population from 1980 by almost 45 percent. We went from 227 million to 330 million over that time which was driven mostly by new immigrants and their descendants. So any gains we made in technology to reduce our footprint could not keep up with our levels of immigration.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  33. Dtbb says:
    @Alec Leamas

    Reminds me of pushing people to conserve water and when they do water rates must be raised to meet projected incomes.

  34. @Tyrion 2

    A year ago, an IPCC official named Ottmar Edenhofer gave an interview to the Swiss newspaper “Neue Zuericher Zeitung”, where he more or less said that the climate policy favored by the IPCC would in effect mean an expropriation carbon fuels of countries and a redistribution of wealth on a global scale:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth/

    Here are translations of some of his quotes from the interview:

    [Development policy] will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

    Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

    First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

  35. AndrewR says:
    @Mr. Anon

    You deny that the climate is changing?

  36. TG says:

    Agreed. It is astonishing how any mention of the effects of population on either economics or the environment is totally censored from public debate.

    But it’s not because of ‘leftists.’ It’s because the rich and powerful like the quick and easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor, and the easiest way to get cheap labor is to force population growth higher. So we can’t talk about that.

    The Sierra Club used to talk about this, then the leadership was bribed by a rich oligarch with an interest in cheap labor, and now the Sierra Club refuses to acknowledge population growth as an environmental issue – not because they are ‘leftists’ but because they have been paid off.

    Per capita energy consumption in the United States is down quite a bit from the peak in 1970. Overall energy consumption is only going up because post-1970 the opening to third-world immigration has increased the population by nearly 100 million more than it would have been (it’s NOT the number of immigrants: it is the total population increase caused by specific immigration policies. You have to count their descendants).

    Look at Syria, where government policies aimed at maximizing population growth caused the population to double every 18 years. It doubled, and quadrupled, and.. oops! The aquifers were all drained and things fell apart. But it is forbidden to mention this. No, it must be global warming. Or Putin. Or Elvis.

    Since 1970, global per capita energy consumption has remained flat. But the population was doubled. And total energy consumption doubled. Tell me what the driver is here.

    Nothing stands for long against exponential growth. No amount of conservation can keep pace. It’s all about the numbers. Which we can’t talk about.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  37. @istevefan

    Sort of related- I love all the enviros in CA who pass all these stupid restrictive laws, plastic bags! plastic straws! recycling! ban this, ban that! (will round-up be next? I’m stockpiling). Don’t build here, don’t build there, no more dams.

    And yet- we have over 40 million people in this state and more come all the time. More affordable housing! More schools! More immigration!

    It just makes me laugh. Just getting water to everyone has changed darn near every single river in the state (and in OR, NV too). Huge reservoirs sitting in the mountains, the valleys covered in Ag. What do the city fathers think happens when huge amounts of people move into an area? The homes in my Sacramento area keep spreading further and further out, covering the hillsides and valleys, north, east, west, south, you name it.

    You know, it must be awful for the enviros in Britain. I read recently that they’re up to 67 million people there and the livable parts aren’t getting any bigger.

    • Replies: @Corn
    , @jim jones
    , @Anon
  38. Oh, come on, Steve … guys! Do we really want to do this?

    I don’t mean any argument against the general idea that the ctrl-left purposefully ignores the obvious fact that all environmental problems will be worse with more people. However, we’ve been through this before, with discussion on the Sierra Club’s hush money telling them that YOU! DO! NOT! TALK! ABOUT! IMMIGRATION! I get that, but, of course, I don’t begrudge you repeating these points – it’s your blog anyway.

    What I’ve got a problem with is anyone falling for the whole Global Climate Distruption(TM) schtick. Now, I’ve got to go through these points again, if you’ll indulge me, Steve.

  39. Travis says:
    @Paolo Pagliaro

    Most Republicans actually support the faulty Climate Change narrative….but even if you agree with the global warming theory , but believe the benefits of warming exceed to harm you will be attacked as a “denier”.

  40. “There is something happening for sure, it does seem to be getting hotter,……………”

    Wow, never have I read a more purely objective, analytical, data-driven, scientific observation than this! Truly a Zen moment for me. I now renounce my previously held skepticism that the UN conceived AGW racket was an excuse to lay further taxes on 1st world countries to fund their globalist agendas. Let us now continue to burn AGW heretics at the stake, but not before we clean out their bank accounts. Tinder and rope ain’t free, you know?

  41. res says:
    @JudyBlumeSussman

    Defoe’s “The Shortest Way with the Dissenters” was supposed to be satire, but was and is the Truth.

    This was written in 1976, but I think it casts some light on the thinking involved: https://www.jstor.org/stable/436830
    Available at libgen as DOI 10.2307/436830

    Part of our difficulties with The Shortest Way with the Dissenters derives from a critical tradition of asking mainly whether it is inadequate irony, deficient satire, or misused impersonation. Without answering all three questions more fully than others have, I wish to explore, with the help of recent concepts of intentionality, some neglected relationships between fictive effects, metaphoric statements, and the method of Defoe’s argument.1 Closer attention to these matters clarifies a problem voiced most clearly in Miriam Leranbaum’s perceptive observation that while the speaker’s “inhumanity and intolerance are glaring, he is “also a good rhetorician, and therefore very dangerous.”2 Dangerous because he is so effective despite (or is it because of?) his obvious inhumanity. Either way, there remains the disturbing question of how such glaring intolerance can be made appealing, as in this case it undeniably was for those who liked the argument but were later ashamed of their initial response. Defoe succeeded in setting”a trap to deceive totally, if temporarily, his high-flying Tory antagonists.”‘ Both the totality and the temporary nature of that deception deserve consideration. But to suggest that The Shortest Way succeeded because it was such a skillful imitation of previous intolerant rhetoric (in an age of violent polemic) still begs the question of how such models of intolerance were made appealing, especially to those who were later appalled at what they had been disposed to approve of before recognizing the hoax. Defoe’s arrest for high crimes and misdemeanors has further complicated efforts to answer(or even state) this question by inclining critics to doubt his intentions and regard The Shortest Way as an accident.

    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
  42. There is something happening for sure, it does seem to be getting hotter,

    “There’s something happening here… what it is ain’t exactly clear.” “It does seem to be getting hotter…” now there’s some high-level science for ya’.

    Hey, sorry to be snarky, Anoni, but come on, man. That’s just it. 25 years of getting drilled in by the Lyin’ Press idiots that “You won’t ever see snow again.”, “It’s way hotter now, Cedar Rapids, Iowa and 2 other cities set record highs today.”, “These cold blasts are just going to get worse and worse as this Climate Change kicks in!” “There will be more hurricanes, say the models – tryin’ to reason with hurricane season” [just for you Parrotheads, there] – last one said just before a 10-year slack period in hurricanes, etc. has taken it’s toll.

    People have this idea that anything different in the climate must be some general big change going on. That’s the thing about climate. You can’t ever expect the same-old-same-old year-to-year or even decade-to-decade. Ask an old farmer about it. Yet we don’t even really have a good handle on what triggers the ice ages, which are far and beyond any changes that are discussed with just as much accuracy as anyone else had in the Farmer’s Almanac.

    To make a realistic working model of the world’s climate, one must have very good math models of each individual process that is involved – that’s 100′s of things – cloud patterns and albedos, ocean current changes, ice melting/accumulation, etc., along with the typical processes that are associated with weather. Sure, climatologists and other scientists study all these individually, but putting them all together? Pshaaaw! It’s the difference between science and engineering. For engineers, it’s gotta actually work.

    I want another engineer on here to write and tell me that, yes, he believes there is s working model of the entire earth’s climate. Go ahead – I’ve got this Ray-O-Vac D cell sitting on my shoulder – knock it off.

    (There is no working mathematical model of the earth’s climate, dammit! – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.)

  43. Anon[185] • Disclaimer says:

    With all due respect, climate change as an anti immigration argument seems lame. Although source countries per capita energy use may not reach US levels “real soon now,” it’ll be soon enough, and immigration restriction isn’t any sort of long range plan. And there’s a moral limpness is basing a climate plan on walling ourselves off so we can bask in 24/7 air conditioning. Ironically, this is just the sort of reasoning that would appeal to tone deaf European Community technocrats.

    And the commenter who can’t get his research published, I think he needs to have more credentials than”working a bit in climate.” But a more qualified, research backed paper might sneak through if framed as an estimate of how much aid countries need to give to immigrant source countries to develop sustainable energy to offset increased carbon from outgoing migrants. In other words what is the break even amount of energy source conversion needed. Helpful comparisons could be made, like “7 trillion Teslas sold would offset carbon from current immigration rates from Guatemala.”

    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    , @res
  44. bored identity strongly believes that only a full and unconditional elimination of environmental pollution can preserve Western society…

    Such a shame that, in 2018 AD, Heimat Change Deniers are still allowed to peddle Cosmopoliethnocentrical Model of the Universe to our children:

    Israel Evacuates 800 White Helmets Heroes And Their Families From Syrian Army Advances So They Can Be Resettled in Britain, Germany And Canada

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5979271/Israel-evacuates-800-White-Helmets-heroes-families.html

  45. I could get more into the science and nonsense of the GCD scam, but let me just address the post more. People keep talking about “carbon this” and “carbon that” and it’s getting to where that is totally disconnected with any science.

    With all the carbon talk, people mean CO2 (sorry subs and superscripts aren’t working for me – I tried), and it’s NOT A POLLUTANT. Carbon Dioxide, whatever the effects it has from blocking certain wavelengths of radiation in the atmosphere, is a natural component necessary for life on earth, and it’s a PRODUCT (not by-product) of any combustion of hydrocarbons – the other product is water, a bigger blocker of outbound radiation in those wavelengths, BTW. I really do think that the Lyin’ Press is stupid enough to confuse CO2 with Carbon Monoxide, or trying to get the viewers/readers to confuse these two. The latter is freakin’ dangerous.

    It does drive me crazy how doctrinaire conservatives are about climate change.

    Doctrinaire, my ass, I think a better description would be “not as susceptible to brainwashing by the Lyin’ Press”. It’s not really a left vs. right issue – except in the complete control issues that it brings up – the left LOVES LOVES LOVES the fact that control of people’s energy use is a big plus for totalitarianism. The right suspects that that’s why the left keeps on this Global Climate Disruption(TM) hoax like white on rice. Otherwise, it just splits left/right quite a bit based on stupidity levels (large/medium).

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  46. If you want to make your fair-trade cappuccino sipping, Volvo driving and NPR listening Lefty friends’ heads *EXPLODE* in truly agonizing cognitive dissonance, simply run them through the iStevian logic of importing low carbon emitting Central Americans into the USA.

    You: So, you know carbon emissions of the average Central American compared to a average American is minuscule.

    Them: Yeah, obviously.

    You: Once they cross the border, they adopt wasteful North American habits, don’t they? I mean, have you seen those massive, inefficient Ford trucks they use to haul trailers full of mowers and other landscape machinery.

    Them: Yeah, their beautiful, pure souls have been corrupted by American consumerism.

    You: So, wouldn’t you agree that Central American immigration to the USA creates more carbon emissions and that’s bad for the planet, right? We’re increasing global carbon emissions by upgrading immigrants ability to pollute, no?

    Them: Wait, wha—-

    You: So shouldn’t we be stopping immigration from low carbon emissions per capita countries? In other words, turning Mexicans into American consumers is murdering Gaia.

    Them: *EYES BULGE IN RAGE* as they try to reconcile two of the paramountGoodThink precepts:

    a) Immigration is unalloyed good. Illegal immigration is DoublePlusGood.

    b) Climate change/carbon emissions paradigm is real.

    Sit back with a Heartiste-ian satisfied smirk as they run around screeching in anger in their attempt to make the cognitive pain stop.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  47. Leftists don’t care about the science of climate and its change just as they don’t care about the science of evolution. Leftists don’t use tools, they only wield weapons. If it can’t be used as a weapon, they have no use for it.

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
  48. Numinous says:
    @Alec Leamas

    It’s undeniable that increasing the U.S. population increases the net carbon footprint of the U.S.

    In the near term, sure. But so what? The proponents of immigration will argue that moving a Guatemalan to the US will immediately increase his income and living standard by an order of magnitude. Then the dispute changes to what you want to prioritize: saving carbon or increasing the living standards of (some) people who happen to be born in poor countries. Both of these priorities are “globalist” aims, which are anathema to people on this forum, so which poison will you pick?

    Also, you are assuming that the global warming calculus is going to be frozen in time, and that if the US shut its borders tomorrow, the Guatemalans will suck it up and accept their current living standards (and carbon footprint). I wouldn’t bet on that. Also think about the 99% of the developing world that isn’t Guatemala. They aren’t going to just give up and accept their wretched fate either. Over time, poor countries’ carbon production will increase, and the effect of immigration restriction on global warming will become a statistical footnote.

    Incidentally, I don’t think your formulation with regard to public policy making energy use cost prohibitive for the lower classes to reduce carbon emissions is at all far from the mark. That’s what proposed increases in fuel taxes etc. are meant to do.

    You are missing the point again. There’s a difference between (i) enforced inequality and concentration of wealth AS AN END IN ITSELF, and (ii) asking the rich to cough up more in taxes for the privilege of producing more carbon. In the latter scenario, the taxes will be (at least in theory) channeled to the welfare state, which will (again, in theory) make the lives of the poorer segments of the population better.

  49. gunner29 says:

    15 years ago you could find on the net the fact that 3% of the CO2 is from humans, and the rest is of natural sources. Couple of years ago, I did a search on the 3% figure and it’s been scrubbed.

    Even the wikipedia entry on CO2 didn’t mention our tiny contribution. So we could cut our emissions in half and nothing would change in the climate.

    The whole climate circus has one goal; slowing down capitalism by any means. Somebody was obviously aware that the US military in WW2 had turned Germany and Japan from first world economies to turd world by destroying their fossil fuel production.

    That’s what (((they’ve))) wanted for the last 50 years; have a 2 tier world. 2% of the elite living large, and the remaining 98% just getting by.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  50. Doesn’t this only show that they don’t believe in catastrophic global warming caused by carbon emissions? Isn’t the whole environmental thing just a status game they play? After all, they have moral panics about plastic straws, and leave air travel alone. What if they encouraged each other not to get on jets? What if they taxed air freight so that Amazon couldn’t afford to fly things? Seems to me that cutting jet traffic by three-quarters would reduce carbon emissions by quite a lot. Liberals may be nuts, but I just don’t see them saying “I’d totally be in favor of importing more foreigners to cut my grass, vote Democrat and make me feel superior, but that would get the amount of carbon dioxide in the air up to 420 parts per million two weeks earlier, so I’m totally against it.”

  51. If Central Americans make such poor immigrants shouldn’t there also be a negative effect on America’s carbon output from their coming to the US also?

  52. Warner says:

    Adorns like 18th century Poe’s Law.

  53. Sparkon says:

    Again, there are no “carbon emissions.”

    Carbon is a solid and cannot be emitted. Would you talk about coal emissions?

    All carbon allotropes are solids under normal conditions…
    –Wikipedia

    Please, for now and all time, at least use the correct terminology: Carbon dioxide emissions.

    For example, CO₂ emissions are found in human exhalations, steaming from decaying organic material, in the tailpipe exhaust of your ICE car, and outgassing from the oceans.

    CO₂ = one atom C and two atoms O.

    In order for the carbon to be “emitted,” it first must be oxidized, or burned.

    In chemical terms, “oxidation” refers the loss of electrons. When we say carbon is oxidized, what we mean is that the carbon atoms in fuel lose electrons as they are converted to carbon dioxide. … As fuel burns, electrons (in hydrogen atoms) are transferred from carbon to oxygen.

    http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/metabolism/carbon/

    CO₂ is produced by all aerobic organisms when they metabolize carbohydrates and lipids to produce energy by respiration. It is returned to water via the gills of fish and to the air via the lungs of air-breathing land animals, including humans. Carbon dioxide is produced during the processes of decay of organic materials and the fermentation of sugars in bread, beer and wine making. It is produced by combustion of wood and other organic materials and fossil fuels such as coal, peat, petroleum and natural gas.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

    Your beer or sody pop is carbonated with CO₂ to give it fizz. As your beverage warms up, it loses its fizz and goes flat because it outgasses its CO₂ to the atmosphere, just as the oceans do as they warm up.

    Rising atmospheric CO₂ is most likely an effect of warming oceans rather than its cause.

  54. D. K. says:
    @anony-mouse

    Poor immigrants to the United States might consume less than the average American does, thus decreasing the average carbon footprint of the country’s resident population; but, they still consume far more than they did in their native lands, thus raising the total carbon footprint of the globe. The atmosphere is global, and does not care from which country extra carbon is being injected into it.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  55. Anonymous[241] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan

    My take is that the left knows there is a contradiction between environmentalism and immigration and thus decided to trot out their A-bomb charge of racism to prevent its discussion. Based upon their reaction this means we should hit this subject hard, very hard. It’s a winning issue and it is not hard to connect the dots, even for normies. Now all we need is Trump to tweet about it to get the ball rolling.

    Anti-immigration people don’t need a climate argument and probably don’t care, and progressives are not going to change their minds on immigration because of a climate argument. This whole discussion is idiotic.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  56. @Tyrion 2

    Meanwhile, Shocking study reveals 90% of global plastic waste comes from just TEN rivers in Asia and Africa.

    But no plastic straws for people in Seattle.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5910011/Plastic-bag-ban-criticised-90-cent-plastic-waste-comes-rivers-Asia-Africa.html

  57. m___ says:

    Steve Sailer, in his censuring role, purged all of our comments (made over months) to his columns on unz.com. Ad hoc, at once, no warning, no notice, again after tolerating us for months. A bad case of rabies?

    Comments elsewhere on the unz.com site are untouched.

    Lest there is some technical glitch in play? Dear Steve, since you took explicit notice and decided deletion, some comments months old, is it too much to ask what bit you?

    Commenter concerned, “m___”

    • Replies: @m___
  58. Anoni says:
    @anony-mouse

    I am the poster above. The real jump in co2 emissions is from poor to working class. Then the increase levels off. Most immigrants hit that mark pretty fast. You also have the factor that the marginal extra person in the united states ends up in houston phoenix or another of those similar cities. All of those cities have much higher carbon emissions per person then say San Francisco.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  59. Anoni says:

    For more far-flung immigrants, like Indians, the plane flights are a huge Factor. Indian immigrants usually try to fly home once a year or every two years or so. A round-trip flight from New York to Mumbai isabout 75% of the entire carbon footprint for a year of an average United States person.

  60. Immigration and Carbon Emissions

    So, do immigrants fart more when they come here?

    Or do they just eat more meat, which increases the number of farting ruminants? (Somehow, so many “head of cattle” doesn’t seem quite right in this context.)

    The carbon jump from Somalia to Eden Prairie must be much larger– it seems you can’t get anywhere in EP without driving– but is that ameliorated by their preferring goat to beef?

    Caprine flatulence has got to be much less than bovine, despite the notorious omnivorousness of goats. The kids are alright.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  61. @anony-mouse

    If Central Americans make such poor immigrants shouldn’t there also be a negative effect on America’s carbon output from their coming to the US also?

    By putting Americans out of work, so they consume less?

  62. Mr. Anon says:
    @istevefan

    A quarter of a century ago, John Tanton, a white nationalist who would go on to almost single-handedly construct the contemporary, hard-line anti-immigration movement, wrote about his secret desire to bring the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental organization, into the nativist fold. He spelled out his motive clearly:

    Is it too much to ask of the SPLC they even be coherent?

    He clearly spelled out his secret desire.

    I suppose it is simply inconceivable that a white nationalist (or whatever Mr. Tanton is – I certainly wouldn’t take the SPLC’s word on the matter) can also be concerned about preservation of the natural environment.

  63. @Alec Leamas

    Has anyone thought that maybe our de facto Open Borders policy is due to the lobbying efforts of Big Asswipe™?

    What’s good for Green Bay is good for America!

  64. Alfa158 says:
    @Alec Leamas

    I often troll people that the most powerful lobby in Washington isn’t Israel, or the American Bar Association, or Big Pharma, or the NRA, but the toilet paper industry. Our immigration policy is directed entirely towards maximizing toilet paper sales.

  65. Blubb says:

    As I said in a previous comment: the appropriate word for Merkel’s disastrous decision to let in the million Muslim men is:

    Climageddon.

  66. “I work a bit in the climate field…. There is something happening for sure, it does seem to be getting hotter.”

    It must really suck to have a fake job.

    ‘It does seem to be getting hotter.’ That’s funny, because here in Oregon it seems to be staying about the same. Terrestrial temperature measurements are certainly rising in direct proportion to urbanization and the urban heat-island effect, but satellite measurements confirm a temperature rise of less than one degree Celsius over the last couple decades.

    The ctrl-Left and White Genocide Party support BOTH unlimited immivasion and carbon taxes because BOTH hurt white people. A cuck might think he’s caught the WGP in a conundrum or hypocrisy, but that is wrong, 110% wrong.

    There’s this One Weird Trick to understanding all WGP policy positions — ask yourself: Will it hurt white people, especially white Christian men of normal sexuality? If the answer is yes, then the WGP supports it.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  67. eah says:
    @eah

    For comparison: WI’s 1st congressional district (Ryan’s) is per Wikipedia 87% white — according to the 2010 census, the state of WI is 86% white.

    So why did Ryan, or those advising him or controlling his social media presence, choose such a foto for his Twitter banner?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    , @WowJustWow
  68. Clyde says:
    @istevefan

    The US puts out over 16 tons per person which is an improvement over the 20 tons they estimated we put out in 1980.

    We have far fewer factories than 1980 so less CO2 put out. This same amount of CO2 is still going into the air but from Chinese factories. Blame so called free trade/

    • Replies: @Anoni
    , @Rosie
  69. Clyde says:
    @Alec Leamas

    Big ass wipe and big real estate. The real estate churn is what keeps this economy going and dittos for Australia, probably parts of Canada too. The Chinese churn in British Colombia. Besides the big churn we have a huge sector devoted to building houses and renovating. One my one block three new roofs put on in the last 12 months.

  70. Travis says:

    Americans came up with 36 answers to a Gallup poll asking the biggest problem currently facing the country, and no one answered “climate change,”

    Even the left no longer believes in “Global Warming” , thus they have changed the narrative to “Climate Change”, but fewer and fewer falling for the hoax. Everyone knows that trying to control the climate by reducing CO2 emissions is a joke — or at least, everyone knows it who is not completely deluded by climate zealotry.

  71. Anonym says:
    @istevefan

    Any well funded org such as the $plc is going to put the linking of immigration and climate change as a Threat in a SWOT analysis. If anti-immigration becomes popular and mainstream they are potentially out of business.

  72. Anonym says:
    @anony-mouse

    This should also apply to Israel and SSAs right, anoyvey-mouse?

  73. @istevefan

    In addition to Steve’s other great ideas for rational immigration, such as bonding and a NISB based on the NTSB, all immigrants should be required to post carbon offsets equal to the difference in per capita carbon output from their home country vs. the US.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  74. @Anoni

    Right. In my 2010 article I made fun of the apparent assumption among liberals that Latin American immigrants hope to immigrate to the US in order to take public transportation. But they can do that back home. Their American Dream is sprawl and a V8 pickup truck. Many will fail to reach that level of tax-paying prosperity, which then raises other questions about why exactly are they a blessing upon us, but Mexican and Central American immigrants overwhelmingly have lifestyle preferences when they get enough money that make white Texans seem like characters on “Portlandia.”

    • Replies: @Anoni
  75. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/22/help-wanted-tips-curry-and-some-rent-included/

    Bascially a company town in the making…

    “Carlos… declined to give his last name”

    Well, we can jump to some conclusions right there…

  76. Anonym says:

    From The Donald:

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  77. @Reg Cæsar

    The kids are alright.

    LOL, Reg!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  78. @YetAnotherAnon

    The Icelandic glacier I visited only three summers ago is about 250 yards shorter now.

    Europeans worry more about global warming than Americans do in part because the Alps are full of glaciers, most of which have receded back to higher altitudes over the lifetime of the average tourist.

    America’s glaciers are more remote than Switzerland’s. For example, when I was a Boy Scout, the camping trip the month before I joined was to backpack up to one of the 14 small glaciers in California, but everybody complained about how hard the hike was and how cold the nights had been and nobody wanted to do that trip again.

  79. Mr. Anon says:
    @AndrewR

    You deny that the climate is changing?

    Mean global temperature has increased about 1 deg. C over the last century and a half. Is that the climate changing or just a temperature increase? You tell me. What do you mean by “the climate is changing”, and what proof do you have that it is.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  80. @Anon

    Thank you #103. My comments on the topic have taken through 2015 GMT to appear, at least. All this talk about carbon footprints are for naught. Now if you tie immigration into water availability, loss of arable farmland to development, etc., then we can have a real discussion.

    This reminds me of the treehuggers’ big clash with loggers out in the Pacific NW about saving the spotted owls (and later some type of Lynxes). It turns out that their goal was to try to save (out of other people’s money, of course) the huge old-growth forests out there. That’s a noble goal, if you’re actually gonna put your own money on the line. I just did not like the lying about the whole owl business. Nobody likes being lied to.

    The Owls are alright … hoo, hooom?

  81. Semi-off topic:

    An acquaintance who has done many years of missionary service in the jungles of Brazil told me that it is a criminal offense in Brazil to have any kind of public discussion however informal and casual about the deforestation of the Amazon jungle.

  82. @Sparkon

    You’ve got the right idea there, Sparkon. The word “emissions” is used purposefully wrt Carbon Dioxide to make it sound like a pollutant, something that is bad to breath into your lungs. It’s a crock, but that’s why they love using the term.

    The word itself comes from “emit” for some substance, radiation, whatever to leave one area or surface and go somewhere else. That in itself has no bad connotations, but “emmissions”, in my mind at least, is something used for a substance that you don’t want. OK, there are these nocturnal emissions, but let’s not get into that …

    It’s just part of the language used to keep this hoax going another few years.

  83. @Achmed E. Newman

    Steve, can you PLEASE post my 3 comments on this very thread that are up higher?

  84. @AndrewR

    Climate is always changing. The temperature rose and fell before human activity was significant. Rainfall increased and decreased. And so on.

    Believing liberals are lying about global warming just requires believing they are lying about things like how the atmosphere works. Since we know they are lying about things that are much easier to check (hereditary, crime, nuclear power, etc), there is no reason to believe they are telling the truth here. If there is any overlap between their positions and reality, it is due to chance, not because they are searching for true beliefs.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    , @Mr. Rational
  85. @YetAnotherAnon

    “No one with a memory denies that the climate is changing and generally getting warmer.”

    I remember plenty of warmer summers in my childhood, the primary difference between then and now being air conditioning, which we had a lot less of in the ’60s & ’70s, so if we had stepped out of a nice temp & humidity controlled environment every day back then, we probably wouldn’t notice much difference between then and now.

    As for the glaciers, we are in an interglacial warming period, so it is no surprise they are receding. In one instance in Switzerland, a receding glacier uncovered remains of an acient forest ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/ ) and other archeological finds that suggest it was warmer in the past ( https://climateaudit.org/2005/11/18/archaeological-finds-in-retreating-swiss-glacier/ ).

    Climate change as we know it is in small part man and in larger part a product of nature, like the Solar temp (how much change do you need around 5,700 degrees K to influence Earth’s temp?) or even wobble in Earth’s orbit. There is even research that suggests the change in Earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of background radiation from outside the solar system reaching Earth’s surface and increasing warming.

    In short, you stepped out of your A/C controlled house, and you felt the effects of weather. You incorrectly concluded it was due to unprecedented global warming. You were wrong.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  86. @AndrewR

    You deny that the climate is changing?

    Only because of all the chemicals released by gals straightening their hair to look like Becky.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  87. @Anon

    Although source countries per capita energy use may not reach US levels “real soon now,” it’ll be soon enough,

    Because genetics doesn’t exist and all populations have the same potential for development, industry and becoming first world /s

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  88. res says:
    @Anon

    Although source countries per capita energy use may not reach US levels “real soon now,” it’ll be soon enough

    Really? And where do you think all of this energy will come from? Not to mention, how will it be paid for? Or are you proposing that US per capita energy use is going to decline significantly?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

  89. @Sparkon

    Your beer or sody pop is carbonated with CO₂ to give it fizz. As your beverage warms up, it loses its fizz and goes flat because it outgasses its CO₂ to the atmosphere, just as the oceans do as they warm up.

    I drink mine first–so i’m a carbon sink.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  90. @eah

    For comparison: WI’s 1st congressional district (Ryan’s) is per Wikipedia 87% white — according to the 2010 census, the state of WI is 86% white.

    I wonder how much of the “Other” is Hmong.

    • Replies: @eah
  91. @Steve Sailer

    The Alps are beautiful, but the humble Rockies are not bad either.

    The “fourteeners” I climbed in Colorado all used to be dusted with snow year-r0und. I called the snowy patches up there “glaciers,” but I still do not know if that is accurate. They were permanent snow fields at 13 and 14-thousand feet. Now they are smaller or non–existent. It is gray up there most summers.

    Yes, during recent decades we have been living in a warming time. Earth’s climate is changing – as it always has and always will.

    The sun is now entering a low point in its “great cycle,” a centuries-long up-and-down activity, longer and bigger than the sunspot cycle. If astronomers are correct about this, it means we and our next few generations will receive less energy from our star. Perhaps it would be nice to have some compensating mechanism on our planet, huh?

    Whatever. It is hubris to think we can manage a planet’s climate. Furthermore, if you want to try, then talk to the Chinese first. Alone they are the major factor in this and will continue to be. Hands off my American life!

    While it is a good debating tactic and mass communication strategy to posit Global Warming™ against mass immigration, Earth’s climate will change as it always has, no matter what you do. It will not conform to your pathetic efforts to manage it or predict it beyond a few days. You are a human being with a human brain and frontal lobes. You can think ahead. “Be Prepared,” Boy Scout.

  92. @AnotherDad

    I drink mine first–so i’m a carbon sink.

    Should you ever try a Guinness float, take this advice. Either drink the beer right away, and slowly savor the flavored ice cream, or, alternatively, consume the ice cream first, and enjoy the slightly milky literal milk stout in good time.

    But don’t let the two sit together for long, or you’ll have an impotable mess.

  93. Anoni says:
    @Clyde

    The 16 tons is probably an understatement. That is a production-based estimate. It doesn’t take into account Imports of carbon intensive Goods. The consumption-based difference between us and Guatemala is probably a lot bigger than the IEA estimates. We produce more carbon per person, but we also import a lot more carbon per person and all of her imports from China and other countries.

    • Replies: @Clyde
  94. Anoni says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Yes, the insights are entirely yours. I just ran the numbers to check your intuition.

  95. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT The Reason Weinstein Became An Acceptable Target
    Anti-Hollywood-pedo documentarians Open Secret (see their film in embed after text) have announced that later on tonight they will publish an email string on the following twitter feed. This email string is supposed to represent some of the protective harassment used by big name Hollywood sex criminals to silence victims and critics. It hasn’t hit yet and I might be busy when it does.

    https://twitter.com/AnOpenSecret/

  96. @eah

    Because he’s retiring from the House, giving up his position as Speaker, and looking for a more lucrative gig within the Cathedral until the Trump era winds down.

  97. “No one with a memory denies that the climate is changing and generally getting warmer. The Icelandic glacier I visited only three summers ago is about 250 yards shorter now. Cold winters are rarer – though the UK had a mega-freeze this year, it was only 10 days or so long. In 1963 it was sub-zero for a couple of months.”

    This isn’t unique: its just a pretty good example of the bad arguments used in favor of global warming.

    I have a memory and actually ‘sense’ that climate is getting colder. Specifically: I grew up in Virginia in the 1970′s, and have a memory of one big snowstorm (I remember waking up and seeing my dad still at home: I asked why he wasn’t at work, and he told me to open the door. I did, and saw snow piled up half as high as I was). It was the only ‘big’ snowstorm from my childhood.

    But there have been more, and more frequent, big snowstorms there (VA, DC area) in the years since.

    ” Cold winters are rarer – though the UK had a mega-freeze this year, it was only 10 days or so long. In 1963 it was sub-zero for a couple of months.”

    This is really typical. ‘This year had a freeze, but it was shorter than one particular year over 50 years ago, so global warming is real.”

    My own opinion is that global warming is just a hippie myth. If there is any global warming (and I question it for two reasons: the first is error bars-the idea that the measured global warming is within the range of error of our measuring devices and procedures- and the fact that increased urbanization may very well have created heat traps at the very locations of temperature measuring stations), that warming is within natural variation, and, as already mentioned, can be explained by operator/equipment error plus wishful thinking.

    joe

    • Replies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen
  98. I’ll just repost my comment from the other thread, since it’s very much on-topic here:

    Nuclear power is great, but it’s not much good for providing water.  It’s just too small.  The 2.3 GW of waste heat from an AP1000 would only evaporate about 3600 m³ of water per hour.  That’s only about 1200 acre-feet.  You aren’t going to be irrigating really big areas that way.

    The convection towers described in “Defeating the son of Andrew” (Analog, Feb. 1994) might be an option for ag-scale water.  They’re essentially a scheme to set up captive thunderstorms fed by hot, humid sea-surface air.  They’d generate copious amounts of fresh water, as well as having a large potential for electric generation.  Since the water would be generated way up in the air you could carry it down to the ground under a large amount of hydraulic head and just let it flow to points uphill under that pressure, but the demands on the pipe for strength might be a bit much.

  99. @Steve Sailer

    Thomas Painter of the jet propulsion lab and many other scientists, especially in Asia have traced the decline in glaciers to “black carbon“ otherwise known as soot. There is also dust which comes from plowed fields.

    There are published articles also tracing the decline of arctic ice to these causes. Since water does not reflect heat as well as ice, the ocean is warmed as a result.

    Of course the resulting global warming is caused by human activity, but to improve the situation additional means beyond those currently employed are needed. China, for example, is replacing peasant stoves with ones that better trap soot.

    I would not be surprised if the effects of soot and dust do not currently surpass that of CO2. On the other hand CO2 has a much longer half life. Means directed at soot and dust might reduce our problems quickly; but CO2 must likely also be reduced in the long run.

    Obviously Africa is critical in the coming decades.

  100. Numinous says:
    @Anon

    It’s only a straw man if you can’t argue against it. Immigration, wealth distribution, jobs, etc. are all public policy issues. If you want to argue that one of those issues has a bearing on climate change, I pointed out that other issues also have a bearing on climate change. But since you care only about one issue, you dismiss everything else. That will work in this echo chamber you inhabit but not outside. If you and your ilk try to argue for immigration restriction on the grounds of carbon reduction, you’ll be laughed at and dismissed by people who can, you know, actually think.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Random Smartaleck
    , @res
  101. Numinous says:
    @WJ

    The fact that we are still even debating if immigration from the third world is an environmental problem, is discouraging. That’s truly settled science.

    If you believe that, then put your money where your mouth is and advocate the reduction of living standards of most Americans to Guatemalan standards. Get rid of all machinery, have people go back to the fields and harvest crops by hand. It’ll do wonders for your carbon footprint. Why stop just with immigration restriction?

    • Replies: @Random Smartaleck
  102. Anonymous[219] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    Most of America’s plastic waste is exported to China, or at least was until the ban this year:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/world/china-recyclables-ban.html

    Ever since China announced last year that it no longer wanted to be the “world’s garbage dump,” recycling about half of the globe’s plastics and paper products, Western nations have been puzzling over what to do when the ban went into effect, which it did on Jan. 1.

    The answer, to date, in Britain at least, is nothing. At least one waste disposal site in London is already seeing a buildup of plastic recyclables and has had to pay to have some of it removed.

    Similar backups have been reported in Canada, Ireland, Germany and several other European nations, while tons of rubbish is piling up in port cities like Hong Kong.

    Steve Frank, of Pioneer Recycling in Oregon, owns two plants that collect and sort 220,000 tons of recyclable materials each year. A majority of it was until recently exported to China.

    “My inventory is out of control,” he said.

    China’s ban, Mr. Frank said, has caused “a major upset of the flow of global recyclables.” Now, he said, he is hoping to export waste to countries like Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Malaysia — “anywhere we can” — but “they can’t make up the difference.”

    About 91% of American plastic waste ends up in landfills or the ocean:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-27/plastic-recycling-is-a-problem-consumers-can-t-solve

    Americans were not set up for success in recycling plastics. Even before China stopped accepting plastic refuse from abroad, 91 percent of potentially recyclable plastic in the U.S. ended up in landfills – or worse, in the oceans. Europe does a little better, with only 70 percent getting tossed.

    Why such terrible rates? Partly because some changes that were supposed to make recycling simpler ended up making it almost impossible.

    University of Georgia engineering professor Jenna Jambeck said that indeed, part of the reason China is now refusing to process American and European plastic is that so many people tossed waste into the wrong bin, resulting in a contaminated mix difficult or impossible to recycle.

    In a paper published last week in Science Advances, she and her colleagues calculated that between now and 2030, 111 million metric tons of potentially recyclable plastic will be diverted from Chinese plants into landfills.

    Jambeck said that China used to turn a profit by importing the stuff from American and European recycling bins and turning it into useful material. But as other countries attempted to simplify things for consumers with “single stream” recycling – think of one big blue bin for paper, plastic, metal and glass – the material reaching China became too contaminated with nonrecyclable items. The instructions to put everything in one bin seemed appealing but made it much easier to do recycling wrong.

  103. Numinous says:

    Wow, you guys really seem to believe this is a slam dunk argument! Do you think there’s a God-given writ that Americans are entitled to a particular carbon footprint level that does not need to be reduced? If you are going to advocate that Guatemalans and others stay home so they produce less carbon, are you guys not going to be faced with an obligation to try and reduce your own footprint? Which will naturally entail the reduction of Americans’ living standards?

    Remember, the subject is “global” warming, not “American” warming. The environment is he environment, it can’t be circumscribed within national boundaries.

  104. @German_Reader2

    the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all

    gonna be a lotta escalades with blinged out rims in Africa!

    • Replies: @German_Reader2
  105. @The Alarmist

    “In short, you stepped out of your A/C controlled house”

    Practically no domestic housing in the UK, where I live, has air conditioning. We only got central heating a few decades ago.

    And here it’s the hottest and driest summer since 1976. I’ve watched the UK weather for a long time now and the stats and my memory are in line. I never said the warming was ‘unprecedented’ – just that it’s getting warmer – which it is.

    A pity, as I prefer a cool climate/

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
  106. @Numinous

    The proponents of immigration will argue that moving a Guatemalan to the US will immediately increase his income and living standard by an order of magnitude.

    That’s no rebuttal, that’s exactly Alec’s point. Increasing an alien’s “income and living standard” will add to the CO2 emission load, which is supposedly unacceptable to ‘climate change’ alarm ringers.

    … so which poison will you pick?

    “The people on this forum” don’t desire to cause/increase climate change, and many are agnostic about it, so it’s no loss to us to block poors from immigrating to the West. The ‘poison pick’ is a choice for the globalists—they are the ones promoting the contradictory position: more mass immigration + global growth and emissions reduction.

    Also, you are assuming that the global warming calculus is going to be frozen in time …

    Really? Alec wrote that?

    The rest of your comment is a non-sequitur to the topic at hand.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anon
  107. Corn says:
    @stillCARealist

    “And yet- we have over 40 million people in this state and more come all the time. More affordable housing! More schools! More immigration!”

    I remember a couple years ago Jerry Brown said if California’s water situation didn’t improve “we may have to start moving people out”.

    But I’m sure Jerry Brown thinks closing our southern border is a hate crime.

    Leftist beliefs are strangers to one another.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  108. @Numinous

    If you are going to advocate that Guatemalans and others stay home so they produce less carbon …

    Lame straw man. We advocate that Guatemalans stay home because they’re Guatemalans. We really don’t care (do u?) about their global carbon footprint. It’s the left that holds the untenable position of mass immigration and emissions reduction.

    … are you guys not going to be faced with an obligation to try and reduce your own footprint?

    Nope. We may do it of our own accord, but beyond spot commodity prices there’s no International Mandate of Mystery that will force us to per capita ‘downsize.’

    • Replies: @Numinous
  109. The left eats itself. In re the Detroit Spitter of national news fame this week, he’s the scion of a VERY leftist Jewish family with bona fides including the launch of Michael Moore’s film career (parents and sister) and even honorary negro police association membership (dad).

    Sister Wendey is Hollywood famous as a producer, director, and editor. Bobby (the spitter) is a former business associate of Bob Ritchey (aka Kid Rock).

    It’s pretty hard to walk back spitting (on camera) in the face of a negro in (current year) and I see Bobby’s business is already tanked with vendors like Carhartt already pulling the plug on him. I expect the same thing is going on within the family as they desperately try to distance themselves.

    https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/video-detroit-mercantile-co-owner-spits-on-eastern-market-security-guard-over-parking

    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007096/

    http://obits.mlive.com/obituaries/annarbor/obituary.aspx?pid=134427468

  110. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    More cognitive dissonance or cogdis.

    Problems of Progilege. People who live and work in SF are obviously elitists who love their privilege and advantages. Okay, nothing wrong with that. People want the good things in life. More money, more luxury, more fancy stuff. And SF has lots of that, the kind of stuff affordable only to those who got the credentials and money.

    But SF elites are not only materially vain but morally vain. So, they are proggy as well as privileged. As the most sacred values of current proggism are ‘diversity, tolerance, and inclusion’, these rich SF’ers not only want to enjoy exclusive material advantages but come across as ‘inclusive’ and welcoming.
    But the fact is SF is only affordable with those with money. So, what happens to all the derelicts, losers, lunatics, and ‘migrants’ who heed the call of SF’s welcoming tolerance? They end up in the streets. Tentrification follows Gentrification because the elites are doubly vain, materially and morally. In truth, they want material exclusivity and only want to seem virtuous by saying the right things without paying the price of those ideas. But their ideas have real-life consequences as more and more bums hear about how SF is so welcoming and tolerant. They flock there(and also Portland, which is becoming Portosan-land). And even though SF elites really want to evict these bums, they don’t have the heart to take action because it would expose their ‘inclusive’ values as phony.

    SF elites were clever in using economic power to gentrify and muscle out those who can’t afford the rent. It’s been an effective way to evict and push out the law-abiding lower class people, but what about those who don’t mind living in the streets? They can’t be priced out via gentriciation because they’ll just put up tents or sleep on park benches. So, the Summer of Pooper Scooper.

    Looks like they got a black woman to be the front of taking tough measures to clean things up. If a black person does it, at least it’s not ‘racist’.

  111. You know how leftists are always pushing high-speed rail as the green solution to America’s traffic woes? Well, the Wall Street Journal reported in its weekend issue that the new Brightline train service in South Florida is hemorrhaging money: $28.8 million in first-quarter operating costs, $663,000 in first-quarter ticket revenue. Ridership is often in the single digits – as in, four or five passengers on a train with over 200 seats.

    Over the next few years, the company plans to build rail links between Miami, Orlando, and Tampa.

    The man behind Brightline, investment guru Wesley Edens, hopes one day to run trains between such cities as Atlanta and Charlotte; Dallas and Houston; and Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

    • Replies: @German_Reader2
  112. ziggurat says:

    In 2001, the founder of Earth Day (senator Gaylord Nelson) said the following:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20010603113027/http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/apr01/five22s1042101a.asp

    Q. What is the number one environmental problem facing the earth today?

    A. If you had to choose just one, it would have to be population. . . . The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become. . . . We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it’s phony to say “I’m for the environment but not for limiting immigration.” It’s just a fact that we can’t take all the people who want to come here. And you don’t have to be a racist to realize that. However, the subject has been driven out of public discussion because everybody is afraid of being called racist if they say they want any limits on immigration.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  113. @joeyjoejoe

    “If there is any global warming (and I question it for two reasons: the first is error bars-the idea that the measured global warming is within the range of error of our measuring devices and procedures- and the fact that increased urbanization may very well have created heat traps at the very locations of temperature measuring stations”

    I live six miles from my city’s official weather station. I live in the country and am surrounded by forests and fields for at least two miles on every side. My home temperature is routinely four degrees cooler than the city’s official temperature (as reported on my smartphone), sometimes up to eight degrees cooler.

    My city’s official weather station 25 years ago was surrounded by fields and marshland. Today it is surrounded on every side by five-lane roadways, vast parking lots, and commercial-industrial buildings. Is it any surprise that temperature readings have risen over that time?

    Terrestrial weather stations are measuring nothing more than the very localized heat of blacktop and infrastructure. Get half a mile outside of town, and the temperature drops rapidly.

    This comment is already too long, but I just gotta add: years ago I had a graveyard job where I drove half the night in the city and half in the country. A quarter mile outside the city, the temperature reliably dropped seven degrees.

    Also, I was in the path of totality for the 2017 eclipse — the temperature dropped precipitously approaching and during total eclipse.

    The sun warms the Earth, not CO2.

  114. @YetAnotherAnon

    Glad to hear that your island is warming up a bit. Maybe you can grow more veggies? Maybe everyone gets enough Vitamin D this year?

    Central heating a few decades ago… like the late 80′s… Wow. When did hot water heaters show up?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  115. Carol says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Montana hasn’t had a really cold winter since the 80s. We get snow, but not the subzero temps.

    I fear we will attract more riffraff, and that fewer of our own will head south.

  116. Rosie says:
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen

    There’s this One Weird Trick to understanding all WGP policy positions — ask yourself: Will it hurt white people, especially white Christian men of normal sexuality? If the answer is yes, then the WGP supports it.

    The only exception I’ve ever been able to come up with is legalized abortion, which has probably been a net positive for the White population.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Reg Cæsar
  117. Rosie says:
    @Clyde

    We have far fewer factories than 1980 so less CO2 put out. This same amount of CO2 is still going into the air but from Chinese factories. Blame so called free trade/

    This is what really gives the game away. AFAIK, China claims the right to produce as much CO2 per capita as Western countries. In other words, our reproductive restraint entitles us to nothing in the way of a higher standard of living. Until the greens hold the Chinese accountable, I’m gonna call them out as liars who just want to sabotage White people rather than do something constructive for the planet. It just looks like stealth ethnic warfare to me.

    This is all assuming anthropogenic GW is real, or more to the point, likely to be catastrophic. I have my doubts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  118. If anyone here actually cares, here’s the actual anomaly from the Huntsville folks:

    This is satellite data much more reliable than the terrestrial nonsense.

    We’ve had a few recent warm years, but overall the story remains the same–about a half a degree (or one degree F) over 40 years. Definitely warmer. But the run up is pretty much of the same order as the run up in temps to the late 1930s peak. And far, far cry from “the end is nigh!” nonsense Al Gore and the big statists were peddling off the one year 1998 spike.

    Some–maybe most–of this runup is no doubt because of CO2 from fossil emissions. But the affect of additional emissions will be less and less as the CO2 absorption is complete–i.e. no emmissions leaving the atmosphere in the CO2 absorption bands.

    The question is “how much warmer” will we get with the CO2 already in the atmosphere? Don’t know. (And the truth is the climate scientists don’t know either.)

    Personally climate wise the real worry would be … cooling. The holocene has been big party for humanity–agriculture, booze, civilization, metal working, trade, population explosion–and lots and lots and lots of sex. But the deck i’m sitting on here–when i cemented in the support brackets, i was hacking into glacial till. In the fall, when i go harvest on my cousin’s farm in Iowa–nice rolling countryside, glacier smoothed. But our holoceme paradise is really long in the tooth–longer all ready than recent interglacials. If the snow piles up higher, starts to linger, then stops melting from the fields by mid-summer and the glaciers come back … the party will *really* be over.

    Give me another shot of that CO2 in my drink!

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  119. Mr. Anon says:
    @Numinous

    Wow, you guys really seem to believe this is a slam dunk argument! Do you think there’s a God-given writ that Americans are entitled to a particular carbon footprint level that does not need to be reduced?

    Myself, I am simply anti-war, whether they be wars waged in the middle-east, or wars waged against entries on the Periodic Table of the Elements.

  120. 3g4me says:
    @Numinous

    @43 Numinous: “There’s a difference between (i) enforced inequality and concentration of wealth AS AN END IN ITSELF, and (ii) asking the rich to cough up more in taxes for the privilege of producing more carbon. In the latter scenario, the taxes will be (at least in theory) channeled to the welfare state, which will (again, in theory) make the lives of the poorer segments of the population better.”

    Hey champ, feel free to go ahead and enact whatever climate-related policies and taxes your numinous heart desires in your native India. When Americans need to be lectured on such matters by “our” subcontinental betters, we already have Fareed Zakaria, Jeet Heer, and far too many other up and coming SJWs filled with anti-White animus. We’re full up.

    Go away. Far, far away. And stay there.

    • Replies: @Numinous
  121. 3g4me says:
    @Carol

    @111 Carol: “I fear we will attract more riffraff, and that fewer of our own will head south.”

    I believe a few of your own already left and headed to Texas. I noticed a beater car with Montana plates here in rush-hour DFW traffic last week – with two Negro males inside. I was most displeased that my first local viewing of a Montana plate was not a burly blond outdoorsman.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  122. Anonymous[423] • Disclaimer says:

    “…but it drives me crazier that the left can’t recognize that you simply can’t have immigration at the level we are and do anything about climate change. It’s impossible. ”

    -That’s because the left is not interested in climate change for ‘helping the world’ or any other BS they claim. They want to drastically reduce carbon emissions to push their global marxist agenda of tearing down the first world advanced countries of the West. But few people here other than the most masochistic liberal nutcases would get onboard if they actually proclaimed that. So they have to butter it up with utopian fantasies, misdirection, changing the language and outright lies.

    This same pattern applies to the vast majority of what they say and do.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  123. AndrewR says:
    @Samuel Skinner

    Why do you conflate the overwhelming majority of climatologists with “liberals” (a term which you clearly use contemptuously)

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  124. AndrewR says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I’m inclined to believe the consensus of the people who study climate for a living. To lack such an inclination is likely correlated with any number of mental illnesses.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Mr. Anon
  125. Anonymous[423] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Supporting abortion is one of the ways they get women to jump aboard their platform. That’s really the key group for them. Blacks, gays, Eskimoes, even Mexicans, they’re still too small to vote in an electoral win. But add in women, who make up >50% of the adult population, and now you’ve got a winning coalition.

    But it is still a coalition at the end of the day, and the more they preach to identity politics and how each of these groups is entitled, the more the spoiled groups tear away at each other through intersectionality. They’ve really f’d up with the white persecution plays of late, blatant sadistic pleasure at the genocide of whites, the ‘Becky’ slurs, etc. Casting out the white female vote will cost them everything. So, like Bannon, I say, keep it up.

  126. Wally says:
    @Numinous

    “Carbon”? What carbon?
    CO2 is not C.

    The following is a quote from my book Climate Catastrophe! Science or Science Fiction?
    “99.9 percent of the Earth’s surface heat capacity is in the oceans and less than 0.1 percent is in the atmosphere. Further, CO2 is only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere. It beggars belief that a trace gas (CO2), in an atmosphere that itself contains only a trace amount of the total thermal energy on the surface of the Earth, can control the climate of the Earth. This is not the tail wagging the dog, this is a flea on the tail of the dog wagging the dog.”

    NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On ‘Unbelievable’ Scale

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

    Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History

    https://principia-scientific.org/most-massive-scientific-fraud-in-human-history/

    and:

    https://principia-scientific.org/tony-hellers-climate-forecast-from-three-years-ago/

    100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

    https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

    more:

    https://realclimatescience.com/

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  127. @Numinous

    If you and your ilk try to argue for immigration restriction on the grounds of carbon reduction, you’ll be laughed at and dismissed by people who can, you know, actually think.

    Do you deny that Third World to First World immigration worsens the problem?

    • Replies: @Numinous
  128. Anonymous[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    China produces more CO2 for export driven economic growth while suppressing domestic consumption. The exports are sent to the US and elsewhere for consumption. Thus the US is able to reduce domestic pollution and CO2 production while maintaining consumption. That’s basically been the arrangement.

    Reducing pollution and CO2 production in the US without shifting CO2 production offshore would have been politically untenable, as it would have reduced domestic consumption and economic growth significantly. A figure like Trump championing domestic fossil fuels and manufacturing would have come a lot sooner.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  129. @Patriot

    Excellent comment, Patriot, and I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume MikedotMike mashed the wrong button. Peak Stupidity has made this same point, specifically regarding the recycling that makes people FEEL SO GOOD about themselves, in this post called Toward Sustainable Stupidity.

  130. @Numinous

    Why stop just with immigration restriction?

    Why ignore it as one of the solutions simply because some of its proponents may not endorse the entire environmentalist package?

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  131. From the 2012 book Infographica, the percentage of the world’s population on each continent, followed by the percentage of the world’s water supply on that continent:

    Asia 60 36
    Africa 13 11
    Europe 13 8
    North America 8 15
    South America 6 26
    Oceania 1 5

    Africa has the fairest distribution of available water in the world!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  132. @Jim Don Bob

    You just made me recall a sore point, JDB, in talking about plastic in the rivers. We were trying to watch the seals and sea lions get fed at the zoo, and the young lady explaining things started off on a rant about the plastic bags that basically boiled down to “throw out your trash”. I didn’t mind a coupla’ minutes of it, but dammit, it went on during the whole time the sea mammals were eating, and ruined the whole thing for us!

    “Someone told me it’s all happening at the zoo…. If the wife hadn’ta been there, I’m not sure if I would be allowed back into the zoo ever again.

  133. @Jim Don Bob

    It’s , as so much of social science in our benighted age, just another “drunkard’s search”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

  134. Marty T says:
    @Anonymous

    They called Donald Trump racist and he won. So it’s time for the Republicans to do things like troll the left re immigration and environmental protection.

  135. res says:
    @Numinous

    It’s only a straw man if you can’t argue against it.

    Do you actually believe this? A straw man is when you argue against a position the other party is not taking.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

  136. @Steve Sailer

    Middle Palisade Glacier is melting far enough back from the rock face that it is becoming quite dangerous to step across the moat to gain the climbs. Within ten years, Middle Palisade will likely not be climbable until the glacier melts far enough back that you can gain it by just skirting under what remains of the ice.

  137. @Numinous

    You might as well argue that since a rich person in the US has a much larger footprint than a poor person, a goal of public policy ought to be to create more wealth concentration and larger numbers of poor people.

    One should argue that since a Guatemalan in the USA has a much larger footprint than a Guatemalan at home, a goal of public climate policy should be to remove all Guatemalans in US jurisdiction back to Guatemala.  Ditto for other countries including Mexicans, Salvadorans, Hondurans…

  138. @Rosie

    The only exception I’ve ever been able to come up with is legalized abortion, which has probably been a net positive for the White population

    The white birthrate all over has been in the toilet for fifty years. White women don’t so much abort their babies as never conceive them in the first place.

    In order to sell legalized abortion, they have to frighten people into finding pregnancy unthinkable. That has a more profound effect on the careful than on the careless.

  139. @Anonymous

    Anti-immigration people don’t need a climate argument and probably don’t care, and progressives are not going to change their minds on immigration because of a climate argument

    What about the other eighty percent of the population?

  140. Anon[241] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    What is the precise definition of the earth’s temperature? Where is it taken?

    For instance, is it theoretically the average of all points on the earth as those points approach infinity? At ground level? 1 meter above ground level? 10 meters? Would the theoretical measuring device be shielded from wind and moisture? What about stormy seas? Snow covered moutains? Forested areas?

    I think the definition is a hodge podge depending on the particular place and instrumentation or manner of derivation.

    Of course, any place people are living would get hotter, all other things being equal, because we chop down the forests and build climate controlled buildings.

    Given the small changes noted, it seems like all the definitional and measurement adjusting aspects would be of relatively large importance.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  141. @YetAnotherAnon

    Dianni, his parents and all his aunts, uncles and cousins need to go home (which is nowhere in the USA).

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  142. @Tyrion 2

    It is long past time to stop caring how much non-Westerners are harmed, benefit, or what they think.  They are too far behind the curve to matter and must be treated as Albert Schweizer said we should treat Africans.  That includes controlling their carbon emissions, most of which we can do by refusing to sell them fossil fuels (and the equipment to use it) and refusing to buy products of rain-forest clearance.

  143. @German_Reader2

    If the undeveloped countries have had no role in creating the wealth of the world, nor in solving the problems of its creation, they have no right to any part of said wealth nor any claim to being a part of that solution.  They need to sit down, shut up and stop mining or buying fossil fuels.

  144. Mr. Anon says:
    @AndrewR

    Why do you conflate the overwhelming majority of climatologists with “liberals” (a term which you clearly use contemptuously)

    Perhaps because the overwhelming majority of them likely are liberal.

    And a lot of people view liberals with contempt.

  145. Anon[226] • Disclaimer says:
    @stillCARealist

    the valleys covered in Ag.

    What do you mean?

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
  146. @Achmed E. Newman

    With all the carbon talk, people mean CO2 (sorry subs and superscripts aren’t working for me – I tried), and it’s NOT A POLLUTANT. Carbon Dioxide, whatever the effects it has from blocking certain wavelengths of radiation in the atmosphere, is a natural component necessary for life on earth

    Nitrate and phosphate are also natural components necessary for life on earth—and in excess BOTH are pollutants.  Get a fucking clue already.

  147. Mr. Anon says:
    @AndrewR

    I’m inclined to believe the consensus of the people who study climate for a living. To lack such an inclination is likely correlated with any number of mental illnesses.

    So you believe it, much as one would believe a recieved religion. What is that consensus you speak of, exactly? Can you state it in any kind of quantitative way?

    Are you referring to the consensus of people like James Hansen, who’s predictions have been spectacularly wrong? The consensus of people like Gavin Schmidt and the Hadley-CRU researchers, who were revealed to be manufacturing consensus by censoring people that disagreed with them?

    The people who studied nutrition for a living in the late 70s and early 80s recommended a diet heavy in carbohydrates. That consensus is still operative with that group of people even today, even after an explosion in diabetes and obesity. Do you subscribe to that consensus?

  148. Mr. Anon says:
    @AndrewR

    To lack such an inclination is likely correlated with any number of mental illnesses.

    To slavishly believe the advice of “experts” who themselves probably aren’t that smart is a sign of stupidity.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  149. @Stan Adams

    Public transportation and diversity do not work well together. I guess this is the problem here.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  150. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    China produces more CO2 for export driven economic growth while suppressing domestic consumption.

    Aren’t they building up their military capabilities and building instant ghost towns?

    Are you sure they’re suppressing domestic consumption? I don’t think Asians can easily develop domestic consumer demand. The Western consumer is just that, Western. The willingness to spend money requires trust that others will also spend money. White people are unique in the sense that we are industrious and we plan for the future like East Asians, but we are willing to spend money on bling as a result of a certain almost-reckless optimism rooted in the idea of progress. Everyone is benefiting from tho combination of traits just now, except our own people.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  151. @stillCARealist

    New houses from the 1960s had central heating, often oil or electric powered – but most people lived in pre-WW2 housing and kept a coal or electric fire going in one room to warm the house as best it could. Ice on the inside of windows and chilblains were common in winter.

    The big years for installing central heating were 70s/80s when North Sea gas was cheap and plentiful.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8283796.stm

    Hot water heaters – probably around since the 1930s. Before that you boiled a kettle. My grandparents lived their entire lives in houses without a bathroom – a tin bath in front of the kitchen fire twice a week, and I can remember the first bath being installed in our Victorian house circa 1961. My current house only got central heating in 2003!

    Everyone got enough Vitamin D – it’s only since we started importing people from sunnier climes (who evolved with less efficient sun-> Vit D conversion) that rickets has made a comeback.

  152. @jim jones

    “Most of Britain is undeveloped”

    Agriculture is NOT “undeveloped”. It’s what feeds people.

    That map doesn’t really show the huge change in the countryside over the last 20 years. Every barn is being converted, every small town and village is getting 20% more housing as the natives flee the big cities. I’m sitting in traffic jams where 25 years ago the journey was uncluttered.

  153. @Mr. Rational

    Hey, Mr. Rational, I get your point that, taken in excess natural compounds can hurt us, or the flora or the soil. Perhaps I should have worded this differently. Two things:

    1) “Carbon” or “Co2″, (whether they want to use the right term or not) is just bandied about like it’s some poison that we just have to avoid ingesting more of. Yes, it gets linked to “warming of the earth”, but at this point, people just keep getting pounded with “carbon-neutrality” “carbon-footprint reduction”, “atmospheric CO2″ all day with almost no connection to the fact that it’s just being made the culprit in some complicated idea of how the climate MAY be related to it.

    The basic proccess of CO2 blocking of certain wavelengths of radiation emitting from earth IS know from simple theory and can be tested in a lab. Fine. The whole Earth’s complicated climate with 100′s of types of processes, the “greenhouse effect” being just one part of one process, can not be modeled to pin down – “this _____ condition is increasing due to this increase in atmospheric CO2″, etc.

    2) The word emissions is used to drive home the erroneous point that this is some kind of bad gas, a direct poison, that will just up and kill us or the planet. It could go up by 10 X (there’s your EXCESS) and it’s not gonna hurt you to breath it. The plants will thank you profusely. Any ill effect that the Lyin Press will warn you about hinges on some very complicated, and at this point, unworkable models. (BTW, I don’t blame most climatologists for this – it’s a work in progress like lots of science. It’s the “journalists” and politicians who’ve made this into the scare of the century, or two.)

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Mr. Rational
  154. @Mr. Rational

    This is more of a continuation than another reply (other comment was getting long):

    If asked whether I believe the earth is warming up, as a whole, whether due to man-made causes or not, I’d have to get that qualified – on what time scale? Do you mean a significant trend that surpasses any of the other short-term (maybe not short for human life-times) effects from the sun?

    All that would just be interesting stuff, if this hadn’t been made so damn political, Mr. Rational. “Oh, the earth’s average temperature has gone up 1.3 C this last century, there’s been a slight pause, but we are still cooler than average on a millennial time-scale?”, etc. would all just be stuff to talk about at cocktail parties, if you were kind of a nerd. The fact that fixed weather stations have suffered big changes to their local environment, or we have newer ways to see conditions in big portions of the atmosphere at once, or we can look at the tree rings … just interesting. One more big one – “Hey, if things have warmed up a bit, where on earth will that be a good thing and where will it hurt the economy?” ALL JUST INTERESTING CONVERSATION, not THE END TO LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!

    Even (maybe I should say “of course”) Drudge gets in on this action. I”d copied this screenshot just to prove (to myself at least) that he put headlines on his site just to show a pretty girl. My Drudge Retort to make fun of it.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  155. Clyde says:
    @Alec Leamas

    Wiping my ass with leaves? Done this many times while out camping. Leaves feel better than toilet paper, just don’t use poison ivy or poison oak.

  156. Altai says:

    OT: Ozyfest is over, it has wrought an even better outcome than I could have hoped.

    That graphic with a picture of Jason Derulo beside a picture of Jeb Bush was one of the greatest pieces of comedy I’ve ever seen. And I think the guy incharge of making that graphic along with everyone who approved it knew this.

    I need there to be a moment where Derulo teaches Jeb not to be so uptight and how to dance followed up by Jeb convincing him of the virtues of the IMF and cuts to social welfare.

    Give Grover some points for getting the joke of Ozyfest.

  157. @Mr. Anon

    “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

    -Michael Crichton.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  158. Numinous says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Lame straw man. We advocate that Guatemalans stay home because they’re Guatemalans.

    If you think this is a straw man, you probably didn’t bother to read the original post or most of the earlier comments, which were literally advocating that Guatemalans stay home for environmental reasons.

    We may do it of our own accord, but beyond spot commodity prices there’s no International Mandate of Mystery that will force us to per capita ‘downsize.’

    Then your argument for immigration restriction on climate change grounds will fall on deaf ears. If you are not personally making that argument, that’s fine, but Steve Sailer and many of his commenters seem to be, so….

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  159. Numinous says:
    @3g4me

    Go away. Far, far away. And stay there.

    Oh, I already am. If you’d bothered to do a proper research of my comments history rather than stop at “India”, you’d know that.

    But the rest of your comment, which makes bizarre accusations and completely misunderstands my earlier comments, illustrates the limits of your thinking faculties, so we can’t expect too much from you.

  160. Numinous says:
    @Random Smartaleck

    Do you deny that Third World to First World immigration worsens the problem?

    Only in the very near term. In the longer term, even by, say, the end of the century, it’ll be a wash.

    • Replies: @Random Smartaleck
  161. AndrewR says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Yes, you’re smarter than me and virtually every climatologist…

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  162. AndrewR says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I believe it because I am not trained in climatology and I lack the ability to disprove the arguments posited by climatologists. I assume the same is true of you.

    As for high-carb diets, they’re not necessarily the best but they seem to be optimal if done right.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/japan-healthiest-people-in-the-world-carbs-high-grain-diet_us_56f08cc4e4b084c6722139ca

    OT: Is there anyone whom you don’t view as intellectually and/or morally inferior to you?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  163. eah says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there were 49,240 Hmong persons living in Wisconsin, making up 0.9% of the state’s population.

    Reminds me of this classic by Roy Beck:

    The Ordeal of Immigration in Wausau

    In little more than a decade the immigrant families’ children have come to make up almost a quarter of the elementary schools’ enrollment,…Seventy percent of the immigrants and their descendants are receiving public assistance,…

    Best guess: no way would this be published in The Atlantic today — NO WAY.

  164. Mr. Anon says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    (BTW, I don’t blame most climatologists for this – it’s a work in progress like lots of science. It’s the “journalists” and politicians who’ve made this into the scare of the century, or two.)

    It isn’t just journos and pols who have pushed AGW. Many scientists have, in effect, stopped bing scientists and started being full time activists.

    And as to why so many of us are skeptical about the whole thing, it is because of who and how it is being pushed. When you notice that all the same people who lie to you about so many other things also tell you that you should be concerned about “climate change” and go about it with a tone of shrill moral crusading, then a healthy dose of skepticism about climate change seems warranted.

  165. @AnotherDad

    If a Grand Solar Minimum occurs on schedule as some astronomers now believe, there will be a cooling effect counter to whatever atmospheric and oceanic changes might be occurring.

    Earth’s climate system is so complex and so big, extending beyond Earth to include the sun and possibly even our solar system’s galactic orbit through interstellar dust lanes, that is it unlikely that we are yet up to the task of making monumental decisions to try to manage it. Such hubris would most likely just damage our quality of life while not necessarily having the climate outcomes we desire.

    Be prepared to adapt to changes that might occur. That is what our species is best suited to do.

  166. peterike says:

    Here’s a charming inter-sectional story combining the indisputable “benefits” of immigration with massive carbon consumption!

    Air India planes at Newark airport found to be infested with bed bugs! I would have gone with a headline about “Air India planes delivering two kinds of infestation to America,” but hey that’s just me.

    https://nypost.com/2018/07/23/passengers-keep-complaining-about-these-bed-bug-infested-flights/

  167. @gunner29

    15 years ago you could find on the net the fact that 3% of the CO2 is from humans, and the rest is of natural sources. Couple of years ago, I did a search on the 3% figure and it’s been scrubbed.

    Scrubbed because it is too widely known to be blatantly wrong, and they couldn’t stand the ridicule any more.  Volcanoes and such account for a few hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 per year.  Every year, humans emit about 40 billion tons of CO2 mostly from fossil fuels.

    Even the wikipedia entry on CO2 didn’t mention our tiny contribution.

    What you think you know about it is utterly and completely backwards.  If human influences were insignificant, where is the massive surge in volcanic activity that would have to be going on to drive the steep rise in the Keeling curve?  It doesn’t exist.  Heck, when we get a major volcanic eruption we get a temporary slowing in CO2 increases as cooler ocean water holds CO2 better.

    Look, the information is all there if you want it.  Fossil fuels are derived from plants, so they have less C13 than mineral carbon does.  Fossil fuels are essentially devoid of C14 too.  You can look up the isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2 and sure enough, C13 and C14 levels are dropping as total CO2 is rising (here’s an NOAA primer on isotope fingerprinting, another piece which lays out the logic maybe a bit better, and RealClimate on the topic).

    The whole climate circus has one goal; slowing down capitalism by any means.

    Hogwash.  In the late 1960′s, the USA was on track to eliminate the use of steam coal and would have been stronger in every way if it had.  What happened was the anti-nuclear movement with its public activism and lawfare against the industry.  It was financed by fossil fuel interests; the Sierra Club’s motto used to be “Atoms Not Dams” but Robert O. Anderson of ARCO helped kickstart Friends of the Earth as an anti-nuke competitor to Sierra Club and the rest is history.

    If you think reliance on fossil fuels is a strength, you didn’t live through the 70′s oil price shocks and consequent recession.

  168. @anony-mouse

    Immigrants make crowded, inhospitable neighborhoods that Americans have to move away from for QOL issues and then commute back to their jobs.  Repatriate the immigrants and a lot of emissions from commuting will disappear.

  169. @Carol

    I just talked to a couple from MT and they said they had to re-convince themselves to stay in that state every single winter. No mention of non-cold winters.

  170. @Anon

    Everywhere large scale agriculture can take place is covered in grapes/corn/artichokes/tomatoes/wheat/alfalfa/cotton/strawberries/almonds/pears/etc. Pot is on its way. This means all the Central Valley, plenty of smaller ones, and a bit of foothills.

    So basically what would otherwise be summer dry wasteland or winter wet swamps are now planted and irrigated for whatever is currently making money.

    If large scale ag doesn’t change the ecosystem then I don’t know what does. And more people means more farming covering more land.

  171. @Sparkon

    at least use the correct terminology: Carbon dioxide emissions.

    English is full of acronyms and synecdoches.  People are going to drop 3 superfluous syllables in the interest of better communication, and it does not make them incorrect.  Deal with it.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  172. Anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Yes, they’ve been spending on the military and on ghost town infrastructure projects, which are components of government spending, not consumption spending. The engine of their growth has been exports.

    China has policies that suppress consumption and promote savings, investment, and production.

    The rest of your comment is strange. Most Americans are not recklessly spending money on “bling” imports from China because of optimism and some sort of belief in progress. They’re spending on simple consumer goods and necessities that are cheaper. Traditionally, white Americans were known for being frugal spendthrifts and possessing a dour Protestant ethic. The most profligate spenders are blacks.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  173. @Samuel Skinner

    Believing liberals are lying about global warming just requires believing they are lying about things like how the atmosphere works.

    Except the issue has been around since Lanley’s pioneering bolometric work in the 1860′s (roughly 150 years), while there’s been a political divide over it for less than ¼ as long.

    The people lying about the issue are so-called “conservatives”, who are part of the two-sided front for fossil-fuel interests (the other side is anti-nuclear “environmental” groups which are happy to sell out the planet in order to replace nuclear power with coal as they have in e.g. Germany).

    Actual climate scientists promote hydro and nuclear.

    This is what actually reduces carbon emissions, which is how you can tell they are telling the truth.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  174. @Anon

    I meant to write you back last night, #241. All I wanted to say was that you must be an engineer. That’s the kind of thinking that must go into any kind of comprehensive model: What would be your initial conditions? What exactly is the “normal” temperature, and “normal” humidity and CO2 levels?

  175. @Buzz Mohawk

    … that is it [sic - reversed words] unlikely that we are yet up to the task of making monumental decisions to try to manage it.

    Yeah, not only that, but every time I hear that crap about “well, better to be safe than sorry!” from the climate alarmists, I think: Not only is it NOT better to change our entire lifestyles and economy for something that may not even be correct, we could be working in the wrong direction, for ALL WE KNOW. Yeah, that’s the ticket – let’s make all kind of expensive top-down (but, of course!) societal changes just to help the next ice age along a little bit, just a nudge.

  176. @Anonymous

    the left is not interested in climate change for ‘helping the world’ or any other BS they claim. They want to drastically reduce carbon emissions to push their global marxist agenda of tearing down the first world advanced countries of the West.

    That’s not quite the true picture.  The leftist policy positions are aimed at impovershing the first world.  I believe this is done in order to keep the left away from those particular levers of power, and it’s working.

    50 years ago things were VERY different.  The USA had a conservative technocrat elite and nuclear energy was on a roll.  Nuclear reactors were actually cheaper than big, bulky coal-fired boilers, and front-page blurbs on popular magazines touted our coal-free future.

    Do you think the coal and oil barons took this lying down?  Of course they didn’t.  The OPEC price shocks pretty much eliminated oil from the US electric generation mix, but coal was and is a huge money-maker for mine owners, railroads and barge lines.  They went on a multi-pronged campaign to defend their interests against this actinide-fueled upstart.

    The first thing they did was turn the environmental organizations.  “Atoms Not Dams” was the motto of the Sierra Club, until ARCO exec Robert O. Anderson bankrolled David Brower’s Friends of the Earth as competition.  In this era we also got the rise of the Union of Concerned Scientists (founded 1969) and a host of other anti-nuclear pressure groups.  A look into their financing would no doubt reveal that they were bankrolled by coal and oil interests.  A great deal of lawfare against nuclear plants came from these front groups.

    The other part of the campaign came from inside government.  New laws and regulations made it increasingly expensive and sometimes impossible to even complete nuclear plants that were already substantially finished.  Bernard L. Cohen took a long hard look at the issue a few decades ago.  Things have improved somewhat since then, as e.g. Watts Bar unit 2 has been finished and fired up, but costs continue to escalate as e.g. INPO standards require ever-increasing security measures and INPO certification is required to get the insurance mandated by Price-Anderson (as modified).  The NRC requires radiation exposures “as low as reasonably achieveable” (ALARA), which in practice means ever-escalating costs to minimize far-below-harmless worker exposures even further.

    Meanwhile, electric generation increasingly depends on just-in-time delivery of natural gas to plants with little or no backup fuel supply.  This is a major national security threat, so where are the “conservatives” stumping for more nukes and less gas?  <crickets>  The Trump administration has finally made a move in that direction with the “fuel security rule”, but that’s been blocked by the FERC.

    The common element is that this ALL benefits fossil fuel interests, and literally nobody else.  “Cui bono?” should tell you all you need to know, but too many people live in denial.

  177. @Mr. Rational

    Nitrate and phosphate are also natural components necessary for life on earth—and in excess BOTH are pollutants. Get a f_cking clue already.

    Is clean water a pollutant? Too much can drown you, right? How about good rich black dirt? If you get a ton of it dropped on you, it will kill you, right? Etc. Hmm, Mr. Rational, maybe the clueless should not admonish others to get an f-bombing clue?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  178. @Numinous

    Only in the very near term. In the longer term, even by, say, the end of the century, it’ll be a wash.

    But regardless of the length of benefit for this specific thing, why not restrict immigration anyway when there are so many additional benefits, both environmental and otherwise, to doing so as well?

    Environmentalists cannot, on the one hand, lecture First Worlders about the need to have fewer children, yet on the other hand turn a blind eye to the rampant increase in the First World population via massive immigration. That is the basic point here.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anoni
  179. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    China has policies that suppress consumption and promote savings, investment, and production.

    That may be true, but I don’t see how it would be in the interests of the Chinese government to remain this dependent on the Western consumer, whom they must know is nearly tapped out. I would be very surprised if they are not trying to stimulate domestic demand, but again I know little about the matter, so I’m just speculating.

    The rest of your comment is strange. Most Americans are not recklessly spending money on “bling” imports from China because of optimism and some sort of belief in progress.

    Remember the tech bubble and the refi boom? I’m willing to bet that White Americans are more prone to irrational exuberance than Asians, but of course thriftier than blacks. I’d be willing to bet that Asians save a larger percentage of their earnings than Whites.

  180. @Mr. Anon

    Are you referring to the consensus of people like James Hansen, who’s predictions have been spectacularly wrong?

    They’ve been spectacularly right as far as the models of the time could go.  The excess heat that was projected back then is being measured now.  The twist is that heat is being buried in the oceans at a far higher rate than anyone suspected at the time.  A large part of this is due to increased overturning circulation driven by much stronger trade winds.

    Burying heat in the oceans doesn’t get rid of it, and it means that it’ll take even longer to remedy any problems it causes than anyone believed at the time either; heavy flywheels that are hard to get moving are equally hard to stop and reverse.

    After the fake scandal about “hide the decline” (which was about width of tree rings, not temperatures), I don’t believe anything that the antis say about CRU.

  181. @Achmed E. Newman

    1) “Carbon” or “Co2″, (whether they want to use the right term or not) is just bandied about like it’s some poison that we just have to avoid ingesting more of.

    You are taking the stuff written for the ignorant public as the end-all of the science, which is a straw-man argument.  Just how DO you expect to get across the need for action to people who’ve never had a decent science class, let alone gained a STEM degree?  Put a real scientific paper in front of them and their eyes will glaze over before they’re done with the abstract.  They will literally not understand one word out of three.

    with almost no connection to the fact that it’s just being made the culprit in some complicated idea of how the climate MAY be related to it.

    I wouldn’t expect a “skeptic” (denialist) to have actually studied the literature, but I have.  One of the things you’ll find if you look hard enough is actual infrared spectroscopic studies of both the emitted IR being radiated to space and the downwelling IR from the atmosphere back to the surface.  These spectra allow the contributions of each IR-active component to be quantified.  This has been done and the changes are being tracked over time.

    The whole Earth’s complicated climate with 100′s of types of processes, the “greenhouse effect” being just one part of one process, can not be modeled to pin down – “this _____ condition is increasing due to this increase in atmospheric CO2″, etc.

    Sorry, you’re wrong.  It not only can be, it has been.

    2) The word emissions is used to drive home the erroneous point that this is some kind of bad gas, a direct poison, that will just up and kill us or the planet.

    “Emissions” is the correct word.  There wouldn’t be any impact if these GHGs were shoved into the ground.  The problem isn’t that they’re being made, it’s that they’re being emitted; if you pumped them into basalt formations where they turned into carbonates, they’d be a non-issue.  If not “emissions”, what would YOU call it?

    The real problem is that too many people won’t or can’t actually study science.  There was a time humanity’s capabilities were too limited for a deficiency like this to have much impact beyond our own species, but dysgenic breeding and our knowledge-phobic culture have impaired our societal ability to understand issues that our massive technological and population increase have grown to the point of planet-wide impact.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  182. @Antlitz Grollheim

    This reminds me of the sketch Dave Chapelle did, in which blacks got reparations and then started spending it like crazy.

  183. @Achmed E. Newman

    Do you mean a significant trend that surpasses any of the other short-term (maybe not short for human life-times) effects from the sun?

    Now I know you haven’t looked at any of the solar data either.  Solar activity is headed toward Maunder minimum levels.  This is happening at the SAME TIME that the earth is setting temperature records and massive amounts of heat are being absorbed by the oceans, meaning that there is a lot of HEATING that will not be realized until all that water comes to equlibrium.

    There’s only one way to square those two facts, and that is that the atmosphere is out of whack—exactly as the climate scientists say it is.  Logic permits no other conclusion.

    that would just be interesting stuff, if this hadn’t been made so damn political

    Yes, isn’t it fascinating that all of this got political just as we developed the technology to solve the problem—and the politics all have the effect of either downplaying (conservative) or killing (liberal) that technology?  Cui bono?

    ALL JUST INTERESTING CONVERSATION, not THE END TO LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!

    Ask the Okies if the drought that created the Dust Bowl was just interesting conversation.  As I recall, quite a few of them died.

    As for geoengineering, CO2 is not a suitable agent for offsetting solar changes.  The sun can change output substantially in mere decades, while CO2 has a half-life of millennia.  If you are going to e.g. keep back from the threshold of renewed glaciation, you need to use something like methane which has an atmospheric half-life of a decade or so.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  184. @Mr. Rational

    Your memory may be failing you a bit there. It’s the left that has always been strongly anti-nuke-power, and they used the TMI reactor incident (#dead = 0) in 1979(?) to shut down the industry for so long that American industry seems to not be able to catch up at all (check out the cancellation of the 2 mostly-built reactors at Jenkinsville, SC – $Billions wasted).

    If conservatives were all these “shills for the combustion industry” than why would they be more pro-nuke? They are also much more pro-hydro, or would be if any kind of new dam project were let to see the light of day. Hydro power is simply limited, though.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  185. @Mr. Rational

    There is no way I can get into all the portions of the Global Climate Disruption (TM) discussion that I disagree with you on (actual Temp records, CO2 as effect or cause of proposed warming effects, “equilibrium” of the oceans, etc.) right here. Let me just state again that there are NO WORKING MODELS of the earth’s climate, and you could have read my posts about that up above (#42). If there were a working model, then a run of it from some imaginary initial conditions could have at least given results in a paper that could be checked some years later – all I’d ask for would be general continental patterns, and times within a few years. Nope, it’s a work in progress that would take a lot more discoveries to come close to being ABLE to be modeled, and even then, nature always introduces more complications (via the same laws of Thermo., Newton’s etc., but within processes that are not accounted for).

    Your last paragraph here is making my point for me though:

    As for geoengineering, CO2 is not a suitable agent for offsetting solar changes. The sun can change output substantially in mere decades, while CO2 has a half-life of millennia. If you are going to e.g. keep back from the threshold of renewed glaciation, you need to use something like methane which has an atmospheric half-life of a decade or so.

    Exactly. Nobody knows the big picture other than in retrospect. The earth is a big place, and the atmosphere, oceans, and land masses have a whole lot going on. What’s this “you need to” business? We don’t NEED TO do anything, This ain’t Star Trek. We’ll be fine – lots of those Okies moved to California. At least, we’ll be alright only if the existential immigration problems are solved, so we can at least agree on that.

  186. @Mr. Rational

    Just a word of advice – don’t mention “burying heat”. “Heat” is not a quantity, it is the transfer of energy via radiation, convection, and/or conduction. Whoever wrote what your discussing should have used “storing energy”, and should be flogged if he claims he is a scientist or engineer.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  187. @Buzz Mohawk

    If a Grand Solar Minimum occurs on schedule as some astronomers now believe

    We are almost fully in one already.

    there will be a cooling effect counter to whatever atmospheric and oceanic changes might be occurring.

    Our GHG emissions have overwhelmed the cooling effect, and there isn’t much further to go to reach zero sunspot numbers.

    Look at your graph again.  That forecast resurgence around 2100… on your timeline, what’s atmospheric CO2 likely to be?  450 ppm?  500 ppm?  If we’re quite warm enough already thank you with the sun being very quiet, how much will the globe swelter with the sun in full swing?  Is that the legacy you want to leave for your grandchildren?

    it unlikely that we are yet up to the task of making monumental decisions to try to manage it.

    But we’re definitely up to making a complete hash of it by accident.  We’ve made complete hashes of things before, and this time we’re playing with the whole damn globe.

    The thing about you denialists is that you’re always denying.  Not ONCE do you advise caution.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  188. @Mr. Rational

    Mr. Rational, I’ve never heard the use of “water emissions” as a term when discussing combustion. Yet, “emission” of Nitrogen Oxides or particulates is a normal way of expressing them. Since water has properties that block radiation in the same way as CO2, but at a much higher level, you’d think you would have heard of “water emissions”.

    WRT the use of terms to edify the ignorant public, non-scientists are not as dumb as you assume, and that’s why they are catching on to this Royal Scam more and more. No, it’s not that they know more science, of course. It’s just that the data fudging, years of predictions gone, let’s gently call it, “awry”, and the extreme politicization of this science has slowly clued them in that, hey, maybe we’re being (lack of) snowed here.

    Now, I will ask a question that I brought up in a decade-ago on-line dicusssion, partly for reminiscing’s sake: Would you say that the El Nino/La Nina phenomon are fairly well understood, Mr. Rational? If so, I say “really? So, when’s the next one?” I want to know whether these climate phenomena are INPUTS or OUTPUTS of any supposedly-well-working climate model. Which is it? Now, scale that up to the Ice Ages. Are they known well enough to be already part of a climate model?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  189. @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Is clean water a pollutant? Too much can drown you, right?

    Drinking too much can kill you by upsetting your electrolytes to the point that your heart malfunctions.

    “The dose makes the poison.”

  190. Clyde says:
    @Anoni

    The 16 tons is probably an understatement. That is a production-based estimate. It doesn’t take into account Imports of carbon intensive Goods.

    Right you are. We import huge amounts of manufactured goods from China and Asia. The CO2 is coming out of the smokestacks of Chinese/Asian factories. So add 2-5 tons CO2 to the 16 tons you cited.

  191. @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s the left that has always been strongly anti-nuke-power

    And the right has been indifferent to it at best.  When the left got a bunch of expensive and time-consuming laws and regulations into place, the right did nothing to repeal them when it got back in the majority.  The right considers nuclear on par with coal, ignoring the massive clean-air benefits and a waste stream so tiny it can be stored on-site indefinitely.  The right is allowing nuclear to be shut down by subsidized “renewables” and predatory-priced natural gas.

    We don’t have an actual right in the USA yet.  An actual right wouldn’t conserve the changes forced by the left, it would reverse them and put roadblocks in place to stop them from being imposed again.  An actual right would be reactionary.

    Hydro power is simply limited, though.

    Very true.  Have you seen the takedown of Mark Z. Jacobson’s paper asserting that the USA can run on 100% ruinables?  Clack et al. went through his model and found that Jacobson assumed that hydropower could be increased to as much as 1300 GW, despite a vastly lower rated power limit (and river channel limits, and reservoir limits, and more I’m sure).  It’s worth looking it up.

  192. Sparkon says:
    @Mr. Rational

    People are going to drop 3 superfluous syllables in the interest of better communication, and it does not make them incorrect. Deal with it.

    The problem is those 3 missing syllables are not superfluous at all. Words have meaning and shouldn’t be thrown around carelessly. There is a big difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. C and CO₂ are two different things. One is a solid, the other is a gas.

    Talking about “carbon emissions” does indeed “make them incorrect” because use of such inaccurate terminology in this context betrays a fundamental, underlying ignorance of science and basic physics.

    Inaccurate terminology can never work in the “interest of better communication,” but rather only in the interest of the mindbenders who are serving up befuddlement and discombobulation to those poor souls who can’t deconstruct the bafflegab, but who are now sentenced to shuffle around with a “carbon footprint” like a burden of guilt for having the basic necessities of life.

    I deal with it by pointing out the mistake, providing the correct information, and offering a recalibration to an objective observer’s viewpoint using both Occam’s Razor, and the iconoclast’s hammer.

    If words are not correct, then language will not be in accordance with the truth of things.

    – The Master Kong — Confucius

    Carbon dioxide is a gas that is emitted by a wide variety of processes on Earth. It is present in trace or minute quantities in Earth’s atmosphere, currently at about 1 part in 2500. There is no good evidence that CO₂ plays any significant role in controlling Earth’s climate.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  193. @Mr. Rational

    A Grand Minimum lasts hundreds of years. It is not measured by sunspots with their 11 year cycle. If we are entering one, it will last as long as the Little Ice Age.

    I am not denying that the climate has been warming recently, so don’t call me a “denialist.” You cannot prove to me that the change is caused by human activity, that’s all.

    I have repeatedly advocated for nuclear power on here, and it looks like you would agree with me on that subject. I am in favor of climate caution in that form, building reactors and developing the Thorium process.

    Caution includes not destroying our standard of living just so billions of Asian people can go on breeding and polluting. If you can get us on a program of nuclear development, then I will salute you and your reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  194. @Numinous

    If you think this is a straw man, you probably didn’t bother to read the original post …

    There’s nothing in Steve’s original post that says that what you claim. So yeah, an obvious glaring strawman on your part. Maybe Steve’s trademark sarcasm doesn’t translate into Subcontinental, thus your confusion.

    Steve’s second post, which is simply the featured comment by Anoni, also doesn’t say what you claim. Anoni merely decried the illogic of those on the left who want both mass immigration and lower CO2 emissions, and (s)he also criticized conservatives for being “doctrinaire” about climate change in general. Anoni’s comment wasn’t “advocating that Guatemalans stay home” for any reason:

    … or most of the earlier comments, which were literally advocating that Guatemalans stay home for environmental reasons.

    If you can find them, quote them with names and timestamps.

    Maybe I missed them, I’ll wait …

    Then … argument for immigration restriction on climate change grounds will fall on deaf ears.

    Right, that’s the whole point of Steve’s two recent posts (plus the one linked to by Anoni)— if the people (almost all on the left) yelling about ‘climate change’ aren’t willing to consider immigration restriction as a mitigating policy… that’s interesting due to the untenable logical dissonance between the left’s espoused positions.

  195. Climate Change is bullshit on stilts.

    It’s pushed by Watermelon Greens who want to punish the West by making it transfer $billions to the Turd World and by governments eager to use the Gaia excuse to further control their subjects.

    The “science” behind it is sketchy and estimated when it is not completely made up out of whole cloth. See the Hockey Stick graph based on 7 trees.

    None of the CC predictions have come true. Satellite data shows slight cooling this century which backs up the Maunder Minimum hypothesis.

    The models are crap, full of unproven assumptions. The people who can’t tell you how much snow you will get some December day are sure what the temperature will be in 100 years.

    None of the so-called accords (Kyoto, etc) are binding on China and India who are growing and polluting rapidly.

    Whew!

    That said, we (the West) should continue to be good environmental stewards. We should work to get more of our power from nuclear energy. Our countries are the cleanest on Earth. It’s not the West that throws plastic in the ocean.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  196. Mr. Anon says:
    @AndrewR

    Yes, you’re smarter than me and virtually every climatologist…

    I don’t know about every climatologist, but you – yes.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  197. Mr. Anon says:
    @AndrewR

    I believe it because I am not trained in climatology and I lack the ability to disprove the arguments posited by climatologists. I assume the same is true of you.

    You assume wrong. I am a trained scientist, and I am able to evaulate data, and the arguments drawn from them, for myself. I don’t wholly reject the AGW consensus. It might be partly right. I suspect it isn’t wholly right. But I don’t just believe people who are ostensibly “experts” just because they say I should believe them. I especially don’t believe pricks like Gavin Schmidt, who want to be activists rather than scientists, and think that their beliefs give them the right to conduct science as guerilla warfare or political theater.

    As for high-carb diets, they’re not necessarily the best but they seem to be optimal if done right.

    They way they were pushed by the nutritional/medical establishment in the US was wrong. Experts.

    OT: Is there anyone whom you don’t view as intellectually and/or morally inferior to you?

    Yes, lots of people. But you are not one of them. Actually, I don’t consider you to be a moral inferior.

  198. Mr. Anon says:
    @Mr. Rational

    They’ve been spectacularly right as far as the models of the time could go.

    No, they were spectacularly wrong. James Hansen presented the results of the NASA/GISS model to Congress in 1988, under three assumed scenarios: one in which the rate and rate of increase of CO2 emission continued unabated, one in which the rate stayed at then current levels but without any or much increase, and one in which the rate of CO2 emission was drastically reduced, reductions that would come to be mandated in the Kyoto protocol. The model forecast global mean temperature in 2008, 20 years hence.

    So which scenario best predicted the 2008 temperature? It was the third, as if Kyoto had been adopted. But of course, Kyoto was not adopted by most of the biggest CO2 emitters. So, according to Hansen’s model we got the benefit of Kyoto without even going to the trouble of adopting it.

    The excess heat that was projected back then is being measured now. The twist is that heat is being buried in the oceans at a far higher rate than anyone suspected at the time. A large part of this is due to increased overturning circulation driven by much stronger trade winds.

    You mean those oceans that were, for a long time, not included in global circulation models? Yeah – great models those were too – neglecting the humongous heat-sink that everyone has always known oceans to be.

    After the fake scandal about “hide the decline” (which was about width of tree rings, not temperatures), I don’t believe anything that the antis say about CRU.

    Did you actually read any of the E-mails? I did. They were openly discussing the fact that there was a hiatus in temperature increase, and that they couldn’t explain it. That wasn’t made up. That really happened. Coincidentally, a few years later, NOAA “rationalized” their data, and the hiatus goes away.

    They were also quite openly talking about using their editorial offices to spike papers that they didn’t like.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  199. @Achmed E. Newman

    don’t mention “burying heat”. “Heat” is not a quantity, it is the transfer of energy via radiation, convection, and/or conduction.

    Heat is a quantity, and ONLY a quantity.  It is measured in units such as BTU, joules or calories.  It can be as “buried” as the fossil carbon from which so much of it came.  Get real.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  200. @Achmed E. Newman

    I’ve never heard the use of “water emissions” as a term when discussing combustion.

    You might inquire to see if water-of-combustion remains in the atmosphere in excess amounts after being emitted, or if such products return to normal liquid form.  That might enlighten you.  If you are capable of enlightenment.

  201. @Sparkon

    The problem is those 3 missing syllables are not superfluous at all.

    They are superfluous when talking about carbon that stays in the atmosphere, because elemental carbon falls out in days, weeks at most.

    Carbon dioxide is a gas that is emitted by a wide variety of processes on Earth.

    Indeed it is.  It is the only form of carbon which remains in the atmosphere long-term (CO oxidizes in days or weeks, CH4 in a half-life of around a decade).  So why are we arguing about the only form of carbon other than methane that’s really significant, to the point of demanding that anyone who doesn’t add the three-syllable “dioxide” to it be derided as some sort of climate illiterate?  Anyone with a clue knows what it means.  Including you.

  202. @Buzz Mohawk

    A Grand Minimum lasts hundreds of years.

    How many is “hundreds”?  At least three?  By that standard, the LIA does not qualify.

    You cannot prove to me that the change is caused by human activity

    There’s a gross preponderance of the evidence to that effect.  STOP DENYING IT.

    I am in favor of climate caution in that form, building reactors and developing the Thorium process.

    Your favor has been ineffectual.  What are you going to do about that?

    Caution includes not destroying our standard of living just so billions of Asian people can go on breeding and polluting.

    Caution includes putting Asians on economic embargo if they do not stop breeding and polluting.  Have you paid NO attention to “The Population Bomb”?  Read literally (without today’s PC filters), it demands that Asia and Africa stop overwhelming the world with their numbers.

    If you can get us on a program of nuclear development, then I will salute you and your reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

    That is beyond my unaided capabilities, but I am going to do what I can.

  203. @Jim Don Bob

    Climate Change is bullshit on stilts.

    Climate change has been a scientific prediction since Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (224 years ago).  YOU are bullshit, but on Earth shoes (sunken below your measured height).

    None of the so-called accords (Kyoto, etc) are binding on China and India who are growing and polluting rapidly.

    Name the climate scientists who decided that this would be the case.

  204. Mr. Anon says:

    Climate change has been a scientific prediction since Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (224 years ago).

    Is your climate science as good as your math?

    Name the climate scientists who decided that this would be the case.

    Name the climate scientists who have complained about it as shrilly or loudly as about the american Senate’s decision not to buy into Kyoto, Copenhagen, or Paris.

  205. @Mr. Rational

    No, it is NOT measured in BTU, J, or kCal. Those are units of ENERGY. That’s what I was trying to explain to you. Heat is a rate, but not just any rate of energy transfer; it is the rate of energy transfer via temperature difference of different objjects, surfaces or volumes. All units of heat have a time component, so W, BTU/hr, but may be put in a flux form, as in W/m**2. (Again, I can’t do superscripts).

    You’re getting unduly angry, and that not rational the Mr. Rational that I know on here. “If you are capable of enlightenment” below is another example. There is not reason for this – it’s not your religion, is it? I could see someone getting very upset about someone arguing that his relilgion is just wront.

  206. @Mr. Rational

    I don’t know how to ask it (the water, that is). How do I know which portion of gaseous water has come from burning and which portion has come from evaporation off of puddles and the lake. I will tell you that jet contrails demonstrate the EMISSIONS of water into the mid-level atmosphere. (BTW, I’m not saying the water doesn’t get there when there are contrails, the transient condensing and subsequent re-evaporation that makes these visible depends on conditions.).

    Water is fungible.

  207. @Mr. Rational

    El NINO!

    ANSWER! THE! QUESTION!

    [/Spawn of Tucker Carlson & Dave Letterman]

  208. Anonymous[591] • Disclaimer says:
    @3g4me

    Nearly every detail of your story defies credulity.

  209. Anonymous[591] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The Amazon is the source for much of the planet’s oxygen as well as its greatest supply of fresh water. It is the official policy of the Brazilian government to destroy the rain forest there as fast as humanly possible.

    150 acres per minute, BTW.

  210. @Achmed E. Newman

    OOPS, that was typo-city in there. Missed that window by a bit! Let me try that last paragraph again:

    You’re getting unduly angry, and that’s not rational the Mr. Rational that I know on here. “If you are capable of enlightenment” below is another example. There is no reason for this – it’s not your religion, is it? I could see someone getting very upset about someone arguing that his religion is just wrong.

  211. AndrewR says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I’m sorry you haven’t gotten the love you’ve needed in life.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  212. Anoni says:
    @Random Smartaleck

    if there was some way to do an anonymous bet I would put $1,000 that Guatemala has less than 1/3 of the per capita CO2 emissions of the US by 2050. Since carbon dioxide stays in the are for a long time, that means a very long-term impact on the climate.[ if you are the sort of person who believes that there is some impact of carbon dioxide on climate]

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  213. m___ says:
    @m___

    The issue was indeed technical. No one to blame, our deduction of faul play was illigitimate.

  214. Mr. Anon says:
    @AndrewR

    I’m sorry you haven’t gotten the love you’ve needed in life.

    No, my life is just peachy, thanks. You, however, seem to radiate miserable peevishness with every post. It isn’t my fault that you aren’t very bright.

  215. Mr. Anon says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    No, it is NOT measured in BTU, J, or kCal. Those are units of ENERGY. That’s what I was trying to explain to you. Heat is a rate,……….

    Heat is a quantity. It’s a form of energy and it’s units are joules. How it is defined can be tricky. It is thermodynamically defined as a transfer of energy between two objects at different temperatures. But one can talk about an amount of heat in a body too, under certain circumstances. What you are talking about is heat flux.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  216. @Mr. Anon

    I understand the confusion (I’ll explain in a bit), but why don’t you just look it up, or ask a mech. engineer who deals on the thermo side of things.? It is NOT a form of energy and does NOT have the same units. The only exception, which is kind of a bogus use of the word that is used in psychometrics/weather is “latent heat” and “sensible heat” – the former means the energy stored in air from the water being in vapor form (to be released when condensation happens) and the latter as the internal energy rise just due to T increase. This, and “heat of vaporization”, “heat of fusion”, just confuse the matter, so that’s probably what you mean.

    Heat flux is, just like with electrical flux, a term that means rate of transfer per amount of area (like heat transfer through a wall, it’s easier to talk about W/m**2 vs. just W, if the wall is made out of the same material in the other 2 dimensions, as you don’t need to know the wall area then.

    When you say “amount of heat in a body”, that’s what I was trying to tell Mr. Rational, it’s not really correct. It should be “internal energy in a body”. Now, I konw some people talk this way, but if they are scientists, they should be flogged, as I said. Yes, plenty of mechanics talk about “pounds” of pressure in a tire too, but that is just shorthand for “lb/in**2″ as people get too lazy to say that many syllables. “Hey, Fred, bring that one up to 60 “pounds””, vs. “Hey, Fred, bring that up to 60 “P” “S” “I”” Really, it’s not that hard, but the latter is not “hip”, I guess.

  217. @Mr. Anon

    So which scenario best predicted the 2008 temperature? It was the third, as if Kyoto had been adopted.

    The extent of heat transfer into the oceans wasn’t known 30 years ago.  Now it is.  It’s almost as if… computers got bigger and faster over that period, and we started collecting more data to feed them.  Unbelieveable, right?

    Plus, you’re using the wrong measure.  Immediate temperature rise is the wrong one, as it’s altered by thermal inertia.  (Thermal inertia is why the night side of the Moon is so much colder than the night side of the Earth; the regolith is a very good insulator so there’s very little, compared to Earth’s ten tons of atmosphere per square meter plus water where applicable.)  The correct measure is heat imbalance.  Heat imbalance tells you how hot things will get when the thermal inertia effects have played out.  The models do a very good job of predicting the measured heat imbalance.

    You mean those oceans that were, for a long time, not included in global circulation models?

    Yeah, it’s almost like… computers used to be small and slow and we didn’t have much ocean data and that made it impossible to build good models for the oceans.  Just un-fucking-believeable that that might have changed, right?

    They were openly discussing the fact that there was a hiatus in temperature increase

    Explained by poor measurement coverage in the polar regions where most of it was going on, as I recall.

    They were also quite openly talking about using their editorial offices to spike papers that they didn’t like.

    It’s almost as if… they had to guard against attempts to sneak bad climate science into the journals to discredit the good and make life safer for the trillion-dollar-a-year global fossil fuel industry instead of the world switching over to uranium.

    Incredible, isn’t it?  Obviously incidents like horribly bad studies on alleged Chernobyl victims being sneaked into print through the New York Academy of Sciences and then widely used by cranks to support their propaganda could never happen, right?  Right?

    </sarcasm>

    Spare me.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    , @Mr. Anon
  218. @Achmed E. Newman

    Heat is a rate, but not just any rate of energy transfer

    I quote KA:

    Heat, q, is thermal energy transferred from a hotter system to a cooler system that are in contact.

    KA is iffy on this because heat can be transferred by radiation (without contact) and exists even in transit, but note:  no units of time.  Heat is energy, period.

    “If you are capable of enlightenment” below is another example.

    You repeatedly tried to correct me when you were wrong according to standard definitions that you could have looked up; that’s a lot more than just a typo.  I’m the one giving you cites, which you ignore.  Do you SOUND capable of enlightenment?

    Water is fungible.

    Excess water in the troposphere falls out very quickly.  If it gets into the stratosphere it can stick around longer, but the “cold trap” at the tropopause prevents very much from getting there by precipitating it out.

  219. Mr. Anon says:
    @Mr. Rational

    The extent of heat transfer into the oceans wasn’t known 30 years ago. Now it is. It’s almost as if… computers got bigger and faster over that period, and we started collecting more data to feed them. Unbelieveable, right?

    For most of the last thirty years, and certainly since IPCC3 in 2001, climate modelers have been claiming that the results of their models were unquestionably right. Even when their models did not include the vast heat sink known as “the ocean”, they were claiming that they knew enough to say it was “settled science”. Were they unaware of the ocean? It has long been a well known fact that water has a large heat capacity. One would think that 70% of the world’s surface being covered with it would have given them pause to think.

    Plus, you’re using the wrong measure. Immediate temperature rise is the wrong one, as it’s altered by thermal inertia. (Thermal inertia is why the night side of the Moon is so much colder than the night side of the Earth; the regolith is a very good insulator so there’s very little, compared to Earth’s ten tons of atmosphere per square meter plus water where applicable.) The correct measure is heat imbalance. Heat imbalance tells you how hot things will get when the thermal inertia effects have played out. The models do a very good job of predicting the measured heat imbalance.

    You mean those oceans that were, for a long time, not included in global circulation models?

    Yeah, it’s almost like… computers used to be small and slow and we didn’t have much ocean data and that made it impossible to build good models for the oceans. Just un-fucking-believeable that that might have changed, right?

    They were openly discussing the fact that there was a hiatus in temperature increase

    Explained by poor measurement coverage in the polar regions where most of it was going on, as I recall.

    They were also quite openly talking about using their editorial offices to spike papers that they didn’t like.

    It’s almost as if… they had to guard against attempts to sneak bad climate science into the journals to discredit the good and make life safer for the trillion-dollar-a-year global fossil fuel industry instead of the world switching over to uranium.

    Incredible, isn’t it? Obviously incidents like horribly bad studies on alleged Chernobyl victims being sneaked into print through the New York Academy of Sciences and then widely used by cranks to support their propaganda could never happen, right? Right?

  220. Mr. Anon says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Plus, you’re using the wrong measure.

    No, I am comparing a specific prediction made by James Hansen, one of the worlds foremost climate scientists and proponents of the AGW theory, to actual measurements. His predictions were wrong. They were very wrong. And at the time, 1988, he was probably telling Al Gore and the other members of Congress that his model was sophisticated enough as to allow no doubt about his essential conclusions.

    Yeah, it’s almost like… computers used to be small and slow and we didn’t have much ocean data and that made it impossible to build good models for the oceans. Just un-fucking-believeable that that might have changed, right?

    Again, if their models did not include oceans then they were not very good models, and they shouldn’t have been claiming near infallibitily for their findings and, in effect, telling us to all sit down and shut up and believe their computer models.

    Explained by poor measurement coverage in the polar regions where most of it was going on, as I recall.

    The weighting they used to deal with the poor coverage introduced a warming bias into their calculations. The Hadley/CRU used a single station on the Antarctic Peninsula to stand in for a large portion of the interior of the continent.

    It’s almost as if… they had to guard against attempts to sneak bad climate science into the journals to discredit the good and make life safer for the trillion-dollar-a-year global fossil fuel industry instead of the world switching over to uranium.

    So your position is that they were right because they were right. They had a right to spike research they didn’t like because it wasn’t correct; and it wasn’t correct because they didn’t like it.

    And by the way, a lot of the fossil-fuel industry – like BP for example – is all in behind “climate change”; their (BP’s) official policy is that it is real. So why is the fossil fuel industry bad when it supports climate change skeptics, but good and righteous when it supports climate change proponents?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  221. @Mr. Anon

    I am comparing a specific prediction made by James Hansen, one of the worlds foremost climate scientists and proponents of the AGW theory, to actual measurements.

    But not the specific measurements that he was best able to compare to at the time he made his predictions.  Those were radiative imbalance measurements.  Anything relating to the oceans was uncertain given the poor state of models at the time.

    So much could have been different, given what little was known then.  Had heat had to travel down in the oceans by conduction, we would have had MASSIVE surface effects by now.  As it turns out, accelerated trade winds drive overturning circulations well in excess of both conduction and thermohaline effects that were understood 30 years ago.

    I’m not familiar with the history of oceanography but I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that the trade winds driving so much of this circulation did much of their strengthening since 1988 and the models weren’t fine-grained enough to predict it.  Hansen COULDN’T have known about it, so couldn’t have incorporated it into his predictions.

    Know what?  The energy imbalances persist no matter what you deny.  We measure them to this day.  The pace at which heat is moved downward only delays the surface warming; it won’t eliminate it, and the delays in the process mean we have to reduce GHGs much further to get back to equilibrium even to keep things as they are now.  There is a LOT of warming “baked in”.

    at the time, 1988, he was probably telling Al Gore and the other members of Congress that his model was sophisticated enough as to allow no doubt about his essential conclusions.

    He was only wrong about when it would arrive.  If you deny that the problem IS a problem and continue adding to it, you will only make it HARDER to correct when you are finally unable to deny it any more… because you will have piled additional DECADES of both GHGs and stored heat into the system.

    if their models did not include oceans then they were not very good models

    The models were the best they could build at the time.  Note that Arrhenius’ pencil-and-paper model was pretty darn close to what our biggest computers are coming up with today.

    they shouldn’t have been claiming near infallibitily for their findings and, in effect, telling us to all sit down and shut up and believe their computer models.

    “Infallibitily”, I like that.  Almost certainly a typo but “bitily” is vaguely computer-ish.

    Your position simplifies down to “scientists should shut up about any trouble they see coming if the correction would inconvenience me in any way.”  If that’s your standard, you might as well not have scientists because it wouldn’t be possible for them to speak up until the trouble is so obvious that even the most hard-boiled denialist has to admit that something’s wrong.  The idea of heading off a problem while it’s the smallest and cheapest to deal with… utterly foreign to you.

    Meanwhile, with record-breaking heat while the is sun headed for a minimum of Maunder-level proportions, you cannot legitimately deny that SOMETHING is majorly out of whack.

    So your position is that they were right because they were right.

    No, my position is that they were right because the contrary position is self-evidently not tenable.  The only legitimate debate right now is “how much”, not “whether”.  It was back then, too.

    They had a right to spike research they didn’t like because it wasn’t correct

    They had a right and an OBLIGATION to separate agenda advocacy pushed by the wealthiest interests on earth from actual science.

  222. Mr. Anon says:

    But not the specific measurements that he was best able to compare to at the time he made his predictions. Those were radiative imbalance measurements. Anything relating to the oceans was uncertain given the poor state of models at the time.

    No. He predicted global mean temperatures. He was wrong. He was very wrong.

    So much could have been different, given what little was known then. Had heat had to travel down in the oceans by conduction, we would have had MASSIVE surface effects by now. As it turns out, accelerated trade winds drive overturning circulations well in excess of both conduction and thermohaline effects that were understood 30 years ago.

    I’m not familiar with the history of oceanography but I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that the trade winds driving so much of this circulation did much of their strengthening since 1988 and the models weren’t fine-grained enough to predict it. Hansen COULDN’T have known about it, so couldn’t have incorporated it into his predictions.

    A global climate model that does not include oceans is not a good model. Hansen should have known that – even in 1988.

    He was only wrong about when it would arrive.

    The same can be, and is, claimed by every cult-preacher and sandwich-board doomsday prophet.

    Your position simplifies down to “scientists should shut up about any trouble they see coming if the correction would inconvenience me in any way.”

    No, my position is that they should behave like scientists, not activists.

    Meanwhile, with record-breaking heat while the is sun headed for a minimum of Maunder-level proportions, you cannot legitimately deny that SOMETHING is majorly out of whack.

    I have every reason to suspect that it is only record breaking because they have fudged the historical numbers.

    The only legitimate debate right now is “how much”, not “whether”. It was back then, too.

    Well, how is your “only legitimate debate” working out for you? That tack has pissed-off and alienated a large fraction of the populace, who have – based on recent public opinion polls – pretty much told your side to sit down and shut up already. They were tired of being hectored, and now they are dishing it back out to you.

    They had a right and an OBLIGATION to separate agenda advocacy pushed by the wealthiest interests on earth from actual science.

    No, they have an obligation to evaluate papers on their merits, not on who funds the research. Almost all research is funded by big organizations with vested interests. Do you imagine that NOAA is NOT a big organization or that it has no vested interests?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  223. @Mr. Anon

    He predicted global mean temperatures. He was wrong. He was very wrong.

    He was as right as he could be given the data he had.  He had the radiative imbalance very close.  The fact that he didn’t have a model accurate enough to estimate the effect of thermal inertia wasn’t his fault.

    Would you expect scientists to refuse to warn society until they are 100% certain?  It’s not even 100% certain the US is headed into civil war, but that’s sure the way to bet.

    A global climate model that does not include oceans is not a good model.

    Computers too small and slow to properly model the oceans were the ONLY computers available in the 1980′s, but radiative imbalance tells you your end state even if other effects radically slow down how fast you get there.

    That means the problem is BIGGER, not smaller.  If you have a 1° measured rise with a 1.5° eventual rise, that’s one thing and you might be able to deal with it; if you have a 1° measured rise which means an eventual 5° rise, you’re in a world of hurt.  A world you created because you wouldn’t take your own effects on your environment seriously.

    The same can be, and is, claimed by every cult-preacher

    Cult preachers can’t measure the change in IR radiation and its spectrum in real time.

    my position is that they should behave like scientists, not activists.

    When they are being libelled by propagandists trying to discredit them and their work, what alternatives do they have?  Propaganda is political, not scientific.

    I have every reason to suspect that it is only record breaking because they have fudged the historical numbers.

    This year, I personally saw a solid 4 weeks of thaw conditions in what should have been the dead of winter at 45 degrees north.  Snow almost vanished from the ground in both February and March.  Then in mid-April, I got dumped on by a tropical storm above an arctic air intrusion which left a foot of SLEET (not snow, but rain frozen to ice on the way down) on the ground in the space of 36 hours.

    Nothing dumps 10 inches of water-equivalent in a day and a half here.  That’s stuff for the hurricane belt.  But that storm did.

    Well, how is your “only legitimate debate” working out for you?

    You jerks won’t bother to pry into what is TRUE, so it’s not working very well outside the realm of science.  This is not something science can fix.  Things have to get bad enough to break through the wall of denial erected by the self-serving (fossil fuel lobby) propagandists.  How much damage will have to be done (and how much more “baked in”) before that happens, I don’t know.  I do know that I am not responsible for any of it.  YOU ARE.

    That tack has pissed-off and alienated a large fraction of the populace

    You’d have the most expert people in the field deny what they know is true, to pander to an ignorant and propagandized public?  That is NOT in the public interest.

    Why not pay some attention to the propagandists?  You let them go scot free.

    pretty much told your side to sit down and shut up already. They were tired of being hectored, and now they are dishing it back out to you.

    The Greens (watermelons) are the ones doing the hectoring.  They’re the ones with the bucolic back-to-the-land visions of humanity without any energy other than wind and sun.  Real climate scientists are touting hydro and nuclear, which can actually support an industrial society and Western standard of living.

    Guess who finances the Greens?  Fossil fuel interests; Friends of the Earth was bankrolled by Arco’s Robert O. Anderson, and Mark Z. Jacobson’s funding comes from oil baron Jay Precourt.  The Greens are CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.  Their target is nuclear power.  They’re doing very well.

    they have an obligation to evaluate papers on their merits, not on who funds the research.

    Which are all too congruent.  “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Jewish-American anti-Zionist journalist
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored