Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”     Barry Goldwater

June 14, 2007

Environmentalism: The Biggest Threat To Freedom

by Doug Mataconis

Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic writes in the Financial Times that he sees environmentalism as the biggest threat to individual liberty:

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

Though the environmentalists will no doubt denounce him, Klaus has a point. The leading lights of the environmentalist political movement are clearly, and explicitly, collectivist. They advocate measures that would subordinate individual liberty to political will or scientific consensus, often with only the flimsiest support for their theories.

Before we all march hand in hand into Al Gore’s Green Utopia, we need to be asking ourselves if it’s worth the price of our freedom.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/06/14/environmentalism-the-biggest-threat-to-freedom/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

33 Comments

  1. Governments have been just as responsible for environmental disasters as anyone else, if not more so. The Army Corp of Engineers building the levees in New Orleans effectively destroying all the natural wetlands.

    The idea that it requires the State to protect the environment seems ridiculous. Seems like if property rights were properly enforced, conservation and environmental protection would happen naturally. That is, why would people knowing destroy the value of their property?

    Best line I’ve heard on this is from my dad, who basically said, “I’m tired of rich people telling poor people how to conserve.”

    Comment by js290 — June 14, 2007 @ 9:50 am
  2. You make the assumption that the property owner will *value* the property as anything more than space, or that they’ll value all parts of the property as highly as the others.

    But it is true that governments have a tendency to destroy the environment just as much as anything, if not more.

    Current ‘environmentalist’ dictates are mutually exclusive. They want to establish socialism while at the same time reducing the environmental footprint of a country.

    There’s no incentive not to waste. More importantly when it belongs to ‘the people’ it doesn’t belong to anyone.

    Effective conservation would require a combination of government and business. Bill Weber and Amy Veddeer (the people who inherited Diane Fossey’s gorilla park), Garret Hardin (a libertarian conservationist), Teddy, and Ducks Unlimited, just to name a few, are organizations with their heads on straight, more or less.

    Comment by Nick — June 14, 2007 @ 10:07 am
  3. The environmentalists are absolutely right. The evidence is far from flimsy, and although the exact extent is not easy to predict, what has been proven beyond reasonably doubt is that human activity has a significant effect on the climate.

    Freedoms of expression, freedoms of assembly should always be held sacred, freedom of trade should be kept, too, but your freedom to mess up the world in a way that could render it inhospitable in fifty years time, when my children or I are still around, is a freedom must be balanced against the needs of the future generation.

    Comment by Mike K — June 14, 2007 @ 10:52 am
  4. Mike K,
    Leaving aside the issues of long term climate trends, their causes and effects, your last point reflects what I find offensive about most persons with “environmentalist” views.

    When you “balance” my freedoms to use or abuse my property against the “needs” of some amorphous group, you take away my freedoms. You or someone declare themselves the unimpeachable arbiter of “what’s good for the needs of ______” and proceed to deny my liberty without recourse.

    I have the freedom to lawfully use my property in a way that pleases me so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of other (actual, non-hypothetical) individuals. If I poison the air that blows on to your land, I should be compelled to stop. If I use natural resources or drive an SUV that denies some future person the use of that resource/energy, it’s not your place to deny me that freedom.

    Comment by Mark T — June 14, 2007 @ 11:20 am
  5. >> what has been proven beyond reasonably doubt is that human activity has a significant effect on the climate.

    Mike, actually, it most certainly has not. If you look at C02 measurements throughout this century, you will see a steady rise, completely consistent with the earth biosphere outgassing C02. Then consider that human output of C02 has varied widely. For example, during the depression worldwide output of C02 dropped by like half. If our C02 amounted to anything at all, this change would be reflected in C02 measurements.

    There isn’t even the tiniest hint of an effect.

    Yes, the world may have warmed a bit, but this is because the sun has been more active. Hence, the warming seen on Neptune.

    Comment by Gunnar — June 14, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
  6. You make the assumption that the property owner will *value* the property as anything more than space, or that they’ll value all parts of the property as highly as the others.

    I assume the owner is free to value his property any way he so chooses.

    Comment by js290 — June 15, 2007 @ 3:01 am
  7. The real environmental threat always boils down to the sheer number of people on the planet. Coal-fired electricity plants, automobiles, whatever, taken individually, almost any of these sources “pollutes” less than a comparable example 50 years ago. Today’s much larger population means we need a lot more electricity plants and automobiles which taken together, generate a helluva lot more pollution than 50 years ago.

    The “environmentalist” solution to this problem is to restrict our behavior, and dictate our choices so as to me more “green”. This seems like a short-term solution to me — if our population keeps growing we’ll have to eliminate a lot more than just SUV’s.

    What I’ve never understood is why the environmentalists don’t just go to the root of the problem, and try to limit population growth. It seems more honest, and if it worked, it’d be a lot more effective solution in the long run.

    s.s.

    Comment by Steve S. — June 15, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
  8. Steve,

    You have not provided any evidentiary or logical support for your position. The reality is that there is no “over population” problem. Men are like little ants running over this rock. Technically speaking we affect the environment every time we go outside, and the temperature is less than 98.6. Man must have an effect, but it’s too small to measure. Consider carefully what I’ve explained about the C02 above.

    We cannot even measure the thermodynamic state of the earth. Man is dwarfed by nature. And nature is more than just a few plants at the park. It includes the sun, which has regular solar flares 100 times bigger than the earth, and cosmic radiation which controls cloud formation.

    Comment by Gunnar — June 15, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
  9. I wasn’t trying to prove that man has affected the climate (I think so, but that’s beside the point).

    What I’m really wondering is why those who do accept that premise (i.e., most “environmentalists”), don’t also advocate for a reduction in the population.

    Comment by Steve S. — June 15, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
  10. Anybody thought what will have when all 1 billion Chinese Drive? They are 1/6th the world’s population now what will they be in ten years.

    For those young people who think they will live to 100; the consequences of your actions will have time to have an effect on your neighbors. You will be infringing on someone else’s rights not someone two generations to come. It is a possibility you could, just by driving, be affecting people with respiratory diseases right now. You seem to think you have no interaction with society.

    Comment by VRB — June 15, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
  11. You seem to think you have no interaction with society.

    No, no, and no. Clearly, each individuals interaction with society and with nature is non-zero. As Gunnar already explained we influence the world around us every time we step out the door. Those effects, however, are certainly negligible individually and might even be negligible in aggregate.

    By driving my old clunker do I somehow affect those with asthma more than if I drove a Prius? If so, how much? Do I make their asthma 10% worse? .00001% worse? (1E-12)% worse? The point is such effects are unquantifiable and are not worthy of any sort of government action. Should I stop eating peanuts for fear of setting off those with a peanut allergy?

    Even if the aggregate effects are cataclysmic (as the global warming “experts” say) you’d be hard pressed to justify infringing on someone’s rights because their carbon output raises the average global temperature .000000000000001 degrees C. And yet, this is the precisely what the environmentalists are trying to do.

    Comment by Bret — June 15, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
  12. Bret
    You sweep with a wide brush. Because you are not and will not consider it, you have no idea what environmentalist think. Every one is not Al Gore. As for you data, I have seen other values. I guess every one picks and chooses. One thing you ought to see are the tons of solid waste in just one city that come from humans. No impact ludicrous! Just how much money do you think it takes to remove the crap you flush down the toilet from the water you drink. Since we humans have so little impact, would you drink untreated water?
    The hydrocarbons that create the green house gases are invisible, I guess its hard for you to imagine them existing at all. Do you you think it’s junk science because it doesn’t fit your world view; or is it that you might be morally required to review your actions, since you don’t want conform with anything or acknowledge any responsibility? Funny, on issues like these responsibility is never mentioned. Is that a word you save for the left only?

    I consider every philosophy on this blog to be a political system.

    Comment by VRB — June 15, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
  13. >> tons of solid waste in just one city that come from humans. No impact ludicrous!

    Like Bret and I have pointed out, no one said there was “no” impact. But VRB, you need a sense of perspective. Something like a few cubic miles in Nevada could hold all US garbage for 100 years. Without a map, you couldn’t find it. Yes, it’s a lot, but you simply don’t seem to understand the enormity of the earth. And then there is the marianas trench, which has more garbage space than we can possibly imagine. It’s even good for nuclear waste, since water neutralizes radiation, and the earths crust there is more radioactive than what we throw away.

    >> green house gases are invisible, I guess its hard for you to imagine them existing at all. Do you you think it’s junk science

    No, it’s junk science by definition. You need to learn more about science and the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method:

    the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability

    A real scientist comes up with a theory and then tries to falsify it. Only failed attempts to falsify actually give a theory credibility. One successful falsification attempt is enough to invalidate the theory.

    Since the man made green house warming theory has not passed falsification attempts, it’s junk science. Since the proponents don’t attempt to falsify, they are not scientists.

    For example, if one claims that humans are causing a certain effect, you would have to eliminate other causes first. Even before you get to the unlikely idea that C02 is a climate driver, you first have to show that Man is capable of changing the earth’s C02 level. For example, the fact that Man’s C02 output declined dramatically during the depression, yet C02 measurements were unaffected is a successful falsification attempt. Man’s C02 output is negligible.

    Science is about measurement. We cannot measure C02 flows either from man or nature. We cannot measure the thermodynamic state of the earth, not even of the atmosphere, which stores the least energy. It’s not science.

    There is a solid alternate explanation for the recent warming: Water vapor is the dominent GHG. Cloud formation is greatly affected by cosmic rays. When the sun strengthens, it blocks the cosmic rays, and when it weakens, cosmic rays are unblocked. Imagine a person sitting in the dark with sun glasses on. And for some reason, whenever the light is turned on, the glasses come off, and vice versa. This results in the suns variation being magnified in effect.

    Whereas there is no climate correlation to C02, there is a strong correlation between climate and sun activity. A real experiment was conducted to attempt to falsify, which it passed: cosmic rays do cause clouds to form.

    Comment by Gunnar — June 15, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
  14. I’ve had a read of Vaclav’s thesis:
    >>The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions.

    By ‘us’ is that humanity, politicians, polluters?

    >>Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority

    The funny thing is that ‘scientific consensus’, through peer-review, is very much the mechanism for minimising the ‘politicisation’ of science.

    I don’t think this whole global warming thing is some lefty-collectivist-conspiracy to rob you of your right to drive a Hummer.

    Comment by Marcin — June 16, 2007 @ 6:45 am
  15. @Gunnar

    Since you’re a fan of Wikipedia, this quote from near the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays :
    >>At the time we pointed out that while the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more ‘popular’ pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes.

    (My emphasis)

    The fundamental issue I have with the doubt over climate change is that we are not talking about a small number of scientists, or agenda-driven research teams (you know, like they had in tobacco labs). These are highly qualified people who have been pretty much saying the same thing for years and years, but only recently have had the data and processing to be able to reach a 90% confidence level that human activity contributes to global warming.

    90% is pretty close to 100%.

    Comment by Marcin — June 16, 2007 @ 7:06 am
  16. Gunner,
    Before solid waste could be sent to Nevada it has to be removed. If it has no impact why remove it at all?

    Because you quote statistics does not mean you know any thing about science either. For one thing you would know that there is more than CO2 the scientist are concerned with. Do go to the library and read peer reviewed journals and please do not refer to wikipedia as the your source of scientific knowledge. Some of the statistics here appear to be suspect. You did not give us several unrelated sources from respected scientific journals about meteorology to support your numbers.

    And just what do you assume my education has been? Because I don’t agree, I could not possibly had any science education? I can be wrong in my assessment of what I read, but what I am saying here I think is just common sense. I am not arguing the cause of global warming, I am just arguing that you can not make an argument that humans do not have any impact on earth. If you said the solar system, galaxy or universe, I would agree and from the perspective of the universe we all are inconsequential.

    Comment by VRB — June 16, 2007 @ 8:14 am
  17. Gunner, I apologize because I got confused when you were responding as if you were Bret. I was referring to Bret’s numbers and your facts.

    Comment by VRB — June 16, 2007 @ 8:21 am
  18. Marcin said:

    The funny thing is that ’scientific consensus’, through peer-review, is very much the mechanism for minimising the ‘politicisation’ of science.

    You’re kidding right? Peer review is one of the best mechanisms ever developed for stifling dissent and enabling politicization.

    Peer review was meant to be something else entirely but over time, science has grown large and variegated enough that a certain amount of self-ordering occurs.

    People who worry about the environment are more likely to become environmental scientists. Likewise, hippies are more likely to become primatologists (my field) than non-hippies.

    Or in medicine (my future field), doctors like to believe that they are all that stand between us and falling apart completely. So they go out of their way to find ’causes’ of illness and disease and state that there are genes ‘for’ things. That’s how we ended up with The Metabolic Syndrome, formerly known as being out of shape.

    So things like ‘global warming’ become popular because they want it to be true. People continue to peddle the myth that humans should be as promiscuous as chimps and bonobos. And doctors continue to tell people that it ‘isn’t their fault, here’s a pill’.

    I’ve dealt with this as both a monkey and a people researcher where ‘scientific consensus’ was against me. Their best criticism in both cases was to stick their fingers in their ears and scream *nananabooboo I can’t hear you*

    Comment by Nick — June 17, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
  19. I’m a little concerned about the position that some have adopted that there ‘is no evidence’ of increased CO2 or that it plays a role in global warming.

    Antarctic ice cores contain tiny bubbles that can provide insight to Earth’s atmospheric composition. Since snow consistently falls over the polar regions, there is a steady formation of new ice containing air dating back thousands of years.

    In 1998, a joint Russian, French, and American project drilled the ice core at Vostok station. They drilled nearly 3900 meters of ice, giving them a sample of air over the past 400,000 years. Their analysis of ice core indicated that CO2 levels have held constant in the 200 parts per million range with some variations up to 300 ppm. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm

    Today, Earth’s CO2 level is at 380 ppm and climbing. In other words, we have more CO2 in our atmosphere today then we have had in 400,000 years. Australian research teams have drilled smaller ice cores dating back a few hundred years, and have seen constant (~240 ppm) levels with a severe upward trend starting in roughly 1880. This extreme surge in CO2 levels – nearly 140 ppm million in 140 years – certainly indicates that something is at work.

    We know from our observations of Venus that carbon dioxide has a significant role in retaining solar heat. We know that burning a gallon of gasoline produces twenty-two pounds of carbon dioxide. We know that we began to see a surge of carbon dioxide over the last 140 years. We know that the industrial revolution took hold over that time and that coal-fired plants and fossil fuel burning engines came into place. We know that glaciers are disappering. We have measured rising temperatures of oceans. We know that methyl hydrate nodules formerly suspended in the ocean floor are melting and will release methane into the air, which retains even more heat than carbon dioxide.

    Why is it such a reach to so many people that man’s burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the warming of the planet?

    Comment by David T — June 18, 2007 @ 10:12 am
  20. David I’ve got nothing against the premise that CO2 levels are linked to global warming. But if the hypothesis was so strong why do some go so far out of the way to manipulate the data?

    My favorite was the study that redefined a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT as considerably higher because they weren’t happy with the (small) size of the effect the study initially produced… That’s unconscionable, but apparently allowed when it comes to environmental science.

    The other problem I have is that our methods of curtailing emissions. Especially when it comes to cars, we reached the point of diminishing returns a long, long, long time ago.

    By comparison, putting tin foil on a cow reduces emissions much more drastically than the 9 million dollars worth of equipment a car now wears.

    But there’s no talk of controlling cow butt gas is there?

    Comment by Nick — June 18, 2007 @ 11:38 am
  21. Nick,

    I am not being facetious when I say this, but I’m not aware of manipulation of data in support of the global warming hypothsis. I suspect that people who have bought into global warming, but don’t fully understand the science, articulate it in a way that makes you think the Arctic will disappear tomorrow, which is unhelpful to the discussion. I’ve not heard of a universal constant, either.
    We’ve done out best to minimize the noxious output of combustion engines. However, there are plenty of automobiles throughout the world whose exhaust systems are not up to the standards of the United States, and they are dispensing CO and CO2. As long as we continue to use fossil fuels, this will be a by-product.

    We also suffer from law of the masses. Combustion is an imperfect process, so no matter how efficient it is, there is still residual CO2. When you multiply this residual by the hundreds of millions, then we are placing enorumous amounts of CO2 back into the atmosphere. In effect, we’re taking carbon that was trapped in petroleum and setting it free.

    Cows are indeed a methane producer. Human waste is also. Because we cannot short-circuit the digestive process, we turn to what we can control: cars and fossil fuel burning.

    Comment by David T — June 18, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
  22. >> The funny thing is that ’scientific consensus’,

    Science is not about “consensus”. Historically, “consensus” is only invoked when there is no real scientific evidence

    >> through peer-review, is very much the mechanism for minimising the ‘politicisation’ of science.

    Actually, no part of the scientific method involves “peer review”. Science has been going on for millenia without “peer review”.

    >> I don’t think this whole global warming thing is some lefty-collectivist-conspiracy

    Science isn’t about what –you– think. What falsification attempts can you point to?

    >> Since you’re a fan of Wikipedia … do not refer to wikipedia

    argument by authority is a logic fallacy. Do you dispute the definition of the scientific method?

    >> Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate

    First, The sun controls our climate. That’s hardly new or disputed. You only need to observe the temperature difference between night and day, summer and winter. Even deep ocean temperatures go up and down with the seasons. Second, since 1954, solar scientists have known that the sun’s magnetic field, or heliosphere, shields the solar system from the full effects of cosmic rays, energetic atomic particles from space. (article)

    >> we are not talking about a small number of scientists

    Actually, the Wegman report made it clear that it is indeed a small number of scientists, all reviewing each other’s work. The mathematical term is “clique”.

    >> 90% is pretty close to 100%.

    Oh really? thanks for the insight. Problem is that 100% BS.

    >> If it has no impact why remove it at all?

    Straw man. Never said “no impact”. Just pointing out that human garbage is insignificant compared to earth.

    >> there is more than CO2 the scientist are concerned with.

    The whole theory is based on humans affecting C02 levels. If you can’t prove this scientifically, you really have nothing.

    >> what do you assume my education has been?

    Science is not about anyone’s education or qualifications. Science is about the scientific method.

    >> what I am saying here I think is just common sense.

    It’s not common sense. It’s mans’ conceit that man controls the climate, and not the sun.

    >> humans do not have any impact on earth.

    Never said “no impact”. Just a negligible impact, when it comes to climate.

    >> ‘is no evidence’ of increased CO2 or that it plays a role in global warming

    David, what I said is that it has not been established that Man is significantly affecting the C02 level. It is certainly going up, but the most reasonable explanation is that the biosphere is simply outgassing C02.

    >> we have more CO2 in our atmosphere today then we have had in 400,000 years… have seen constant (~240 ppm)… began to see a surge of carbon dioxide over the last 140 years

    Really? Professor Jaworowski has exposed this unsupported conclusion as a lie. I challenge everyone to read carefully his paper. Note figure 2. “improper manipulation” of data is just another way of saying “lying”. A sure way to know that real science is not the goal is when the proponents resort to lying.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    >> observations of Venus that carbon dioxide has a significant role in retaining solar

    Of course, Venus is also dramatically closer to the sun. The thick C02 atmosphere does trap heat, but Venus is so different from Earth. 97% C02 vs .035 %. No water on Venus, so no precipitation system to regulate temperature. No plants to absorb C02 and produce oxygen. To imply that earth is headed for Venus’s climate is simply irresponsible non-science.

    >> gasoline produces twenty-two pounds of carbon dioxide

    Yes, but all of mans’ C02 output is like a fart in a hurricane.

    >> coal-fired plants and fossil fuel burning engines came into place

    Most of the temp increase came before 1940. There has been no warming since 1998, even though India and China are dramatically increasing C02 output. Despite China’s booming economy, C02 measurements don’t show the China effect. C02 levels are rising, apparently without much impact from man. As I’ve said, the depression was a worlwide reduction in man’s C02 output, yet, C02 levels didn’t show it.

    The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes.

    http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

    >> We know that glaciers are disappering

    Glaciers are rivers of ice. There are about a dozen factors that influence them. If a water river stopped flowing, would you suspect warmer temperatures or a lack of precipitation first?

    >> We have measured rising temperatures of oceans

    Have we? Actually, in the last year, all the warming previously accumulated in the pacific vanished. What’s more, looking at the deep ocean thermetrics shows clearly that the Sun is controlling.

    This article shows that this issue is far from settled: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/14/questioning-ocean-warming/

    >> will release methane into the air

    nope. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp
    and: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-permafrost-scare/

    >> Why is it such a reach to so many people that man’s burning of fossil fuels is contributing to the warming of the planet

    Because with some proper perspective, believing that C02 going from .029% to .035% of the atmosphere is a disaster IS a stretch.

    btw, it now looks like oil is NOT a fossil fuel, but is actually produced by earth geological processes, and could last indefinitely.

    Comment by Gunnar — June 18, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
  23. Gunnar,
    Little impact to the earth, but what of the impact to man. The universe will probably be here long after humans. I thought specifically the environmental impetus was about humans and their survival on this planet. Humans may want to save other species, because of some wish to preserve the landscape of the past. Only humans can appreciate nostalgia.
    Even though cars produce quite a bit of CO2, manufacturing processes can produce much more than you think. Lookup emmission inventories and see what processes that produce million of tons of CO2. I think that would be much more than cow farts. It would take a lot of study for you to do , to really be able to argue against any scientific research. Reading one such study just doesn’t convince me.
    I don’t think anyone here is spectulating about a disastor, but think it neccessary to take note of what is happening. Some measures can already be taken with industry. It seems as if its all or nothing in most discussions and bordering on the hysterical. Would your world collasp, if they did find a direct correlation between green house gases and the earth temperature?

    Comment by VRB — June 18, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
  24. Callendar (1938) revived the hypothesis of “Greenhouse Warming” due to Man’s activity, proposed by Arrhenius (1896). Callendar may truly be regarded as the father of the current dogma on man-induced global warming (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b). In order to support his hypothesis, Callendar (1940, 1958) selected atmospheric CO2 data from the 19th and 20th centuries. Fonselius et al. (1956) showed that the raw data ranged randomly between about 250 and 550 ppmv (parts per million by volume) during this time period, but by selecting the data carefully Callendar was able to present a steadily rising trend from about 290 ppmv for the period 1866 – 1900, to 325 ppmv in 1956.

    Callendar was strongly criticized by Slocum (1955), who pointed out a strong bias in Callendar’s data selection method. Slocum pointed out that it was statistically impossible to find a trend in the raw data set, and that the total data set showed a constant average of about 335 ppmv over this period from the 19th to the 20th century. Bray (1959) also criticized the selection method of Callendar, who rejected values 10% or more different from the “general average”, and even more so when Callendar’s “general average” was neither defined nor given.

    For the MMGW to hold together even as a hypothesis, the following would have be correct:

    (1) pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was lower than today,

    FALSE. ~335 then, ~335 now.

    (2) atmospheric CO2 has steadily risen from its pre-industrial level to today’s level,

    FALSE. They faked the data to make it look this way. Measuring the global C02 level would be extremely difficult. Would anyone take the temperature at a single point and call that the global temperature. Now consider that they are measuring C02 on top of a volcanoe! Red flag anyone?

    (3) Man’s burning of fossil fuel is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 level,

    FALSE. Humans contribute only .2% of natural C02 transfer.

    (4) hence atmospheric CO2 must have a long residence time (lifetime), and

    FALSE. This would mean that carbonated soda pop could not exist.

    (5) atmospheric temperatures are increasing due to Man’s burning of fossil fuel.

    temperature increases are completely explained by increased solar activity, and supported by the fact that other planets have also similarly warmed, like Neptune. FYI: Neptune is devoid of humans.

    Conclusion: this MMGW is not even a valid hypothesis, let alone a credible theory.

    Ref: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm

    Comment by Gunnar — June 18, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
  25. >> think it neccessary to take note of what is happening.

    I am: People are LYING, FAKING DATA, and it’s the data that supports their most fundamental premise. And I care, because their aim is a wholesale violation of human rights.

    It warmed up a bit, which is good for sailing in the northwest passage. Hope I get a chance to get through before it cools. Sweden and Wyoming just had snow yesterday. Looks like it’s going to get cold and snowy in the next 10 years. That will be good for skiing. Either way, I win.

    Irregardless, it’s out of our control. God grant me the courage to change the things I can change (human rights violations), the serenity to accept the things I cannot (climate), and the wisdom to know the difference.

    Comment by Gunnar — June 18, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
  26. Gunnar,
    What about Methane, Nitrous oxide and Hydrofluorocarbons,etc? I know you will be suspicious, but check out this emissions inventory. Even if you object, you do get this from your tax dollars.

    Comment by VRB — June 18, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
  27. Gunner,
    Here’s the link
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/07CR.pdf

    Comment by VRB — June 18, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
  28. David, my point was that a much more cost effective route is literally to tin foil some cows. Costs about a dollar a cow and has the same net effect as the most draconian emissions equipment

    a look at just how clean cars are without it, and how little effect the equipment has. I have a friend whose Zetec focus (not a very clean engine compared to some of the newer stuff out there) has passed several emissions checks over several years in several different places with totals so low they don’t even register on the sensors…after he gutted all his emissions equipment.

    The point is that the modern environmentalist movement focuses on things in an idiotic, ineffective, and inefficient way.

    Instead of focusing on deforestation, or plastic waste, or any number of other things, they focus on governemnt intervention in our cars. They focus on industrialized nations rather than develping nations (where most of the emissions increase will come). They in short seem to be doing everything they possibly can in order to fail.

    Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. That’s all they are.

    Comment by Nick — June 18, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
  29. Nick,
    Do you really know anything about emissions control equipment? Any car with properly tune engine will burn cleaner, but the emission equipment of a car is to reduce the nitrogen oxides along with the CO.

    Comment by VRB — June 18, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
  30. >> What about Methane, Nitrous oxide

    In one of the links I provided, it showed that methane has levelled off. As for Nitrous oxide, the link below admits that they really don’t understand the processes involved. The fact that their estimate is +- an order of magnitude really supports my assertion that we are not even able to measure it yet, let alone form hypothesis about it. The scientific method starts with accurate measurement.

    But back to perspective, which so many people lack. The mass of earth’s atmosphere is about 5000 trillion metric tons. Nitrous oxide, according the link below comprises 0.5 ppmv. I’m concerned that they are forgetting that even without man, there would still be plants emitting N20, but leaving that aside, based on their medium estimate, I calculate that man’s emission is about 1/12500.

    So, imagine a concert hall with 12500 people in it. And one more person enters. That person represents man’s alleged contribution.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/87-92rpt/chap4.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Density_and_mass

    Comment by Gunnar — June 19, 2007 @ 7:20 am
  31. >>Really? Professor Jaworowski has exposed this unsupported conclusion as a lie. I challenge everyone to read carefully his paper. Note figure 2. “improper manipulation” of data is just another way of saying “lying”. A sure way to know that real science is not the goal is when the proponents resort to lying.

    I am embarrassed for anyone that considers Jaworowski’s paper an authoritative perspective. It is often quoted by those who do not wish to believe in CO2 accumulation or acceleration in our atmosphere. It was written in 1997, at a time when multiple high resolution CO2 records were unavailable; resolutions that have providied consistent and verfiable increase in CO2. Jaworowski”s own graphs indicate in 1865 that there there were three different CO2 concentrations ranging from 290 ppm to 550 ppm which equates to a difference 500 billion tons of carbon alone. If this number is to be taken seriously, there should have been at similarly measured levels throughout our atmosphere – air does not discriminate its movements. CO2 also has the ability to stay in the atmoshpere for hundreds of years, and we should measure that density even now, but we do not. Not one – not ONE – other scientific study has corroborated his measurements. There were and are physicists present on teams extracting ice cores, who would have been well aware of the effects of pressure on trace gases and accounted for them. Finally, this paper was not been published by any respected scientific journal although it appeared in the less-than-notable “21st Century” owned by none other than Lyndon LaRouche.

    I’ve said, the depression was a worlwide reduction in man’s C02 output, yet, C02 levels didn’t show it.
    You’ve said it. But you’ve not corroborated it.

    Glaciers are rivers of ice. There are about a dozen factors that influence them. If a water river stopped flowing, would you suspect warmer temperatures or a lack of precipitation first?
    Absolutely you have to consider precipitation. You also have to consider that for glaciers to remain glaciers, they must remain at 32F. Futhermore, glaciers move at extremely slow speed – they move forward at the rate of but a few miles per year. For a lack of precipitation to be in effect, the glaciers should still move forward, but create a “bald spot” where they have vacated. Or, if there is not enough ice formation to push them forward, then they should at a minimum hold their position steady until enough ice accumulates to force movement. Yet, the glaciers are retreating, which indicates melting.

    Because with some proper perspective, believing that C02 going from .029% to .035% of the atmosphere is a disaster IS a stretch.
    You adopt the minimalist perspective. The factors you state represent a 20% increase in a single atmospheric gas in a time frame so narrow for an ecology so finely tuned to the climate on this planet. Your own body does not do well with temperature increases of even three percent in either direction because it is so dependent on temperature. Life on this planet is no different – and changes of even a few degrees in either way can have significant consquences. Furthermore, while the increase of CO2 does not provide immediate danger to humans, look at how much ice we have at .029. We have stable polar regions at that CO2 level. What exactly would we have at .040% ? .050%? At the present rate of CO2dispensation, we are not far from learning the answer to that question. You see smaller numbers and think small changes. That’s too bad.

    Comment by David T — June 19, 2007 @ 9:59 am
  32. Nick,
    I have a greater appreciation for your comments now – I see that we are trying to squeeze blood from a turnip with regards to reducing car emissions. I will only say that many cars that I’ve seen in my trips to Central America or Africa were belching exhaust and could stand to be replaced or removed entirely.
    Deforestation and plastic waste would be worthy subjects to address indeed.

    Comment by David T — June 19, 2007 @ 10:10 am
  33. Gunner,
    If one can die from between 150 to 100 ppm of CO, according to your logic that shouldn’t be the case, because the volume of our earth’s atmosphere is “5000 trillion metric tons.”

    Comment by VRB — June 19, 2007 @ 8:12 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML