The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Publications Filter?
VDare
Nothing found
 TeasersiSteve Blog
/
Global Warming

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS
Ever since African-American voters in Washington D.C. kicked out school reformer Michelle Rhee, lowering property values in gentrifying sections of D.C., blogger and D.C. condo-owner Matthew Yglesias has been on the warpath to admit 165,000,000 immigrants to the U.S.. You might think that the subsequent increase in global carbon emissions alone would make that an expensive way to drive African Americans out of D.C. in order to improve the public schools and raise Yglesias’s property value, but, you see, Yglesias has a triple bankshot plan to remake America into his beloved native Manhattan. He thinks 165 million immigrants couldn’t help but come in handy in the Manhattanization of America so that everybody will take the subway to work.
But, has Yglesias ever asked immigrants where they want to live? Much of the evidence suggests: in the exurbs, in big houses, with big air conditioners, driving big SUVs. For example, here’s a 2009 article by Alan Ehrenhalt in Governing entitled Immigrants and the Suburban Influx. It describes exurban Gwinnett County, about 30 miles outside of Atlanta. Famous as a white flight region just a couple of decades ago, Gwinnett is now majority minority, with lots of prosperous Indians and Koreans. Maybe in a generation or two, affluent Indians and Koreans will want to lead the downtown hipster life, but right now they want the traditional American Dream of a home with a yard and a big car (i.e., they want to emit a lot of carbon.)

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS
From my new VDARE.com column:

Of the millions who claim to be deadly serious about Saving the World from global warming by limiting carbon emissions, how many are truly sincere?

There’s one surefire test: Do they demand reductions in immigration to the U.S.?

Answer: almost none of them do.

A Google search for “carbon emissions” brings up 3,680,000 web pages. (August 8, 2010). Add “immigration reduction” to the search, however, and the hit count falls to 114. [Try it yourself now by clicking here.]

The causes of global warning are disputed, but let’s assume for the sake of analysis that human output of “greenhouse gases” does indeed cause global warming. It ought to be close to self-evident that immigration to America increases this country’s—and the world’s—output of those gases.

The logic is very simple: If immigrants from poor countries successfully assimilate to American norms of earning and consuming, they, and their descendants, will emit vastly more carbon than if they had stayed home.

According to the UN’s International Energy Agency, residents of America in 2007 put out an average of 19.1 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by fossil fuel combustion—e.g., by driving around, by being warm in winter and cool in summer, and by watching TV.

In contrast, the residents of, say, Mexico each emit 4.1 tons per year. In other words, the typical inhabitant of America churns out 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as the typical inhabitant of Mexico.

So, if an average Mexican immigrates to the U.S. and fully assimilates to average American patterns of earning and spending, he will emit 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as if he stayed home in his own country. (Even more important are the impact of his descendants, which we’ll get to below).

This table gives a sampling of the carbon emissions per capita of immigrant importing and exporting countries.

 


… So let’s examine some logical objections to my argument for the benefit of global warming worriers.

Consider a very simplified model in which an immigrant from Mexico will either succeed or fail at assimilating to American norms on two dimensions: Earning and Consuming.

 

Let’s start with the upper left hand corner of this quadrant: American Dream. In this scenario, the typical Mexican who immigrates to the U.S. achieves the American Dream. He succeeds at consuming like an American (e.g., big SUV, big air-conditioned house in the suburbs, big TV, and so forth) and also (this is important) earning like an American. Therefore, his contribution to global greenhouse gas emission will be vastly greater than if he stayed home in Mexico. Even more importantly, so will his descendants’ carbon emissions. …

In the lower left corner is the unspoken liberal assumption about the impact of Mexican immigration: Ecotopia. This logical possibility is the favorite of the sort of white liberals who have farm simulators on their iPhones. Of course, it is the least logical or possible.

They assume Mexican immigrants rapidly achieve American levels of income to pay the taxes for all the social programs that progressives favor. Yet, for unexplained reasons, the Mexican immigrants and their progeny choose to live like Portland trustfunders whose hobby is a “sustainable” lifestyle based on driving their vegetable oil-powered Toyota Prius hybrid to Whole Foods for heirloom tomatoes.

The Ecotopia assumption is the only logical way to square enthusiasm about immigration with alarmism about greenhouse gases.

Of course, …

Read the whole thing there (including data on the burning question of how many Priuses do Mexicans buy) and comment upon it here.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS

Of the millions of Greenies who claim to be deadly serious about Saving the World from global warming by limiting carbon emissions, how many are really sincere?

There’s one surefire test of sincerity: Do they demand reductions in immigration to the U.S.?

Answer: almost none of them do.

A Google search for carbon emissions brings up 3,680,000 web pages. (August 8, 2010). Add immigration reduction to the search, however, and the hit count falls to 114.

The causes of global warning are disputed, but let’s assume for the sake of analysis that human output of “greenhouse gases” does indeed cause global warming. It ought to be close to self-evident that immigration to America increases this country’s—and the world’s—output of those gases.

The logic is very simple: If immigrants from poor countries successfully assimilate to American norms of earning and consuming, they, and their descendents, will emit vastly more carbon than if they stayed home.

According to the UN’s International Energy Agency, residents of America in 2007 put out an average of 19.1 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by fossil fuel combustion—e.g., by driving around, by being warm in winter and cool in summer, and by watching TV.

In contrast, the residents of Mexico each emit 4.1 tons per year. In other words, the typical inhabitant of America churns out 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as the typical inhabitant of Mexico.

So, if an average Mexican immigrates to the U.S. and fully assimilates to average American patterns of earning and spending, he will emit 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as if he stayed home in his own country. (Even more important are the impact of his descendents, which we’ll get to below).

This table gives a sampling of the carbon emissions per capita of immigrant importing and exporting countries.

For example, Australians, in the grand tradition of Mad Max, pump out an American-like 18.7 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Therefore, if an average Australian moves to the U.S. and adopts the average American’s way of life, the net effect on global carbon emissions would be negligible: i.e., the “Immigration Multiplier” is barely above 1.0.

The right hand column in the table lists the number of adults who want to immigrate to each country according to a vast Gallup poll of 259,542 people in 135 countries. Around the world, no less than 700 million adults—one out of six of the total—want to emigrate. America is the first choice of 165,000,000. Plus 60,000,000 others prefer to move to Australia or Canada, which are both America Jr. from the perspective of per capita carbon emissions.

In contrast to the Immigration Destination Countries, which typically emit much carbon per person, the Immigration Source Countries don’t. Thus the Immigration Multiplier for Mexico is 4.6 because residents of Mexico pump out only 22 percent as much carbon per person as residents of America. The -15,000,000 in Mexico’s right hand column means that in the Gallup survey, 20 percent of the adults still left in Mexico said they would like to leave. That equates to 15,000,000 adults (n.b. this is not counting children and future offspring).

Of course, it’s also important to remember that not all immigrants come from Mexico. Many Americans don’t realize it, but by Third World standards, Mexicans on average aren’t particularly poor. According to the CIA World Factbook, there are no less that 5,366,204,659 people living in countries with lower average per capita incomes than Mexico.

To put it another way, 79% of world lives in countries poorer than Mexico.

(Of course, the Mexican average is a little skewed by the World Richest Man, Carlos Slim, major creditor of the New York Times, and his fellow oligarchs.)

It’s commonly implied in the MSM that Mexicans immigrate to the U.S. to avoid seeing their children die of starvation. Yet, life expectancy in Mexico (76.3 years) is now essentially as high (97.5 percent) in the U.S.

No, Mexicans don’t immigrate to America to live longer—they immigrate to live larger: to have a large vehicle, a large house, a large TV, and a large family. All of which equate to large carbon emissions.

American white liberals tend to imagine that Mexico has a donkey-based economy, and thus that Mexicans must be blank slates who would naturally follow white liberals’ advice.

Bunk. Stemming from the discovery of oil in Mexico (by the great American geologist Everette Le DeGolyer in 1910), Mexico has long been, by Third World norms, car-crazy and energy-profligate. The government of Mexico has subsidized gasoline purchases for decades.

When my Southern California family drove to Mexico in the 1960s, we’d debate whether to fill up in San Diego or wait until Tijuana for the cheap (but noxious) Pemex gas.

To return to my theme: In most other immigrant-exporting countries, the carbon emission immigration multiplier is substantially higher than that of Mexico. For instance, if a normal Dominican immigrates to America and successfully assimilates his carbon emissions would increase 9.7 times. For most Central Americans, the Immigration Multiplier is around 20X. For Haitians, it’s 79.3X.

But because Mexicans comprise the single largest group of immigrants, and because their carbon Immigration Multiplier appears to be fairly typical, I’ll use Mexicans to illustrate the effects of immigration.

When I’ve brought these inconvenient truths up in discussions, on the rare occasions when Save the Worlders respond logically, they sometimes dredge up the response that Mexico will, surely Real Soon Now, emit as much carbon per capita as the U.S.

I don’t see much evidence for that in the UN figures. Mexico’s per capita carbon emissions were estimated to be 18 percent as high as America’s in 1982, and 22 percent as high a quarter of a century later in 2007. At that rate, it would take many generations to close the gap.

Global warming activists haven’t found many other objections to sputter. Their thought processes tend to be restricted to Immigration Good! Carbon Bad! Does not compute… These are HateStats!

This is representative of the kind of childishness that passes for political discourse in America today. The feuds of junior high school girls are more reality-based than what passes for current elite discourse, which consists largely of 99 percent fact-free status posturing.

Why this intellectual decline? At present, Americans are, by historical standards, extraordinarily rich. Thus, we assume we will always be able to afford to indulge in petulance rather than use facts and logic.

Of course, we aren’t quite as rich as we thought we were three years ago. But our intellectual maturity hasn’t caught up yet.

So let’s examine some logical objections to my argument for the global warming worriers.

Consider a very simplified model in which an immigrant from Mexico will either succeed or fail at assimilating to American norms on two dimensions: Earning and Consuming.

Let’s start with the upper left hand corner of this quadrant: American Dream. In this scenario, the typical Mexican who immigrates to the U.S. achieves the American Dream. He succeeds at consuming like an American (e.g., big SUV, big air-conditioned house in suburbs, big TV, and so forth) and also (this is important) earning like an American. Therefore, his contribution to global greenhouse gas emission will be vastly greater than if he stayed home in Mexico. Even more importantly, so will his descendants’ carbon emissions.

In the lower right corner, we see the opposite outcome: Undercaste. Here, the Mexican immigrant fails to earn a better life for himself and his offspring. He does not succeed at assimilating to American norms of earning and consuming. He and his descendents ride the bus to their low-productivity jobs. Under this scenario, Mexican immigrants don’t pay enough taxes to make up for all the social services they consume and all the damage they do to the public schools. Yet, at least from a greenhouse gas perspective, an Undercaste outcome would be greatnews.

But, we are constantly admonished that that it’s racist to even entertain the thought that many Mexicans are unlikely to fully assimilate.

In the lower left corner is the unspoken liberal assumption about the impact of Mexican immigration: Ecotopia. This logical possibility is the favorite of the sort of white liberals who have farm simulators on their iPhones. Of course, it is the least logical or possible.

They assume Mexican immigrants rapidly achieve American levels of income to pay the taxes for all the social programs that progressives favor. Yet, for unexplained reasons, the Mexican immigrants and their progeny choose to live like Portland trustfunders whose hobby is a “sustainable” lifestyle based on walking to Whole Foods for heirloom tomatoes. On the rare occasions when these Mexican immigrant families drive anywhere, it would be in their vegetable oil-powered Toyota Prius hybrid.

The Ecotopia assumption is the only logical way to square enthusiasm about immigration with alarmism about greenhouse gases.

Of course, this view is seldom articulated fully—because it’s absurd to anybody who knows any Mexicans other than that cool guy from Cuernavaca they met at film school.

It’s not a coincidence that perhaps the finest contribution by Chicanos to American popular art in the mid-20th Century was the customized lowrider car. Mexicans love cars—the bigger the better.

In contrast, how many Mexicans do you see driving Prius hybrids? As far as I can tell, Toyota hasn’t yet bothered selling its Prius in Mexico (population 112,000,000). Nor do many Mexican-Americans want one either. A poll of readers of Prius Chat found that only 3 percent were Hispanic. If you are familiar with the ethnic layout of Los Angeles County, you’ll enjoy this map of Prius registrations by zip code.

Whatever stereotypes Larry David’s environmentalist ex-wife entertains about flyover folks’ lack of environmental sensitivity are much truer of Mexican immigrants.

But that never comes up in global warming worriers’ conversations—because they never pay attention to Mexicans.

In the upper right corner of the quadrant, the worst of both worlds happen: Bush Bubble. In this scenario, the Mexican immigrant and his offspring spend like an American—buying a big house, a big vehicle, and a big TV, all on credit—but earn like a Mexican. They eventually default on their mortgages.

And, indeed, this is roughly what happened in the exurbs of California during the Bush Bubble years: a baby boom, a housing and spending bubble, and a crash of defaults.

Moreover, the more you think about the impact of Mexican immigration, the worse it is for carbon emissions. Immigration contributes both directly and indirectly to sprawl. Mexican immigration to cities tends to drive Americans, including blacks and American-born Hispanics, to the exurbs to find decent public school districts—at the cost of long commutes for parents. For example, immigration into Los Angeles, with its mild climate, spawned an enormous housing bubble in the hot Inland Empire, where air conditioning costs are high.

As Joel Kotkin has often pointed out, most immigrants in the 21st Century want to spend as little time in the inner city as possible and instead move directly to a suburb or exurb.

Finally, Mexican immigrants tend to have higher birthrates in America than they would have had if they stayed home. In California in 2005, foreign-born Latinas were having babies at a rate of 3.7 children per lifetime versus about 2.4 for women in Mexico and 1.6 for American-born white women in California.

On the whole, we can be sure that immigration’s overall effect will be some combination of American Dream, Undercaste, and Bush Bubble. It’s not a coincidence that Ecotopias, such as Portland, are found far from the Mexican border.

Let’s assume for the sake of calculating immigration’s impact on carbon emissions in 2050 that the optimists are right and American Dream is the standard outcome.

When the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming is finally brought to the attention of global warming activists, many scoff at the idea that immigration could have any sizable impact on the U.S. population.

But that is simply ignorance. The Pew Research Center reported in 2008:

“If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center.”[Immigration to Play Lead Role In Future U.S. Growth, by Jeffrey Passel and D'Vera Cohn, February 11, 2008]

So, that’s 116 million additional people in America due to immigration from 2005 onward. (Perhaps another 50 or 60 million of that forecasted population of 438 million would be due to immigration from 1965-2004.)

Assuming that these immigrants emit carbon at the American average,the U.S. in 2050 will emit 39 percent more carbon than if animmigration moratorium had been imposed in 2005.

Confronted with this logic, global warming activists tend to say: Well,All We Have To Do is cut emissions per capita even more to make up for immigration.

But immigration means that we’re falling behind by about one-third before we even begin to cut. How does that make sense if we have to Save the World?

Each American would have to personally reduce his or her carbon emissions by 28 percent by 2050, simply to make up for post-2005 immigration. And that’s just to keep the national carbon emission total flat. Lowering U.S. emissions becomes even more difficult due to immigration.

Conclusion: When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

America is widely denounced for accounting for about 20 percent of world carbon dioxide outputs. Yet, the 2005-2050 addition to the American population caused by immigration would alone account for an additional eight percentage points of the global total.

The net effect of post-2005 immigration to America (taking into account what the immigrants would have emitted back home in Mexico or other countries), is six or seven points. In other words, by 2050, post-2005 immigration to the U.S. will have the impact on greenhouse gases of another one-third of an America coming into existence.

The impact by 2100 will be significantly greater.

Bottom line: U.S. immigration restriction is a relatively simple and sure way to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.

That it almost never comes up in current debate says a great deal about what might laughingly be described as modern “thought”.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative.

His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Global Warming, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

An excerpt from my VDARE.com column from last week:

Shortly after President Obama returns to Washington from Norway with his Nobel Prize, he’s going to roar off to Denmark in his personal 747 jumbo jet to raise awareness about the need to cut carbon emissions to forestall Climate Change—the cause formerly known as “Global Warming”.

But while the President gears up his campaign for Climate Change awareness in Denmark, a Population Change anti-awareness campaign has long been in full swing in America.

The acid test of the sincerity of Climate Change activists: do they publicly demand a U.S immigration moratorium to keep carbon emissions from increasing?

A few environmentalists pass this test proudly. For example, Californians for Population Stabilization have started a new ad campaign:

“The campaign recognizes immigration as the number one factor driving U.S. population growth and makes the point that when immigrants settle in the U.S. their energy use quickly becomes Americanized. As a result, immigrants’ carbon emissions skyrocket. The result is a quadrupling of immigrants’ carbon footprint compared to the amount of carbon emissions they produced in their home countries.”

Mexicans don’t illegally immigrate to avoid starvation. The average life expectancy in Mexico is over 76 years. Instead, the major motivations for sneaking into America include: the hope of owning a big truck or SUV and to have more kids than you could afford to have in your own country. The current total fertility rate in Mexico is 2.34 babies per woman per lifetime—versus 3.7 babies among immigrant Latinas in California.

But, alas, the vast majority of those who claim that carbon emissions is the overwhelming issue of our age fail this test of good faith flatly.

On the other hand, their dishonesty doesn’t guarantee that they aren’t right about carbon and global warming. Global warming true believers seem, on the whole, like the kind of people who would be more likely to be right about something for bad reasons than for good reasons.

As you may have noticed from the above, I normally don’t have much to say about climate change. I’m sort of an agnostic.

I know enough about statistics to realize how much effort would be required for me to develop an opinion worth expressing. Nor is it obvious that, even if I invested years of work, I would be able to add much value to the discussion.

After all, both sides in the debate over anthropogenic global warming debate are lavishly funded. …

Yet why are those Climate Change insights so seldom applied to the question of Population Change?

Read the whole thing there and comment upon it below.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Global Warming 
🔊 Listen RSS

The President is about roar off to Copenhagen in his personal 747 jumbo jet to raise awareness, in a December 9 speech, of how carbon emissions lead to Climate Change—the cause formerly known as “Global Warming”.

But while the President gears up his campaign for Climate Change awareness in Denmark, a Population Change anti-awareness campaign has long been in full swing in America.

The acid test of the sincerity of Climate Change activists:do they publicly demand a U.S immigration moratorium to keep carbon emissions from increasing?

A few environmentalists pass this test proudly. For example,Californians for Population Stabilization has started a new ad campaign. Their press release says:

“The campaign recognizes immigration as the number one factor driving U.S. population growth and makes the point that whenimmigrants settle in the U.S. their energy use quickly becomes Americanized. As a result, immigrants’ carbon emissions skyrocket. The result is a quadrupling of immigrants’ carbon footprint compared to the amount of carbon emissions they produced in their homecountries.”

Mexicans don’t illegally immigrate to avoid starvation. The average life expectancy in Mexico is over 76 years. Instead, the major motivations for sneaking into America include: the hope of owning a big truck or SUV; and to have more kids than you could afford to have in your own country. The current total fertility rate in Mexico is 2.34 babies per woman per lifetime—versus 3.7 babies among immigrant Latinas in California.

But, alas, the vast majority of those who claim that carbon emissions is the overwhelming issue of our age fail this test of good faith flatly.

On the other hand, their dishonesty doesn’t guarantee that they aren’t right about carbon and global warming. Global warming truebelievers seem, on the whole, like the kind of people who would be more likely to be right about something for bad reasons than for good reasons.

As you may have noticed from the above, I normally don’t have much to say about climate change. I’m sort of an agnostic.

I know enough about statistics to realize how much effort would be required for me to develop an opinion worth expressing. Nor is it obvious that, even if I invested years of work, I would be able to add much value to the discussion.

After all, both sides in the debate over anthropogenic global warming debate are lavishly funded.

Thus the participants have much to lose if the numbers don’t come out the way they want. This is demonstrated by the Climategate scandal, in which a skeptical whistleblower leaked embarrassing emails from the prestigious Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

I do instinctively admire much of the Burkean-sounding rhetoric used by Climate Change activists: “sustainability”; cautiousness about the future; a concern for the long-term impact of millions of small action; a regard for the welfare of posterity.

Yet why are those Climate Change insights so seldom applied to the question of Population Change?

So I’ve decided to devote my time to Population Change. It’s an issue that is at least comparable in long-term importance to Climate Change. The changing makeup of the population has far-reaching ramifications that deserve well-informed public discussion. But, of course, that’s not a fashionable view on either the Left or the corporate Right.

Unlike with Climate Change, there’s almost no debate over the numbers with Population Change. The government collects voluminous statistics about the present that are, at minimum, good enough for government work, and make plausible demographic projections about the future.

Nor do I have to worry much about my rivals in the Population Change debate. While the other side enjoys unlimited access to the media, it simply prefers demonizing to debating.

Quantifying what you can see with your own eyes makes you a badperson these days. A nice person, one who believes in climate change, has faith in the power of things unseen.

To serve my country, I just have to have a thick enough hide to withstand rage-filled respectable conduits of the reigning dogmasscreaming “How dare you?” at me.

Mostly, I just have to dare.

Moreover, the data, both governmental and academic, merely confirm what’s visible to anyone with eyes to see. In contrast, the scariest prediction of Al Gore and Co.—that the ice caps will melt, causing the seas to rise andinundate us—is not at all obvious from just using your eyes.

I went for a walk on a Southern California beach recently, and couldn’t see any evidence of the ocean level rising.

That doesn’t mean ocean levels aren’t—or at least won’tstart—rising Real Soon Now. But it does mean that it’s not at all obvious.

And, as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, you have to notice the dogs that aren’t barking.

For example, are California surfers complaining that rising seas are wiping out beaches, or deepening the water over underwater reefs that cause famous breaks like the Pipeline in Orange County?

Not that I’m aware of.

Are rich, white liberal environmental activists who live on the beach in Malibu, such as David Geffen, fleeing to the High Desert?

Walking the beach recently after a rain shower, I didn’t notice any For Sale signs on the zillionaires’ homes forty yards from the surf. Indeed, in California, home prices have proven much more resilient in direct proportion to how close they are to the ocean’s edge, while they’veplummeted in the high and dry Inland Empire.

This is not to say that there’s nothing to worry about from Climate Change. Yet what people seem to actually be affected by, as demonstrated in real estate prices, is Population Change.

The Mortgage Meltdown is closely linked to populationchange. For example, the correlation for the 20 biggestCalifornia metropolitan areas between minority share ofsubprime mortgages in 2006 and foreclosure rates in 2009 was a stratospheric r = 0.89.

California has already been inundated, fiscally, by the rising tide of population change.

But only evil people like me are aware of that—and dare to tell the rest of America.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative.

His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Global Warming, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Hill reports:

Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.

Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

The e-mails, from scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained through hacking. The messages showed the director of the university’s Climate Research Unit discussing ways to strengthen the unit’s case for global warming. Climate change skeptics have seized on the e-mails, arguing that they demonstrate manipulation in environmental science.

Boxer said her committee may hold hearings into the matter as its top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), has asked for, but that a criminal probe would be part of any such hearings.

“We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not,” Boxer said. “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

“This is a crime,” Boxer said.

I was under the impression that East Anglia is in the United Kingdom, not the United States, which would suggest that any criminal probe would be up to British authorities, not U.S. Senators, but what do I know compared to Senator Boxer?

Does anybody know who hacked and/or leaked the emails?

British libertarian activist Sean Gabb tosses out a fun conspiracy theory: Vladimir Putin dunnit.

But the Russians had means and opportunity to do the job. Perhaps their security services are no longer as efficient and as well-funded as in Soviet times. But they are still there. Their mission is no longer to win the Cold War. But making life easier for Mr Putin and his friends is a large mission in itself. They no longer have an active network in British universities. But there must be any number of senior managers there whose activities back in the 1980s would merit an outing in The Daily Mail, and who therefore are open to blackmail.

And the Russians had the best motive imaginable. Anthropogenic global warming is, as said, a pack of lies. But there is huge money behind it. And it is conceivable that Western scientific ingenuity will find a “carbon free” energy source that both works and is economically viable. Now, where would that leave Russia? Without its exports of oil and gas, the place is little more than a bankrupt post-Soviet slagheap.

I can top that conspiracy theory! If I were Putin, I would want to discredit Global Warming theorists in order to make Global Warming more likely. It’s too damn cold in Russia right now.

What a hero Putin would become to Russians of the future! Grateful Russians would annually celebrate the anniversary of his ascent to power on December 31, 1999 by, say, holding a huge beach volleyball tournament in Murmansk.

It would be like Lex Luthor’s plan in Superman to own all the beachfront property in Nevada by having California fall into the ocean. Russia has 38,000 kilometers of coastline, much of it on the Arctic Ocean, which would become the new Russian Riviera.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Global Warming 
🔊 Listen RSS

Much of the popularity of Global Warming Awareness stems from the fact that almost nobody is capable of noticing Global Warming without benefit of Global Warming Awareness Campaigns.

For example, I have fairly decent pattern recognition skills. And I’ve been hiking the same trails on the north side of the Hollywood Hills for the last 45 years. Having grown up in a dry region, I am a big fan of verdant nature, so I pay careful attention to how green the hillsides are at each point in the season.

Now, you might think that I would have noticed evidence in these wooded canyons and sagebrush hillsides of long-term Climate Change. But I haven’t.

I am not saying it’s not happening. Perhaps there is a long-term trend that remains invisible to me under the much more visible seasonal cycles and the random noise.

What I am saying is that, at least so far, a highly observant and statistically-minded citizen such as myself hasn’t noticed Global Warming going on in his own environment. Without the aid of Global Warming Awareness Campaigns, I would never have become aware of Global Warming just by hiking in the same environment decade after decade.

I think that explains a lot of the Gnostic appeal of Global Warming Awareness. When you become Global Warming Aware, you are superior to the unenlightened masses. You have access to evidence of things unseen. You are one of the elite who are aware of knowledge that can only be gathered through the most esoteric means and analyzed by the most profound scholars.

In contrast, much of the things that I notice in my daily life, such a racial differences in crime rates and intelligence, are the kinds of things that are so overwhelmingly obvious that many people take pride in not knowing about them. (At least, they don’t know about them when discussing public issues. They seem to know about them just fine when choosing where to buy a house or when deciding where to school their children.)

In fact, many popular people actively engage in Anti-Awareness Campaigns intended to increase ignorance. (For example, the President of the United States likes to boast of his long fight against awareness of racial crime rate gaps.) For this, they are showered with public approbation.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Global Warming 
🔊 Listen RSS

The single largest problem posed by global warming would be if the seas rose and increasingly inundated Bangladesh, an extremely densely populated (current population 156 million) and low-lying region long vulnerable to typhoons (e.g., George Harrison’s Concert for Bangladesh). One obvious way to mitigate this vulnerability would be to increasingly encourage Bangladeshis to use birth control.

Similarly, one of the most obvious causes of increased carbon emissions is mass immigration from the Third World to the First World (e.g., from Mexico to America). So, more stringent restrictions on immigration would be an obvious policy implication.

Somehow, though, I don’t think Al Gore has ever gotten around to mentioning either of these bits of logic.

If Global Warming is such an all important topic, then surely these simple steps for mitigating it should be on the table, surely. And yet, they just never seem to come up. It’s not so much as that they’ve been rejected as that they simply are, literally, unthinkable.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Global Warming 
🔊 Listen RSS

As you may have noticed, I don’t write much about global warming. It’s a complex subject that would take me a long time to master and I don’t see much evidence that I would contribute anything novel and important if I ever did.

That said, I do have a suggestion for a straightforward way to lessen future harm caused by global warming that I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere:

Bring down the birthrate in Bangladesh, fast.

The logic is this:

If global warming is happening severely enough to partially melt polar ice caps and thus raise sea levels, the most severely impacted country would likely be Bangladesh, which topographically resembles the Mississippi Delta that took such a hit from Katrina in 2005: low-lying land vulnerable to big storms off the ocean. The current population of Bangladesh is 150 million and the total fertility rate is 3.09 babies per woman. The U.S. Census Bureau forecasts that the population of Bangladesh will almost double between now and 2050, when it will reach 280 million, assuming half of them aren’t washed out to see in a big cyclone.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Global Warming 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation