The definition of hubris

Climate Panel Recommends Global Temperature Ceiling, Carbon Tax
By Peter Heinlein United Nations 28 February 2007

A panel of scientists has presented the United Nations a detailed plan for combating climate change. VOA's correspondent at the U.N. Peter Heinlein reports the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling.

A group of 18 scientists from 11 countries is calling on the international community to act quickly to prevent catastrophic climate change.

In a report requested by the United Nations and partially paid for by the privately funded U.N. Foundation, the panel warns that any delay could lead to a dangerous rise in sea levels, increasingly turbulent weather, droughts and disease.

More dispatches from fantasyland. All these are the products of wildly inaccurate computer models coupled with the desperate need of researchers for publicity and grant money.

The report was issued three weeks after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activity. But unlike the IPCC report, this latest document makes policy recommendations.

Panel member John Holdren of Harvard University says the world must be mobilized immediately to avoid catastrophe. "Climate change is real, it's already happening, it's already causing harm, it's accelerating and we need to do something about it, and we need to do something about it seriously, starting now. Our specific conclusions are that if the world were to go past the point of an increase above pre-industrial temperatures greater than 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, we would be in a regime where the danger of intolerable and unmanageable impacts on well-being would rise very rapidly," he said.

Where does he think world temperatures were during the Cretaceous? Are the “intolerable and unmanageable impacts” that he fears the re-emergence of dinosaurs and huge insects? Warm temperatures are generally very good for living things which the last time I checked included human beings. And what, precisely, are we supposed to do about climate change anyway, most of which is NOT caused by humans (see the end of the Cretaceous)? In spite of his statements in this article, the man does not appear to be an idiot. Take a look at his background here. Notice he is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy. Enough said.

The panel's recommendations include a series of steps to cut the rate at which temperatures are rising. Chief among them are a global agreement on an acceptable ceiling for temperature rise and finding ways of adapting to cope with the damage already done.

This idea has got to be the all time winner for hubris. Now a few privileged human beings get to decide what the earth’s temperature should be. Where are the ancient Greek gods when you need them? Or have they already started the process of our destruction by driving these guys mad? And what damage has already been done? Maybe things like the greening of the Sahara region? Global warming has been good for the people in the Sahel, why should we want to stop it? Do they get a say in what the global temperature should be?

Holdren, however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. "We don't think ultimately society will get it right in terms of the full range and scope of activities needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, until there is an additional incentive in the form of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade approach," he said.

AHA! Now we get to the REAL reason for the this report and its hype. And just who would collect these taxes? The U.N.? And what would they be spent on?

The United States is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, but is not a party to the cap and trade system contained in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

It’s greenhouse GASES. And refusing to sign Kyoto was the smartest thing Bill Clinton ever did

Nevertheless, the Bush administration has set a target of cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent by 2012, and is spending $3 billion a year on climate change research.

What a waste. I thought conservatives were against unnecessary federal spending.

Peter Raven, the head of the Sigma Xi Scientific society and co-author of the latest report, says success in limiting the effects of global warming will require private sector leadership, and a combined effort by the U.S. and the international community. "The private sector is doing a very good job, and kind of leadership we're calling for from the United Nations and international organizations and the kind of leadership the United States is moving towards will both be key ingredients in that," he said.

Much as I respect Dr. Raven’s credentials as a botanist, he is neither an economist nor an atmospheric scientist and I don’t know why he would be asked to coauthor such a report. Always beware scientists who make pronouncements in areas outside their disciplines.

A U.N. spokesman says Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is considering calling a summit meeting on climate change later this year. Environmental activists are calling on Mr. Ban to play a leading role in the process of negotiating a successor to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.

It's all about US!! US!!! US!!!! And money. LOTS of money.

I think I'll go lie down now.

Child abuse in Britain

Global warming concerns are keeping children awake at night

Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today.

A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.

I would love to see the actual questions in this survey.

Are you doing enough?

Of course you aren’t.

One in seven of those questioned by supermarket giant Somerfield said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.

The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

Most of those polled understood the benefits of recycling, although one in 10 thought the issue was linked to riding a bike.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Pete Williams, of Somerfield, said: "Concerns over our environment dominate the media at present and kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody.

[choke] Hard facts ?? HARD FACTS????????? SHOW ME THE FACTS!!!

"While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it's affecting the welfare of kids now.

No, YOU’RE hurting their welfare now by scaring them about nothing.

"By raising awareness amongst today's young, hopefully we are improving our chances of reaching a solution.''

Translation: “By frightening kids and thus bothering their parents, we’ll be able to justify more taxes and less personal freedom now”

The study marked Somerfield's drive to reduce the eight billion plastic bags wasted by UK households every year.

And exactly what does that have to do with climate change?

If an older sibling or uncle was terrifying your child with monster stories to the point where the child couldn’t sleep, what would you do? In my house, at least, the uncle would be persona non grata until he stopped and at least tried to undo the damage by admitting that he made it all up. An older sibling would do all that plus face some additional punishment for being a jerk. All this “global warming” hype is just a monster story told by jerks to frighten the weak minded. All these so-called “consequences” of climate change are mere fantasies generated by computer models and publicized by grant-hungry “scientists” (and power hungry politicians). Why are these people allowed to get away with this? And why do they think it’s acceptable to target children? I know, I know, to get at their parents. Can you imagine Winston Churchill, back when nobody believed him about the threat from the Nazis, starting a campaign to tell Britain’s children that Hitler was going to come over and kill them all in their sleep? That would have got their parents on board with the war, right? Of course not; it probably would have ended his political career, and yet the Nazi threat was real and imminent in the 1930s. People (Nazis and other bad guys) were responsible for the situation then, and people (the Allies) had to fix it. Global climate change is not caused by people and there is nothing people can do to “fix” it. So STOP the scare stories already.

From the “You’ve GOT to be kidding” files

A short intermission in the climate circus

Smoke detectives are taking over the streets

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor

Thousands of council officers will be on the streets this summer, patrolling bars, restaurants and shops to police the smoking ban.

Smokers' campaigning groups said the scheme would be a "complete waste of public money". The British Beer and Pub Association said the plan was "heavy handed".

The new smoke-free rules come into force in England on July 1, when people will be banned from smoking in workplaces or enclosed public areas. However, there might be confusion about the application of the rules.

A home owner is allowed to smoke at home but not if a work colleague arrives to discuss a business plan.

Similarly, home owners can smoke if friends are invited, but not if caterers are there to help with the food and drink.

A smoking shelter outside an office might also be outlawed by the smoking police if it has doors or walls around it. Publicans who turn a blind eye could be fined up to £2,500 "for failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place".

Local authorities have been granted £29.5 million to raise awareness about the rules. However, they can pay for staff, who will be able to issue on-the-spot £50 fines to people and take court action against premises if they flout the law.

Officers will be able to sit among drinkers undercover and photograph and film people. A Government-funded course is expected to train 1,200 council employees in the next few months, with more to follow later.

Ian Gray, the policy officer for the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and chief trainer for the Government course, said: "Most councils will take a softly, softly approach at first. But there will be some occasions when action has to be taken and I am sure the officers will not shy away from that.

"These officers do not have to identify themselves when they go into premises and they can film and photograph people to gather evidence although this may not be appropriate in many cases."

How Orwellian can you get?

In Nottingham, about 30 officers will patrol the city, including new staff and environmental health officers.

The council is also exploring the possibility of getting street wardens, who help the local police force, to ensure the ban is enforced.

In Liverpool, there will be a core team of about 20 to 25 staff, although about 200 staff are expected to patrol the city in the first few days of the ban. Liverpool City Council official Andy Hull told the BBC: "We want to make our presence felt, and while we will probably just issue warnings on the first day, we won't be afraid of making an example of people or businesses."

Can you imagine this? 200 staff on the streets to enforce a SMOKING BAN. I guess enforcing the laws against robbery, thuggery, and general mayhem is just not that important.

Steve Dowling, the director of public protection at Nottingham City Council, said: "We have about 100 wardens and they could keep an eye on whether people are smoking in pubs as they go about their other duties." A Department of Health spokesman said the money was provided over two years.

She added: "It's up to local authorities how they spend the cash but action could include helping local businesses prepare for July 1, ensuring that they know what they need to do.

"Building awareness is vital to the successful implementation of the smoke-free policy. That's why government, centrally and locally, is working hard to ensure businesses and the public are aware of what going smoke-free means."

Well, the British DID invent the “nanny”. Now they’re going to let her run the entire country.

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said: "The idea of getting public officials to snoop on people is distasteful." A spokesman for the British Beer and Pub Association said the plan was "elaborate".

News of the increased number of smoking snoopers comes after The Daily Telegraph revealed that there were just three uniformed police officers on the streets in some towns at night.

Aside from the political implications of spying on one’s own citizens and monitoring their personal behaviour, the whole thing is doubly outrageous because it’s based on such terrible science. There is NO EVIDENCE that second hand smoke causes cancer or any other disease. Surprised? Well, if you’ve been following the debate on global warming, you should already know how activists work to suppress data that doesn’t support their agenda. The anti-smoking lobby has known about this lack of evidence for years, and they still manage to shape public policy just by scaring people into thinking that their lives are at risk every time they smell a cigarette. I HATE to see science misused yet again for an activist agenda.

Lest you suspect that I have my own agenda, I don’t smoke myself and I ask that people not smoke in my house because I don’t like the smell of cigarettes. I like the smoke from good cigars and pipe tobacco. If I’m in a restaurant or bar where smoking is allowed (an increasingly rare situation), I accept that I will have to deal with it. If the amount of smoke is a problem, I won’t go back again. If the establishment loses business because the owner permits smoking, the policy will change, guaranteed. There’s no need for laws or ordinances or secret smoking police. And yes, I do realize that where there is a clear risk for harm to others from smoking as there is in hospitals and gas stations, it should be forbidden. And I do know that there is a link between smoking and lung disease IN THE SMOKER that HAS been reliably established. I also realize that it’s none of my business to tell other adults how much personal risk they may choose to assume. I consider being a fighter pilot, cave diving and bungee-jumping way too risky for myself, but if you’re a grown-up and crazy enough to do these things, that’s your business.

Though my initial impulse was to laugh at this article, I find it more and more disturbing as I think about it. It’s only a matter of time before somebody tries to start this sort of thing here in the US. Orwell’s future doesn’t start with a revolution or massive military coup, but with the government intruding itself gradually into regulating people’s personal behavior. After all, we don’t want people to smoke, it’s not good for them. So what’s wrong with trying to discourage the behavior? Then we see people doing other things that “experts” say aren’t good for them – eating too much, drinking too much, living too well, doing the wrong things, or maybe even believing the wrong things. Shouldn’t they be stopped? Don’t we want everybody on the planet to be equally healthy and happy? And if we have scientific “proof” that what they’re doing is bad for them, shouldn’t that be enough to pass a few more laws to make them stop?

Maybe Orwell was just a few decades off.

Hypocrisy, thy name is [insert politician here]

from the New York Times

PELOSI BACKS RESTRICTIONS ON HEAT-TRAPPING GASES

The United States has to cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, and mandatory restrictions are the only way to do it, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the House Science and Technology Committee yesterday.

Ms. Pelosi added that even though she had once opposed using nuclear power to supply some energy needs, she now believed that it should be “on the table,” if the disposal of radioactive waste could be settled.

The speaker said she hoped that the House would consider bills on global warming by July 4.

etc., etc. Then we have (from the Washington Times):

PELOSI DEFENDS REQUEST FOR JET

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday defended her bid for a large U.S. Air Force jet to take her home and back to Washington nonstop -- and the White House backed her up.

etc, etc. Read the whole thing if you want.

So its only us peons that need to cut our CO2 emissions to prevent the end of civilization as we know it. Important people like Ms. Pelosi are exempt. Or else their jets don't emit CO2 like all the others. Or they really don't believe the AGW hype themselves, they're using it as an excuse to further their own personal agendas.

For some welcome sanity on historical climate read this.

How To Do Climate "Science"

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."
-Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

From the IPCC's Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval, and publication of IPCC reports:

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

In other words, the actual reports which contain the science (such as it is) and the data will be edited after the Summary is written, so that the two will be in agreement. And remember that the Summary was itself edited by bureaucrats and various government officials, in secret, yet. And what kind of result do you think they want? Why, one that gives them an excuse to exercise even more control over your daily life, of course.

It's my opinion that most climate "scientists" are completely out of control at this point; unwilling to give up their research grants, media headlines, or their momentary influence on public policy in exchange for standing up for scientific truth. I agree with Dr. Hendrik Tennekes , who writes at Climate Science (in part):

Seventeen years ago, I wrote a column for Weather magazine, expressing my concerns about the lack of honesty, integrity and humility of many climate scientists. “I worry about the arrogance of scientists who claim they can help solve the climate problem, provided their research receives massive increases in funding”, reads one line from my text. Unknown to me, my friend Richard Lindzen was working on his famous paper “Some Cooling Concerning Global Warming”, which appeared in the Bulletin of the AMS at the same time. This was early 1990. It is 2007 now, and I want to ring the alarm bell again. There is a difference, though: then I was worried, now I am angry. I am angry about the Climate Doomsday hype that politicians and scientists engage in. I am angry at Al Gore, I am angry at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for resetting its Doomsday clock, I am angry at Lord Martin Rees for using the full weight of the Royal Society in support of the Doomsday hype, I am angry at Paul Crutzen for his speculations about yet another technological fix, I am angry at the staff of IPCC for their preoccupation with carbon dioxide emissions, and I am angry at Jim Hansen for his efforts to sell a Greenland Ice Sheet Meltdown Catastrophe. Speaking of Hansen, Dick Lindzen and I wrote a lighthearted April Fools’ Day parody of his concerns, which was published on Fred Singer’s SEPP website (search for Greenland Green Again) last year (view pdf). I can go on much longer, but I will keep my anger in check.

Yes, we desperately need more modesty, integrity, and balance in the climate field right now, but I think things have gone too far. It won't make much difference what scientists do, even if clowns like Hansen recover their wits and withdraw all their unfounded scarey predictions. We've got politicians involved now on a worldwide scale, AL Gore has been nominated for an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize, and sanity has left the building.

I only wish this was Alice in Wonderland, then we'd all wake up and find that it was all just a bizarre dream.