the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The Politicians of Fryentology

Posted by Jeff Id on November 29, 2010

Anthony Watts is already covering this but I’ve been in a mood lately.  Climate ‘scientists’ are recommending rationing as a method for reducing CO2 output.

As the world meets in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of United Nations talks on climate change, the influential academics called for much tougher measures to cut carbon emissions.

I”m not kidding, listen to this genius.

In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

Edit- almost forgot:

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

While allowing ‘poor nations’ to continue to grow.  THERE IS A REASON THESE NATIONS ARE POOR! They don’t need welfare or self punishment by semi-functional countries to grow, they have to drop their repressive anti-business anti-freedom governments.  Try and start a business in Venezuela!!  Guh? Perhaps it’s the evil Americans or English keeping the poor Venezuelans down, I’m sure Kevin Anderson thinks so.  They are not scientists when they are recommending extremist leftist solutions but they still claim the title.  While many fools in this world are ready to go along for the good of mankind, I would pose a few questions.

 

What will rationing do for economies of successful countries?  will it increase them or decrease them?

What technologies will we use to replace the CO2 we are rationing?

Who will control what the CO2 is spent on? (CO2 becomes a monetary unit)

What will rationing do for our ability to create technologies to replace coal?

How much effect will CO2 rationing have on the summed output over the next hundred years.

Since CO2 is claimed to have hundreds of years of residency in the carbon ‘cycle’, doesn’t limitation now make little difference in the final outcome?

Isn’t true CO2 limitation about finding the next technology to power cars and houses?

I already know the answers to these questions, the same answers that have eluded so many government educated people.  Still it is impossible to miss the fact that rationing is absolutely a non-answer to the problem as posed by the IPCC — it is anti-scientific in its conception.  They have to know that any CO2 production at all simply builds up according to their ‘science’ – there is no appreciable century length absorption.  Of course I don’t believe them but that is the problem as posed by the ever perfect IPCC.   It’s impossible to be curious about the scientists motivations in such matters, because it’s very clear and life is too short.  However, when a proposal like carbon ‘rationing’ can be considered in the open without being laughed right out of the room from a maybe 0.8C/Century temp rise partially UHI, partially natural and partially human, you really can’t trust the rest of the politically insane fryintists still inside the room.

Deeper into the pit of denial I’m forced.

food or cold

technology or ignorance

energy or dark

success or failure

happy or miserable

peace or war

there will be war if we follow these particular leaders

because fur-less humans like food and warm

Tough call–More and more skeptical I become.  I didn’t have time to finish the Anastassia math at Lucia’s but I did spend several days sidetracked in a climate model.  It thoroughly impressed me with both its complexity and crudeness.  What you need to understand though is that there is absolutely no opportunity for such a mathematical construct to represent atmospheric feedbacks in anything except the assigned level.  — read that carefully because it took a lot of math reading for me to figure it out and I don’t want my days of effort to go to waste.

Why did they meet in a hot climate like Cancun?

I may have to go Lindzen on you.

40 Responses to “The Politicians of Fryentology”

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Science Blog News, C Jenkins. C Jenkins said: The Politicians of Fryentology http://goo.gl/fb/bvr3o [...]

  2. Kim said

    As soon as they shout “rationing” one of our lunatic politicians will try something.
    Take a look at this climate craziness from Down Under..!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_why_you_may_soon_need_a_warmists_permission_to_eat/

  3. Brian H said

    The poverty-pushers are coming out into the open more and more. Their defeat will be utter and total.

  4. boballab said

    Sigh, go away for a day and miss the Id on a rant. This article might help sooth the Id:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312504575618972157288244.html?mod=WSJASIA_hpp_editorsPicks_1

  5. MeltedCheese said

    Meanwhile, the dominos continue to fall… Greece, Ireland, now Spain, coming soon Portugal… EU economy is in total meltdown… no wonder they want the carbon tax money so badly.

    What happens if Germany and UK economies end up needing bailouts?

  6. kim said

    Two kims? Isn’t one enough? Welcome other kim and thanks for the Bolt column. Our Man in Sichuan showed me that a couple of weeks ago, and it is certainly germane to this thread.

    It isn’t about science. It isn’t even about religion. It’s just about power and the love of money.
    =================================

  7. kim said

    Melted cheese, American taxpayers are already paying 17.09% of the EU bailout funds. Guess how much of the public knows that?
    =======================================

  8. kim said

    Nice link, Boballab, but N&S miss something, I believe. They correctly point out that there is a widely held mistaken belief, that ‘clean energy’ is ready to replace fossils, but they miss the point that physics militates against any appreciable drop in the price of ‘clean energy’. We’ll replace fossil fuel energy when one of two things happen. One is when the value of the hydrocarbon bond intact as structure rises above the value of the hydrocarbon bond broken for its energy. The other is if the CO2 connection to climate is proven, and is dramatic.

    Of course, nuclear remains the elephant in the room, invisible to all but Chinese, Japanese, and the French.
    ==============================

  9. RomanM said

    Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited …

    Many of the fruits and vegetables that have travelled from abroad to get to our supermarkets come from poor nations and are a source of income for the people who live there. What will we do? Just hand over the money from our reduced economies to them as a gift instead?

    One wonders what this poor example of a professor could be thinking!

    (Wait a minute, I think I just answered my own question…)

  10. kim said

    When we were obligate locavores, wintertime meant malnutrition.
    ==========================================================

  11. Patagon said

    Jeff,

    It thoroughly impressed me with both its complexity and crudeness. What you need to understand though is that there is absolutely no opportunity for such a mathematical construct to represent atmospheric feedbacks in anything except the assigned level. — read that carefully because it took a lot of math reading for me to figure it out and I don’t want my days of effort to go to waste.

    Will you publish some more on those feedbacks representation?

    It would be interested to know.

  12. “In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.”

    Why is there any doubt about this?

  13. Dagfinn said

    Slightly off-topic, I find this even weirder and more desperate.

    “Oxfam UK said that 21,000 people died in weather-related disasters in the first nine months of 2010, more than twice the number for the whole of 2009.”

    OMG, it’s doubled in just one year. If this keeps up, the weather will have killed the entire world population in less than 20 years.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8165784/Cancun-climate-change-summit-deaths-from-floods-and-drought-double.html

  14. Gary said

    If rationing is good for the wealthy countries, why deprive the poor countries from this progressive policy? Sounds discriminatory to me. Shouldn’t the brakes be put on their economies before they grow wealthy? They would be saved from themselves.

  15. Patagon said

    Surely this is a purely altruistic interest in Humankind from Anderson and there must be no connection with his job as Non-Executive Director of Greenstone Carbon Management: http://www.greenstonecarbon.com/people/36/prof-kevin-anderson/

    h/t WTUT and Delingpole

  16. David S said

    Now let me guess, will Anderson and his ilk be rationers or rationees? Yup, thought so. Another water-melon member of the Leninist vanguard, with an added twist of tulip-bulb scamming. Like an African dictator, both oppressive and corrupt.

  17. Bruce said

    Norfolk Island got an ultimatum from the Australian government a few months ago, which was “test pesonal carbon rationing for us or we’ll let you go bankrupt”. So Norfolk Islanders are now reluctant guinea pigs for just this sort of silliness. I’m just glad I don’t live there.

  18. Steve Koch said

    Excellent news, here’s hoping that the IPCC and the USA Democrats put their full weight behind Prof Anderson’s proposal. Smells like electoral bliss for the Republicans (if they can manage to avoid shooting themselves in the foot).

  19. Eric Steig said

    What I wish, Jeff, is that you would find a way to separate your politics rants (which I sometimes — as in this case — entirely agree with) from your scientific rants. You seem to believe that because some scientists come up about crazy political ideas, that climate scientists in general are driven by politics, and that therefore the science is wrong. Is it not just possible the science is right, but the political thinking is wrong? Can you not at least entertain that possibility?

  20. Jeff Id said

    Sorry doc, I was just grumpy. There are too many crazy people in the world.

  21. Jeff Id said

    The problem I have is that people are far to certain of themselves. There are too many questions to even come close to making extreme decisions like economic limitation. We have to wait, it isn’t the enviro extremists favorite point but it is necessary that we wait to see just how bad things look. At this point I’m so unconvinced that AGW is a big problem that I’m becoming convinced that it is no problem. Ice ages scare the crap out of me, while I have no fear that I can live in warm weather.

    Then you get the whacko crap from Cancun…

  22. Jeff Id said

    What do you do if New York floods in a hundred years?

    Walk away.

  23. Mark T said

    You shouldn’t apologize, Jeff. Beliefs this extreme clearly call into question any science such perpetrators may engage in. It is not unreasonable to question whether these people would be willing to fudge, or even outright lie about, their results just to see their world view implemented. Ideological belief results in very creative, and powerful, rationalizations regarding right and wrong.

    Mark

  24. Jeff Id said

    Mark,

    Perhaps it should say, sorry but that’s what happens when I get pissed? I’m not sorry for my opinions.

    I’m really tired of the attacks on business. Business and capitalism have taught the world how to feed itself. They have taught the world how to survive any warming. What society can’t survive is extreme cooling – which will come.

    If Mr. Annndersonn (matrix) were unusual or if he were treated as the political hack he is by the ‘community’ that would be one thing but as you know it is endless. The attacks on sanity from the left never stop, and none of it makes a damned bit of common sense.

    Check this link out

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/30/climate-change-scorching-heat-weather-agency/?test=faces

    jeeezus!

  25. Mark T said

    Gotcha.

    You have to assume, btw, that the idiots constantly berating Fox News for being in the tank for “big oil” and other “conservative causes” don’t actually ever read their news pages.

    Mark

  26. kuhnkat said

    Jeff,

    you suggest we cannot survive cooling. While I agree that trying to live on a glacier would be ugly, it won’t be the end of the world!! 8>)

    Consider how much the ocean levels will drop as the ice accumulates on the northern continents and higher elevations. Consider how much continental shelf that will expose. Maybe you could come up with an estimation of the temps on those freshly exposed areas based on higher air pressure and density of lower elevations?

    Even if we are starting the next ice age NOW, the real problem is turning the political world around to utilize our immense resources to adapt to the new conditions. Being a lifetime Science Fiction fan ice tunnels and ice cities are conceivable with nuclear power plants and modern technology. For a while I remember our government was experimenting with underwater habitats which we could do better now. Then there are all the neat plans for floating cities!! Doming and large greenhouses can make life liveable in tundra conditions. Canada, Scandinavia, and other northern areas would have to migrate most of their population, but most of the US and Europe would still be liveable. I would suggest that the Sahara and Gobi would probably also be more liveable than now. The US south west and Mexico would probably also lose desert for more liveable ecosystems.

    I probably have some of this wrong, but, you get the idea. We probably lose more dry land than we gain, but, we really only inhabit a small amount of the planet as it is!!

    The ice ages always give me a good laugh when I hear the alarmists screaming about species loss and climate change. The earth has alledgedly gone through how many ice ages and this is what we have ended up with?? Dang, couldn’t be too bad!!

  27. Mark T said

    I don’t think Jeff’s comments should be interpreted as “nobody can survive,” just that “many, if not most, will not survive.”

    Mark

  28. michel said

    represent atmospheric feedbacks in anything except the assigned level

    Sorry, didn’t get this. What do you mean by ‘the assigned level’?

  29. JPA Knowles said

    Meltedcheese @ 5.
    They want the dominoes to fall. That is one way they can control all the nations of the world. The real world players are encouraging the massive invention, out of thin air, of the money supply, thus diluting the value of all money. It is not possible for the USA to ever climb out of it’s quagmire of debt let alone Eire or Greece. What do you do in a game of Monoploy when all players are totally mortgaged and out of cash?
    There have always been elitists who reckon they know what is best for the masses and a carbon tax is a nice little precursor to wheeling out the New World Government.
    Rationing is a ploy to convince us that there isn’t enough to go round when in reality many nations produce a considerable surplus.

  30. Adam Gallon said

    Dr Steig
    The problem there, is that the crazies (and the incompetants) have high-jacked the scientific process and the scientists don’t stand up and shout out that this is stupid!
    Maybe you’d like to do a piece on this over at Real Climate or an Op-Ed on it in the NYT or WaPo? Say what you think about it, name a few names, say that you completely disagree with Prof Anderson for instance,how about the Gerrman Vice-Chair’s statement about wealth redistribution, say where you stand wrt Dr Hanson’s “Trains of death” statements, perhaps even a little score-card as to where the predictions from the past stand, is Manhatten under water, which Pacific Atolls are now submerged, that sort of thing.
    While your at it, ask Dr Mann to say what e-mails Prof Jones was asking him to delete and whether he did so.
    Just to remind you, it’s this e-mail I’m talking about. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=.txt

  31. MeltedCheese said

    JPA Knowles @ 29

    That is scary, man.

  32. Bad Andrew said

    “climate scientists in general are driven by politics”

    The evidence indicates that is indeed the case.

    Andrew

  33. mbabbitt said

    Fools with science degrees.

  34. Bad Andrew said

    Anyway, Eric Steig, Climate Scientists are not the only people who can look at evidence and draw conclusions from it. Normal People can do it, too. It’s not like none of us can see the Climate Science is corrupt. We’ve observed it. That’s how you collect data – observation.

    Andrew

  35. Chuckles said

    @Eric S,

    I think you are shooting the messenger. I suggest listening to his message, as Jeff is simply articulating what a huge percentage of the public feel when they read pronouncements like the one above.

    Apparently it has also suddenly become apparent that the bit about rationing is prof Anderson’s ‘personal opinion’, and nothing to do with science. So that’s all right then, nothing to see here, move along, plus ca change…

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/kevin-anderson-the-ration-card-man/

  36. Bad Andrew said

    “Is it not just possible the science is right, but the political thinking is wrong?”

    Why is Eric Steig asking JeffId this question? If the political thinking is wrong, shouldn’t Eric Steig be doing something to try and correct it? Where and when did he try to correct any “incorrect” political thinking? I thought he was a scientist anyway. Since when is his judgement of politics any more valuable than anyone else’s?

    Andrew

  37. Kenneth Fritsch said

    When Eric Steig says the following:

    “What I wish, Jeff, is that you would find a way to separate your politics rants (which I sometimes — as in this case — entirely agree with) from your scientific rants. You seem to believe that because some scientists come up about crazy political ideas, that climate scientists in general are driven by politics, and that therefore the science is wrong. Is it not just possible the science is right, but the political thinking is wrong? Can you not at least entertain that possibility?”

    I have some agreements with what he says. First, Jeff, you know you rant politically and by admitting it you do tend to get off easy by terms of endearment. Michael Mann rants on politically in his way so you are in good/bad company.

    The science could be right and the politics wrong gets down to the nitty gritty of my view that the politics and advocacy of some climate scientists whereby they tend to prefer a larger role for government and are more ready to accept the so-called, and not at all well defined, consensus on AGW, without a good deal of certainty that it is correct. That being the case because they do not see any major unintended consequences coming out of a significantly bigger role for government, and in fact probably would like to see that bigger role without any evidence for its need as would be provided by scientists. On the other hand, you have libertarians like myself who see much that will go wrong with government attempted mitigation that would exceed any vague detrimental effects of AGW that the current consensus will put forth without any objective measure of uncertainty.

    In the scientific mode, I would think many skeptics would not say that the science is right or wrong, just that we are uncertain about it being right and unfortunately without a good way of determining that uncertainty in an objective manner.

  38. kim said

    When they can tell me the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 then I’ll admit the science is right. That’s at least 10 years off, and maybe a lot more.
    ==============================

  39. stan said

    Climate science and politics are inextricably intertwined. Without politics, there would be no climate science (at least as we know it today.

    Is it possible the “science” is right and the politics is wrong? What we ‘know’ in terms of pure science isn’t nearly complete enough to draw a conclusion about anything. We know that additional CO2 has an insignificant tendency to warm. We don’t know the feedback or the magnitude. And we certainly don’t have a clue what, if anything, we could do about it even if we did.

    The climate models aren’t science. Their usage violates basic elements of logic. And without the models there isn’t any conceivable basis to support the alarmism.

    Without the politics, all that would be left of climate science is an enormous pile of interesting questions still waiting for answers.

  40. BlueIce2HotSea said

    kuhnkat December 1, 2010 at 12:54 am

    I’m not sure if you are serious or not.

    When the MWP abruptly ended, some countries lost half their populations within a few decades (crop failure = famine, disease and war). And Look at a ice-age biome map and you will see the predominant biomes are ice, extreme desert and semi-desert. Trees nearly go extinct – the ‘giant’ sequoia becomes a small shrub with very limited geographical range.

    On the other hand, the dikes of the Netherlands prove that living below sea level is not necessarily the end of the world.

    We have to be serious about dealing with a myriad of potential future catastrophe scenarios. But governments that are despotic, corrupt, bankrupt and/or Marxist either have minimal capacity to contribute to technical solutions or seem to only prefer wealth transferring solutions – US to them. Are you comfortable with giving such nations a controlling vote on how the wealth of US citizens is to be spent to solve future problems? Seriously?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

»
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: