Debt Rattle May 14 2014: China Will Drag Us Down With It

[Raúl Ilargi Meijer]

Joel Baldwin Johnny Cash near the Arkansas farm where he grew up 1968 Yeah, no kidding, as if reports from the US weren’t bad enough, with soaring stu
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle May 14 2014: China Will Drag Us Down With It]

[garob]

OT with regard to the situation in China, but nevertheless: Thanks for your balanced assessment of the situation in Ukrania a couple of days ago.
Interesting 45min interview with Russian Foreign Minister on Bloomberg today:
https://www.bloomberg.com/video/ukraine-as-close-to-civil-war-as-possible-lavrov-Mxqx9qdZR8OCC1fmUTGbyA.html
He comes across as a very sane man compared to his western peers. It is indeed not the Russians that pose a danger to peace.

[Diogenes Shrugged]

I wish I could write like you, Ilargi. I wish I could write like Dalrymple, Will Grigg, Arthur Sibler, or even George Will. Good writing like this, especially when it’s this clever and entertaining, is a joy. That you do this day after day is impressive.

Now that I’ve buttered you up, here’s the fly in the ointment again. Your last article shows a graph claiming a twenty inch rise in sea level by 2100 (do the arithmetic yourself). Sea level varies considerably more than this due to the tides alone, and past climate change projections have been shown to be completely misguided, but let’s assume it’s accurate somehow. Let’s assume somebody actually has a crystal ball and Tarot cards that work. If that graph turns out in eighty-six years to be spot on, it will be because of the sun, not CO2.

Please watch that half-hour speech, because it’s true and verifiable, and you really need to reverse your CO2 doomer porn immediately. Global warming should not be part of your rap unless you’re stumping for the other side of the argument. There are abundant reasons for this that go entirely beyond the climate change controversy, but I’ll have to save that for another time.

I think this quote from Richard Dawkins is germane:

“But it is true that scientists, more than, say, lawyers, doctors or politicians, gain prestige among their peers by publicly admitting their mistakes. One of the formative experiences of my Oxford undergraduate years occurred when a visiting lecturer from America presented evidence that conclusively disproved the pet theory of a deeply respected elder statesman of our zoology department, the theory that we had all been brought up on. At the end of the lecture, the old man rose, strode to the front of the hall, shook the American warmly by the hand and declared, in ringing emotional tones, “‘my dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.’ We clapped our hands red. Is any other profession so generous towards its admitted mistakes? Science progresses by correcting its mistakes, and makes no secret of what it still does not understand.”

[Raúl Ilargi Meijer]

Diogenes,

It’s not possible to have an actual conversation with someone who says even 10,000 ppm CO2 levels wouldn’t matter because the stuff is ‘clear and colorless’, or that the tides alone make sea levels shift more than CO2 ever could. What kind of argument is that anyway? Isn’t that like saying warming doesn’t matter because it’s hot in the Sahara? Climate scientists would need to use tarot cards to predict where sea levels might be in 86 years, but you can do without them and claim that if they rise, it will be because of the sun? Sorry buddy, but let’s get serious, shall we? And I’m still waiting for you to tell me who has been paying all those thousands of scientists to keep lying about their findings for all these years. And why.

[Diogenes Shrugged]

Ilargi,

You wrote, “It’s not possible to have an actual conversation with someone who says even 10,000 ppm CO2 levels wouldn’t matter because the stuff is ‘clear and colorless’, or that the tides alone make sea levels shift more than CO2 ever could.”

Not to imply that you thought otherwise, but CO2 is indeed clear and colorless. This can be verified by buying a little dry ice from the local grocery. Due to the latent heat of vaporization, the CO2 gas subliming from the dry ice is extremely cold, with a temperature well below the dew point of water. The “fog” you see is indeed fog – – from condensed water vapor. Absent water vapor, CO2 can be readily “observed” to not be observable at all – – because it’s clear and colorless.

I never said those were the properties responsible for rendering 10,000 ppm CO2 inconsequential to the climate. There are buffer systems on Earth that attenuate any effects from fluctuations in CO2, the chief buffer involving water (and water vapor).

You wrote, “And I’m still waiting for you to tell me who has been paying all those thousands of scientists to keep lying about their findings for all these years. And why.”

I never said anybody was paying scientists to lie. I said their funding is predicated on their support for the political presumption that global warming is both real and a dire threat.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece#commentsStart

Scientists didn’t make “deniers” pariahs, politicians did. Some scientists have political objectives (follow the money) that trump their scientific integrity.

I’m trying to get you and your readers to take a fresh look at what’s happened with the science. Scientists have started incorporating the changing sun into their models. They’re discovering that CO2 is a bit player in climate change. Take it or leave it. Thought I was doing you all a favor. Here it is again if you missed it yesterday:

[Author]

Posts