Tar and feather them
Having converted from Republican to Democrat before the guns began to shoot I feel empathy towards members of the GOP who are now jumping from the president’s badly listing Iraqi ship. Lugar, Domenici and many others are fast jumping to the ship of common sense and converting to the Church of Political Pragmatism, and they want us to know that the new oaths are being taken freely and without mental reservation. Should we not welcome the prodigal? Hell no!
This conversion represents the end of Reaganism, and those pushed it well beyond the Gipper’s wildest fantasies of national greatness must pay for their sins and stupidity.
Just as the Democrats had to spend decades in the wilderness for their folly in Vietnam and for the excesses of the Great Society that signaled the end of the New Deal, so these enablers of the neoconservatives and the evangelicals who pushed for world hegemony with hubris that would make a Roman emperor blanch with shame must climb the mountain and meet the gurus of realism.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, Wolfowitz, Feith, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Bolton, Coulter, the late Gerry Falwell, and literally thousands of other political and religious zealots nearly took our nation over the abyss of ignorance and into the folly of remaking the world in our image. But it was the millions of enablers who waved the flags and beat the drums for these artists of madness and their representatives in the Congress who until they saw the end of their power coming quickly into view and got the new time religion and who now make a turn to the middle and point their fingers at Bush and his lackeys as being responsible for it all.
Now that the gash made by the iceberg in the ship of state is becoming visible to all, the Republicans on Capitol Hill blame it all on George. He made them spend and spend on bridges to nowhere; he led them down the garden path on Iraq; and he twisted their arms on diverting us from the war on terror to the fool’s errand of remaking the world. They never wanted to bankrupt our grandchildren. They only wanted to save the world, and they followed George because he said he had the plan.
What are we to do? Welcome their late conversions? Hell no! Drive them to hell out of Washington and tar and feather them on the way out and order them to contemplate their sins from the heartland.
Democrats, vote the straight ticket; Republicans, vote against any of your brethren who enabled these morons; Independents; vote Democrat. Nobody who leans to toward the center or right should worry; the Democrats, true their base, are already laying plans for the next Republican resurgence.
A decade in the desert will do wonders for the GOP. Their younger adherents can work on their tans as they contemplate what might have been. Actually being Bush’s proconsul in Iraq really wouldn’t have been much fun. They’ll soon see that they’re better off learning how to do political dirty tricks for their return to power.
America is already recovering from the nightmare. The Republicans are taking the first steps themselves; we just have to help them along. Do not be fooled by those proclaiming their recovery from folly and inoculate yourself from their phony bleating. They have to be treated and the pharmacy is the ballot box.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Sky is Falling
This is a review of Nemesis: The Last days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson. This is a big seller and, therefore, an important work.
In Nemesis: The Last days of the American Republic Chalmers Johnson makes strong claims about the danger we’re in from our own leaders. I’ll stipulate to many of his warning signs and dangers, but I come up way short of his conclusions.
We’re an empire. I have no trouble with that; we’ve been acting like one since the days of Jefferson and Monroe. Certainly we acted like an Empire in the Mexican War, in our behavior during the Spanish American War and in the period since World War II. But Johnson makes us sound like the only nation to exhibit such behavior since the British started assembling their world of pink and we’re not. The Italians, Germans, and Japanese got all caught up in imperial thinking, and don’t forget them old Soviets.
With the end of the Cold War, we were the only ones left standing tall and with money to burn, and we’ve been throwing a lot of that money and our hard power around, often recklessly, and Johnson points out many of our flaws and warts, sometimes very effectively. But, frankly, despite being riveted by the tale, I didn’t like the book very much.
Those like me in the middle of the political spectrum don’t have many people screaming for our side – I suppose the center isn’t a side. We‘re caught between those on the right trying to scare the bejesus out of us with the idea that every Muslim woman in Kansas City has a bomb up her burka and that every young adherent of Islam in Detroit wants to cut off our heads with his scimitar. On the left we have writers like Johnson pointing out every action by George IV and Dick Cheney, aka Richard III, as another step in our enslavement under the new tyranny of President for Life George W.
Unfortunately for Johnson, the book came out prior to the November 2006 Congressional election, and the Democrats have made the emperor and his prime minister look something less than Augustus and his head of the Praetorian Guard. That’s not to say that we in the middle don’t see all or many of the dangers that Johnson points out in his `sky is falling’ style.
To Johnson it seems that every soldier is a jack booted maniac intent on terrorizing innocent civilians. Frankly, I think our warriors come off pretty badly but through little fault of their own. In Johnson’s world half the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen stationed across the globe do little but act as hooligans and rapists in terrorizing the locals. Here again a little truth goes a long way. I’m not excusing our troops with a boys will be boys escape clause. Certainly, many horrible acts have been committed, and we should be cracking down on all violence against our allies. But the vast majority of those wearing our uniform have got to be half way decent men and women. Exceptions can’t be used to prove the rules, and Johnson really does this.
Johnson’s thesis is that we use our soft power to force allies across the globe to swallow our presence. Let’s get real, the leaders of the host countries have to see some benefits to having our bases in their countries, or they simply wouldn’t do it. Not everybody in power in other countries is on the take. I know that many of our bases are unwelcome. Guantanamo comes to mind, and certainly Fidel would like us out of there permanently, but, in the absence of the ability to chuck us into the Atlantic, he does permit Cubans to go to work each day and bring greenbacks to his side of the fence.
The author’s complaints against the military industrial complex are right on the money, but he’s hardly the first to see the danger. Washington and Madison were way ahead of Johnson and I heard Ike’s direct warning loud and clear. The dangers and techniques of the practitioners are well known and we are indeed in danger of tyranny if we don’t do better in dealing with this threat. I’ll also grant Johnson that he’s right in his fears about missile defense and space warfare.
He’s also right that Bush and Cheney were overly aggressive in aggrandizing executive power, and I support his views on this. His fears that the imperial presidency and the military industrial complex have neutered the Congress is scary, on target, and not to be dismissed lightly, but it’s also true that the Democrats – joined now by more than a few on the other side – are beating that jack back into his box. It’s an unending battle between branches, but my friends and I have been preaching the benefits of divided government for the entire period of these present abuses. The people, despite the bombardment of fear from both sides, seem to understand the problem and are supporting the new found courage of the Congress.
Before closing, I want to say something personal about Bush and Cheney. I hate what they’ve done in Iraq and despise the tactics they’ve used to gain power to diminish those who oppose them. But I do not for a minute believe that their intent was to become tyrants and dictators. They’ve done a lousy job, but they’re not of the evil intent to destroy the Republic.
Johnson is quick with `some say’ and `some think’ arguments that cannot be truly tested, and there are some technical errors – I think. For example, he points to an air base in Asia that has a 13,800 foot runway and which is manned by 3,000 Americans, all this on 37 acres. They must be packing those troops into a mighty tall high rise barracks building and the planes must have a very narrow wingspan.
Despite all my complaints, I recommend this book, but as a practicing propagandist I warn you that it’s a little more than over the top in its assertions and accusations.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
In Nemesis: The Last days of the American Republic Chalmers Johnson makes strong claims about the danger we’re in from our own leaders. I’ll stipulate to many of his warning signs and dangers, but I come up way short of his conclusions.
We’re an empire. I have no trouble with that; we’ve been acting like one since the days of Jefferson and Monroe. Certainly we acted like an Empire in the Mexican War, in our behavior during the Spanish American War and in the period since World War II. But Johnson makes us sound like the only nation to exhibit such behavior since the British started assembling their world of pink and we’re not. The Italians, Germans, and Japanese got all caught up in imperial thinking, and don’t forget them old Soviets.
With the end of the Cold War, we were the only ones left standing tall and with money to burn, and we’ve been throwing a lot of that money and our hard power around, often recklessly, and Johnson points out many of our flaws and warts, sometimes very effectively. But, frankly, despite being riveted by the tale, I didn’t like the book very much.
Those like me in the middle of the political spectrum don’t have many people screaming for our side – I suppose the center isn’t a side. We‘re caught between those on the right trying to scare the bejesus out of us with the idea that every Muslim woman in Kansas City has a bomb up her burka and that every young adherent of Islam in Detroit wants to cut off our heads with his scimitar. On the left we have writers like Johnson pointing out every action by George IV and Dick Cheney, aka Richard III, as another step in our enslavement under the new tyranny of President for Life George W.
Unfortunately for Johnson, the book came out prior to the November 2006 Congressional election, and the Democrats have made the emperor and his prime minister look something less than Augustus and his head of the Praetorian Guard. That’s not to say that we in the middle don’t see all or many of the dangers that Johnson points out in his `sky is falling’ style.
To Johnson it seems that every soldier is a jack booted maniac intent on terrorizing innocent civilians. Frankly, I think our warriors come off pretty badly but through little fault of their own. In Johnson’s world half the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen stationed across the globe do little but act as hooligans and rapists in terrorizing the locals. Here again a little truth goes a long way. I’m not excusing our troops with a boys will be boys escape clause. Certainly, many horrible acts have been committed, and we should be cracking down on all violence against our allies. But the vast majority of those wearing our uniform have got to be half way decent men and women. Exceptions can’t be used to prove the rules, and Johnson really does this.
Johnson’s thesis is that we use our soft power to force allies across the globe to swallow our presence. Let’s get real, the leaders of the host countries have to see some benefits to having our bases in their countries, or they simply wouldn’t do it. Not everybody in power in other countries is on the take. I know that many of our bases are unwelcome. Guantanamo comes to mind, and certainly Fidel would like us out of there permanently, but, in the absence of the ability to chuck us into the Atlantic, he does permit Cubans to go to work each day and bring greenbacks to his side of the fence.
The author’s complaints against the military industrial complex are right on the money, but he’s hardly the first to see the danger. Washington and Madison were way ahead of Johnson and I heard Ike’s direct warning loud and clear. The dangers and techniques of the practitioners are well known and we are indeed in danger of tyranny if we don’t do better in dealing with this threat. I’ll also grant Johnson that he’s right in his fears about missile defense and space warfare.
He’s also right that Bush and Cheney were overly aggressive in aggrandizing executive power, and I support his views on this. His fears that the imperial presidency and the military industrial complex have neutered the Congress is scary, on target, and not to be dismissed lightly, but it’s also true that the Democrats – joined now by more than a few on the other side – are beating that jack back into his box. It’s an unending battle between branches, but my friends and I have been preaching the benefits of divided government for the entire period of these present abuses. The people, despite the bombardment of fear from both sides, seem to understand the problem and are supporting the new found courage of the Congress.
Before closing, I want to say something personal about Bush and Cheney. I hate what they’ve done in Iraq and despise the tactics they’ve used to gain power to diminish those who oppose them. But I do not for a minute believe that their intent was to become tyrants and dictators. They’ve done a lousy job, but they’re not of the evil intent to destroy the Republic.
Johnson is quick with `some say’ and `some think’ arguments that cannot be truly tested, and there are some technical errors – I think. For example, he points to an air base in Asia that has a 13,800 foot runway and which is manned by 3,000 Americans, all this on 37 acres. They must be packing those troops into a mighty tall high rise barracks building and the planes must have a very narrow wingspan.
Despite all my complaints, I recommend this book, but as a practicing propagandist I warn you that it’s a little more than over the top in its assertions and accusations.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Mea Culpa
Mea maxima culpa!
I thought it was just a little white fib designed to carry Iowa, Nebraska and Alabama. When during the race for his first term for president Bush was asked, “What political philosopher do you identify with…?” his disingenuous reply of, “Jesus Christ,” seemed to many viewers, including me, to be just a little hokey. I was wrong; he meant it. And his behavior since has shown that he still doesn’t know the difference between philosophy and religion.
Yale graduates should know the general difference between the two with philosophers pursuing the truth and theologians (and I’ll place the Lord in this category) possessing it. The president has demonstrated time and again that he is governed more by theology than by an objective view of the world around him.
Mr. Bush’s messianic behavior and his certainty and stubbornness in all things have brought him and his followers (that includes all of us) to grief. His certainty that Saddam’s government had weapons of mass destruction and in failing to show patience with the U.N. inspection program before attacking Iraq has led to his standing with the public and America’s low standing in the community of nations.
I blanched when Dubya named his political philosopher, but I went to the polls in November 2000 and pulled the lever next to his name. And while I was among the earliest of Republican defectors when the war drums began beating for an attack on Baghdad and only lately has that trickle away from the GOP turned into a flood, it was my great fault for not seeing that the man was telling the truth and portending all that has come to pass with his simple and direct reply.
Mea culpa America; mea maxima culpa. It’s my fault as much as George’s. I should have known.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
I thought it was just a little white fib designed to carry Iowa, Nebraska and Alabama. When during the race for his first term for president Bush was asked, “What political philosopher do you identify with…?” his disingenuous reply of, “Jesus Christ,” seemed to many viewers, including me, to be just a little hokey. I was wrong; he meant it. And his behavior since has shown that he still doesn’t know the difference between philosophy and religion.
Yale graduates should know the general difference between the two with philosophers pursuing the truth and theologians (and I’ll place the Lord in this category) possessing it. The president has demonstrated time and again that he is governed more by theology than by an objective view of the world around him.
Mr. Bush’s messianic behavior and his certainty and stubbornness in all things have brought him and his followers (that includes all of us) to grief. His certainty that Saddam’s government had weapons of mass destruction and in failing to show patience with the U.N. inspection program before attacking Iraq has led to his standing with the public and America’s low standing in the community of nations.
I blanched when Dubya named his political philosopher, but I went to the polls in November 2000 and pulled the lever next to his name. And while I was among the earliest of Republican defectors when the war drums began beating for an attack on Baghdad and only lately has that trickle away from the GOP turned into a flood, it was my great fault for not seeing that the man was telling the truth and portending all that has come to pass with his simple and direct reply.
Mea culpa America; mea maxima culpa. It’s my fault as much as George’s. I should have known.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Damn Them
As Republican and Democratic lawmakers and office holders and seekers seek to cover their slimy butts over their roles in the Iraq fiasco there is only one universal: George Bush made them do it. George Bush’s incompetence in making the policy to go to war and his total ineptitude in prosecuting it created all of life’s problems and is now the mantra for both parties to rise from the ashes by stepping on him as they grasp for straws.
Even the neoconservatives are laying it all on George’s foolish errors of not invading with a sufficient force, disbanding of the Iraqi army, firing of all Baathists, failure to recognize the signs of insurrection and just about every other sin known to man. Now George Tenet lays the blame on those around the great man (who, of course hired all of them.)
But it’s always the incompetence thing! This just doesn’t wash; while the mess was indeed managed totally incompetently, the bottom line is that we should never have invaded Iraq and all of the current posturing is an effort to get the American people to take their collective eye off of that terrible decision.
While you and I had no sources to refute the intelligence that Bush and his lackeys (actually his masters) used to flimflam us into war - that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction is the least of the sins in the run up to war. Based on the information in the public domain, I firmly believed that Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons and that he was seeking nuclear capability. Even if this were true, that is not the basis for preemptive war.
Under international law, preemptive war requires and imminent threat of attack by the opposite party. Even with all the baloney about mushroom clouds that Bush, Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld and untold numbers of neocons used to scare the crap out of the populace, they never claimed that Saddam’s potential to attack us or our allies was anything but in some far future time frame.
The United States under President George W. Bush, despite much internal misgiving about the quality of the intelligence concerning the actual status of Saddam’s weapons stocks and programs, preventively attacked a sovereign state that all of the decision makers knew was no immediate threat to us, our allies or our interests.
All of the dancing by those members of congress of both parties, the neoconservatives inside and out of government and all the drum beaters in talk radio and elsewhere cannot change the real situation which existed, that we violated international law and badly damaged our country and the nation of Iraq. All the songs about the world being a better place without the monster Saddam is so much bull. He posed little threat to us our interests and containment was working, and we have spent more than 3,000 lives and committed $2 trillion in treasure for that fool’s errand.
While I am committed to whomever the Dems run in ’08, don’t be fooled into thinking that they have no culpability in this disaster. They only look good in comparison with the others. The Republicans beat the drums and deserve to be driven from Washington. The neoconservatives are fools actively involved in rewriting their part in the mess; do not ever forget that the greatest responsibility for this calamity is theirs. All of them (GOP, Dems and neocons) have failed us.
But try to remember the few on the Hill and in the media who stood for principal as the drums were beating so very loudly, and,God, they are very few indeed.
George Bush is the greatest fool of all, but don’t you be fooled into believing that it was all him, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith. Many now pointing fingers have blood on their hands. A pox on all their houses!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Even the neoconservatives are laying it all on George’s foolish errors of not invading with a sufficient force, disbanding of the Iraqi army, firing of all Baathists, failure to recognize the signs of insurrection and just about every other sin known to man. Now George Tenet lays the blame on those around the great man (who, of course hired all of them.)
But it’s always the incompetence thing! This just doesn’t wash; while the mess was indeed managed totally incompetently, the bottom line is that we should never have invaded Iraq and all of the current posturing is an effort to get the American people to take their collective eye off of that terrible decision.
While you and I had no sources to refute the intelligence that Bush and his lackeys (actually his masters) used to flimflam us into war - that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction is the least of the sins in the run up to war. Based on the information in the public domain, I firmly believed that Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons and that he was seeking nuclear capability. Even if this were true, that is not the basis for preemptive war.
Under international law, preemptive war requires and imminent threat of attack by the opposite party. Even with all the baloney about mushroom clouds that Bush, Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld and untold numbers of neocons used to scare the crap out of the populace, they never claimed that Saddam’s potential to attack us or our allies was anything but in some far future time frame.
The United States under President George W. Bush, despite much internal misgiving about the quality of the intelligence concerning the actual status of Saddam’s weapons stocks and programs, preventively attacked a sovereign state that all of the decision makers knew was no immediate threat to us, our allies or our interests.
All of the dancing by those members of congress of both parties, the neoconservatives inside and out of government and all the drum beaters in talk radio and elsewhere cannot change the real situation which existed, that we violated international law and badly damaged our country and the nation of Iraq. All the songs about the world being a better place without the monster Saddam is so much bull. He posed little threat to us our interests and containment was working, and we have spent more than 3,000 lives and committed $2 trillion in treasure for that fool’s errand.
While I am committed to whomever the Dems run in ’08, don’t be fooled into thinking that they have no culpability in this disaster. They only look good in comparison with the others. The Republicans beat the drums and deserve to be driven from Washington. The neoconservatives are fools actively involved in rewriting their part in the mess; do not ever forget that the greatest responsibility for this calamity is theirs. All of them (GOP, Dems and neocons) have failed us.
But try to remember the few on the Hill and in the media who stood for principal as the drums were beating so very loudly, and,God, they are very few indeed.
George Bush is the greatest fool of all, but don’t you be fooled into believing that it was all him, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith. Many now pointing fingers have blood on their hands. A pox on all their houses!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Careful Now
I’m going to support the Democratic nominee for president in’08 - period! That said there is no doubt in my mind that among those running, some of those Democrats will look better to independent and moderate Republican voters than others, and I’m more than a little concerned that the Dems are being snookered by right wing pundits and party stalwarts. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard Barack Obama described by our kindly conservative friends as a phenom who is taking America by storm, a wunderkind galvanizing the voters, and a dozen other great adjectives.
It’s wonderful that Obama has the likes of David Brooks of the New York Times almost speechless with admiration. But I really don’t buy this baloney. Frankly, I think they’re trying to set up the Dems with a `don’t throw me in the briar patch defense’.
The Republicans are in grave danger of having overplayed their trump suit of strength on national security matters. The adverse impact of the Iraq War on the electorate and the incompetence of the Bush administration in prosecuting that conflict and the war in Afghanistan has the political right frightened silly, and I perceive their mock horror at the freak of nature Obama possibly sweeping them from power is simply a sham.
They overtly call on the Dems to nominate Hillary so that they can get a four year extension on the lease at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and openly cringe at the prospect of an Obama headed ticket. But do they mean it? I don’t believe it for a minute. I think Hillary is truly the one they fear and that they’d welcome the chance to fire away at the relatively inexperienced Obama.
I’m convinced the Republicans are begging to be thrown into that old thicket. Beware of frightened neocons!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
It’s wonderful that Obama has the likes of David Brooks of the New York Times almost speechless with admiration. But I really don’t buy this baloney. Frankly, I think they’re trying to set up the Dems with a `don’t throw me in the briar patch defense’.
The Republicans are in grave danger of having overplayed their trump suit of strength on national security matters. The adverse impact of the Iraq War on the electorate and the incompetence of the Bush administration in prosecuting that conflict and the war in Afghanistan has the political right frightened silly, and I perceive their mock horror at the freak of nature Obama possibly sweeping them from power is simply a sham.
They overtly call on the Dems to nominate Hillary so that they can get a four year extension on the lease at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and openly cringe at the prospect of an Obama headed ticket. But do they mean it? I don’t believe it for a minute. I think Hillary is truly the one they fear and that they’d welcome the chance to fire away at the relatively inexperienced Obama.
I’m convinced the Republicans are begging to be thrown into that old thicket. Beware of frightened neocons!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Thank your local neocon today
Neitzian supermen - and women – have been in charge of American foreign policy for six years with clear results: we’re isolated in the world community of nations; these ubermen have committed us to internationally illegal preventive warfare against a state that posed virtually no risk to us or its neighbors; in the name of saving a people, they’ve caused them more harm to its citizens than the immoral regime we toppled to help them; by their blundering they’ve empowered the two most important members of the `Axis of Evil’ that they intended to cow; they’ve lost more than 3,000 American lives; and they’ve committed the nation to spending more than two trillion dollars as a result.
In addition, they’ve strengthened the hands of our major rivals China and Russia. They’ve turned the vast majority of people of one of the world’s largest and most important civilization from probably mild dislike of America to open hatred of us. They’ve stretched our Army and Marines to the breaking point. It goes on and on.
Frankly, you’d expect a reaction from the White House that would diminish the power of these neoconservative ubermen – and women - who pointed the president and the nation on this course, but, of course, you’d be wrong. Instead the president has doubled down his bets in Iraq. Next time you’re out, thank your local neocon.
In mitigation of this madness, however, we have to take into account that those in charge, Dubya and Dick, are really lost and confused souls. Need I mention Katrina again? How about their inability to get their stories straight on firing a bunch of U.S. Attorney’s; hasn’t anyone ever told them that they shouldn’t write down their most brilliant Machiavellian schemes? Actually, underlings always write that baloney down because they assume that their ideas are going to work out just as they dreamed and they want full credit for them. And poor Scooter, has there ever been a nobler one man hara-kiri? Instead…
By the way, Dubya’s surprised about the scandalous treatment of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed and elsewhere. Of course he’s surprised. The only thing he ordered was that the DOD budget be wrung out to the point that the costs of the war are back loaded to the greatest extent possible. How could he ever know that brain damaged men and women wouldn’t be afforded the best possible long term care? He couldn’t, but something had to give if he was to escape to Crawford with his successor left holding the big bag of manure.
Dubya and Dick have lost control of almost everything but their war powers. Real Republicans and conservatives are diving for cover in foreign policy, the Iraq War, education and law enforcement. While I might have been a few days premature in naming Bush a limping water fowl in January of ’06, have you seen his imitation of Walter Brennan or heard his imitation of Donald Duck over these past few months? Sure bears a resemblance to a sorry duck in my book.
Not to worry, only 677 days from noon today.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
In addition, they’ve strengthened the hands of our major rivals China and Russia. They’ve turned the vast majority of people of one of the world’s largest and most important civilization from probably mild dislike of America to open hatred of us. They’ve stretched our Army and Marines to the breaking point. It goes on and on.
Frankly, you’d expect a reaction from the White House that would diminish the power of these neoconservative ubermen – and women - who pointed the president and the nation on this course, but, of course, you’d be wrong. Instead the president has doubled down his bets in Iraq. Next time you’re out, thank your local neocon.
In mitigation of this madness, however, we have to take into account that those in charge, Dubya and Dick, are really lost and confused souls. Need I mention Katrina again? How about their inability to get their stories straight on firing a bunch of U.S. Attorney’s; hasn’t anyone ever told them that they shouldn’t write down their most brilliant Machiavellian schemes? Actually, underlings always write that baloney down because they assume that their ideas are going to work out just as they dreamed and they want full credit for them. And poor Scooter, has there ever been a nobler one man hara-kiri? Instead…
By the way, Dubya’s surprised about the scandalous treatment of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed and elsewhere. Of course he’s surprised. The only thing he ordered was that the DOD budget be wrung out to the point that the costs of the war are back loaded to the greatest extent possible. How could he ever know that brain damaged men and women wouldn’t be afforded the best possible long term care? He couldn’t, but something had to give if he was to escape to Crawford with his successor left holding the big bag of manure.
Dubya and Dick have lost control of almost everything but their war powers. Real Republicans and conservatives are diving for cover in foreign policy, the Iraq War, education and law enforcement. While I might have been a few days premature in naming Bush a limping water fowl in January of ’06, have you seen his imitation of Walter Brennan or heard his imitation of Donald Duck over these past few months? Sure bears a resemblance to a sorry duck in my book.
Not to worry, only 677 days from noon today.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Sky is Falling
The fat’s in the fire. The two most argumentative people in the Washington, DC suburbs are at it fast and furious. Walt Francis, economist know it all v. Wild Bill, just plain vanilla know it all, are going to discuss climate change for the masses of our readers.
Walt is in the corner of the debunkers of global warming and Bill is kind of half way between an agnostic and a follower of the consensus. We invite your comments to brennan01@cox.net and WaltonJF@aol.com.
As usual, this round began with Walt’s flinging of a take no prisoners gauntlet to his large mailing list. Naturally, I couldn’t resist commenting. And Walt could not restrain himself from a point by point refutation of the pearls. Since it’s my blog that he invited me to use, naturally, I won the debate, but I leave it to our readers, known and unknown, to judge if the sky is truly falling.
The first item is the gauntlet; the second the response and, finally, the refutation. It began with this from Walt:
Friends:
For your amusement and edification, I pass this along.
Sparked by an article in this morning's NYTimes science section, quoting the scientific disagreement with the "chicken little" global warming "apocalypse coming real soon" crowd, I googled one of the quoted scientists, "Don J Easterbrook", a distinguished climatology expert with more credentials on this subject than the entire Board of Directors and President of the AAAS combined.
He's done a superb Power Point slide show on the science and facts on this topic, which I hereby append. Or you can simply go to the following URL: gsa.confex.com/gsa/viewHandout.cgi?uploadid=215
After you've watched it, which will take only five or ten minutes, see if you don't agree with me that we have more to fear from an ice age than from CO2-driven global warming.
A couple of days ago the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, a distinguished economist, issued an attack on "ideological environmentalism" after the European Union leaders struck a deal to cut carbon emissions in Europe that would create economic havoc in the Czech Republic. "Mr Kaus said the global warming movement was just the latest environmental scare campaign, following on the short-lived fears of a population explosion in the 1970s and the expanding ozone hole in the 1980s." "They keep shooting at a moving target," he said (Wash Times article. The Post doesn't cover global warming "deniers".)
Too bad that the Bush Administration isn't more careful on this topic. They're wasting billions on climate research that could better be spent elsewhere. But I guess all politicians have to follow the latest fad scare, until it is forgotten and replaced by another fad.
Walt "Keep Pumping that Carbon" Francis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt,
As laymen involved in the political process, we’ve got to decide between dueling scientific scenarios. The possibilities for the planet include: the earth is warming; the earth is cooling; the earth is warming and the engine is man’s degradation of the environment by various means; the earth is cooling but that trend is being overridden by man’s activity; the earth is warming and one of the (major) factors is man’s use of fossil fuels, etc. There may well be other options that I haven’t thought of but these will do for my points.
Based on what I’ve read and the number and qualifications of the vast majority of scientists who seem to be on that side, I’ve pretty much made up my mind that man is having an adverse impact on global warming. I do note, however, that in addition to the many crackpots who have taken it upon themselves to debunk the role of man in what is happening there are a number of highly qualified scientists and engineers who have participated in the process and have examined the data and do not agree with the majority. The latter group may be right, but none of this will mean anything in my lifetime or in the several decades that follow.
Let us assume that only two of the possibilities are correct: first, man is not having an adverse impact, and second, that he is. Let us further assume one of the implications in your note to us: that in fact the globe may be cooling and we’re merely part of a long cycle. If the earth is cooling, my question would be what’s the harm of man cutting the use of fossil fuels and limiting green house gas emissions? If we’re in such a cycle and man isn’t impacting the process, then cutting back would not harm the environment or adversely impact human and animal health and well being. This not to say there is no economic impact, but that would have to be considered in the light of all other plusses and minuses on health and well being.
I think the cleaning up of the environment would not have a very great adverse impact on the world economy, assuming the very difficult prospect that all of the world’s great economies participate, including North American countries, Brazil, Argentina, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc.
In the scenario in which the fears of the vast majority of scientists now seem to agree - that man is adversely impacting the climate – let us suppose they are correct and the world’s governments cannot agree on a program and we do little or nothing to mitigate the problem. The results would almost certainly be tragic. Even assuming that the rate of the impacts is only a fraction of those stated by the `Chicken Littles’, clearly the ocean levels would rise when the ice caps retreat and the warming water expands. This alone would adversely impact the highly populated Bangladesh and some of the small island nations. I think it is not challengeable that hurricanes (cyclones) would do considerably more damage to these low lying areas and others such as the Gulf Coast and Florida in the U.S. In this latter point, I’m going to ignore the `Chicken Littles’ who say that that storms would be more common and more severe; my basic point is if the water level is higher coastal areas will be more adversely damaged even if storms are not more frequent or numerous.
My basic bottom line is that I’m going to go along with the vast majority of the scientists in this case. They may not be correct, but I see a lot less harm in trying to hammer out a consensus of world governments on this course than doing nothing. My fear is that those on the other side may be profoundly wrong and that their obduracy will do grave damage to our planet and our species. I’d rather be wrong in my position then have you be wrong in yours. We’ll never know – those of us who are adults today, but if we’re wrong and do nothing, our grandchildren and theirs will have a lot more to curse their ancestors about than they should.
An imperfect analogy might be the tobacco fiasco. For decades the federal government, the industry and many highly qualified scientists opined that smoking was not overly harmful. Many of these people were stating honest positions. Six or eight decades later we find that they were gravely wrong and hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they believed the product was not harmful. Had a more conservative position been taken by the government, a lot of folks now pushing up daisies would still be among us.
In any event, I’m going to keep an open mind on the subject, but I’m leaning against your position at this minute.
Bill
----------------------------------------------------
The rebuttal (alternatly, my comments then Walt's):
Walt,
As laymen involved in the political process, we’ve got to decide between dueling scientific scenarios. The possibilities for the planet include: the earth is warming; the earth is cooling; the earth is warming and the engine is man’s degradation of the environment by various means; the earth is cooling but that trend is being overridden by man’s activity; the earth is warming and one of the (major) factors is man’s use of fossil fuels, etc. There may well be other options that I haven’t thought of but these will do for my points.
Based on what I’ve read and the number and qualifications of the vast majority of scientists who seem to be on that side,
Bill, I believe that of the qualified scientists, normally called climatologists, the majority are on the "we don't know enough to reach any conclusions, but there are likely other causes of this minor blip" side. The messianic believers include dogcatchers and sociologists and biologists and chemists and other unqualified folk to pad their totals. Regardless, science is not about consensus, but truth. A lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, and still others in phlogiston, etc.
I’ve pretty much made up my mind that man is having an adverse impact on global warming. I do note, however, that in addition to the many crackpots who have taken it upon themselves to debunk the role of man in what is happening there are a number of highly qualified scientists and engineers who have participated in the process and have examined the data and do not agree with the majority. The latter group may be right, but none of this will mean anything in my lifetime or in the several decades that follow.
You are correct that nothing of import wll happen in our lifetimes, or our childrens'. Sure seems like a good strategy to engage in watchful waiting.
Let us assume that only two of the possibilities are correct: first, man is not having an adverse impact, and second, that he is.
Pardon me, but what oracle decided that global warming was "adverse"? Best as I can tell from the actual literature (not news stories) it will have mostly positive impacts on both humans and critters.
Let us further assume one of the implications in your note to us: that in fact the globe may be cooling and we’re merely part of a long cycle. If the earth is cooling, my question would be what’s the harm of man cutting the use of fossil fuels and limiting green house gas emissions?
What's the harm? You jest. However, the Francis plan is to make it illegal for anyone believing in global warming to use any electric power, natural gas, or gasoline. We will distribute polar bear rugs to you folks in the "consensus". That will not "cut the use" of fossil fuels, but will reduce the rate of increase slightly. What is your plan for cutting the use? A $100 a gallon tax on gas? A $1 a kilowatt hour tax on electrictiy? You won't do a damn thing except impoverish Americans. Are we going to enforce those taxes on the Chinese? The Africans? I am unaware of any sane proposal to change energy utilization that would do anything more than reduce slightly the rate of growth. An all out nuclear program, which I support on national security grounds, with 500 new nuclear plants in the USA in the next 50 years, would not reduce the use of carbon. Get real! (I trust you know enough to understand that solar and wind power are jokes in this context, advocated only by the scientifically and economically illiterate.)
If we’re in such a cycle and man isn’t impacting the process, then cutting back would not harm the environment or adversely impact human and animal health and well being. This not to say there is no economic impact, but that would have to be considered in the light of all other plusses and minuses on health and well being.
There are no consequential minuses. No one has shown any adverse impact of global warming, if that is real, worth talking about. I hope you don't believe any of the nonsense about 20 foot increases in ocean level, or the polar bears being wiped out, or Malaria wiping us out (did you know that Malaria was endemic in the USA until we wiped it out a hundred years ago, during the little ice age?) that you read in the religious sermons on this issue. Not one reputable scientist in the world agrees with that crazy fearmongering stuff. Only reporters and newscasters repeat it.
As to "cutting back", that is, in a word impossible. There aren't enough machine guns in the world to make any nation impoverish its citizens in the name of this religious cause, based on the phony "consensus" of unqualified "scientists" speaking on subjects of which they are ignorant.
I think the cleaning up of the environment would not have a very great adverse impact on the world economy, assuming the very difficult prospect that all of the world’s great economies participate, including North American countries, Brazil, Argentina, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc.
Not one, not one single one of them, will "participate." You had better plan to relax and enjoy it. As to "not have a very great adverse impact" that is right up there with the tooth fairy. Just try and find one single study, by competent economists, that asserts we can reduce carbon use with no adverse impact that is not ten times greater than the great depression. P.S. I have a great book on the "solar power scam" that debunks that nonsense.
In the scenario in which the fears of the vast majority of scientists now seem to agree -
The "great majority" of scientists are not competent to render an opinion on any subject, let alone this one. They specialize, and the cosmic ray guys don't have a whole lot to say about the fruit fly guys, or vice versa. Where on earth did you get the idea that the "great majority" agreed on anything except the chicken little theory of the apocalypse, a religous rather than scientific belief?
that man is adversely impacting the climate – let us suppose they are correct and the world’s governments cannot agree on a program and we do little or nothing to mitigate the problem.
Well la de da. Who said the "world's government's" would consider, let along implement, the economic destruction of their own countries. The EU just voted to reduce carbon emissions below 1990 levels 20 years from now. That is what they agreed in Kyoto. In total, they are 10 percent above those levels after 10 years of lip service. The latest proposal, according to the papers, is to impose speed limits on the German autobahns. The Germans are enraged. But if the EU bureaucrats get their way, that little move will increase, not decrease, carbon emissions. I leave it to you to work out why.
The results would almost certainly be tragic. Even assuming that the rate of the impacts is only a fraction of those stated by the `Chicken Littles’, clearly the ocean levels would rise when the ice caps retreat and the warming water expands.
I beg your pardon! The global warming scam IPCC says sea level in the next century will rise one foot, six inches above the natural level of increase as we come out of the last ice age. Al Gore says 20 feet. Guess who doesn't agree with the alleged scientific consensus? As to Bangladesh, even in the Al Gore scenario they can do what the Dutch did. It is a no brainer. Of course, they can't do what the Dutch did if we reduce them to the stone age by banning coal and petroleum.
BTW, under global warming the ice caps grow, not decrease. They are growing today. True, the arctic ice is shrinking but that is not an ice cap and if that trivial amount of ice melts completely, which it won't, the oceans will not rise one tenth of an inch. Meanwhile, the real ice caps in Antartica and Greenland grow rapidly, fed by increased precipitation from warming, freezing that increased precipitation, and thereby reducing the ocean levels. I think you've been reading too many scare headlines by Washington Post envirofreaks, and not enough of the actual literature on the subject.
This alone would adversely impact the highly populated Bangladesh and some of the small island nations. I think it is not challengeable that hurricanes (cyclones) would do considerably more damage to these low lying areas and others such as the Gulf Coast and Florida in the U.S. In this latter point, I’m going to ignore the `Chicken Littles’ who say that that storms would be more common and more severe; my basic point is if the water level is higher coastal areas will be more adversely damaged even if storms are not more frequent or numerous.
The actual scientific consensus among meteorologists is that storms are NOT going to get worse, Al Gore to the contrary. I totally fail to understand your concern. Yes, countries that put their buildings on low lying shores will get pounded, with or without global warming. We call it the "New Orleans Syndrome." Yawn. Bangladesh will have no greater problem a hundred years from now than it has today, but a great deal more national income to use in building dikes. Yawn.
My basic bottom line is that I’m going to go along with the vast majority of the scientists in this case.
I prefer to go along with the vast majority of flat earthers, who certainly have more credibility than whomever you think you are believing. And just what is it they say that you believe? Suppose you believe the alleged consensus put out by the ICC, and the oceans rise a foot a hundred years from now. So what? Just what are you "going along" with? Do you think that a single one of those physical scientists, sociologists, and soothsayers has any competence whatsoever to estimate the economic impacts of any actions whatsover? Let us assume, illustratively, that biologists can "prove" that global warming will wipe out 90 percent of the frog species in the world (it turns out, in fact, that a human spread fungus is the problem. But let us ignore that inconvenient truth). Let us "go along" with them. Just what are we supposed to do? Mandatory sterilization of all women? Ban the automobile? What is their proposal and what competence do those frog scientists have even to discuss the subject? I would rather "go along" with witch doctors than biologists.
They may not be correct, but I see a lot less harm in trying to hammer out a consensus of world governments on this course than doing nothing.
There won't be a consensus to do a damn thing, let alone "this course", whatever that is. The reasons are that few climatologist believes there is a problem beyone that one foot ocean rise, and irregardless no government is going to shaft its citizens for the apocalyptic fears of the scare mongers. The United States response so far is "better" than average: we subsidize the corn farmers to produce ethanol that burns more carbon than it saves.
My fear is that those on the other side may be profoundly wrong and that their obduracy will do grave damage to our planet and our species. I’d rather be wrong in my position then have you be wrong in yours. We’ll never know – those of us who are adults today, but if we’re wrong and do nothing, our grandchildren and theirs will have a lot more to curse their ancestors about than they should.
Some of us think that the coming ice age is a bigger problem, and we should burn more carbon to prevent it. About half the climatologists are on that side. Suppose I agree with you that no price is too high: which side of the qualified scientists do I beleive? And why would I believe any of them when the science on this subject is not even in its infancy? Some would think being cursed for doing the wrong thing out of irrational fear is a lot worse than being calm, cool, and watchful.
An imperfect analogy might be the tobacco fiasco. For decades the federal government, the industry and many highly qualified scientists opined that smoking was not overly harmful. Many of these people were stating honest positions. Six or eight decades later we find that they were gravely wrong and hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they believed the product was not harmful. Had a more conservative position been taken by the government, a lot of folks now pushing up daisies would still be among us.
A "conservative" government position is to ban anything someone thinks, correctly or incorrectly, kills people? We tried that once before, and the "ban it completely" crowd was right: alcohol kills. Are we going to ban gasoline? Ban home heating oil? Ban automobiles? What on earth are you talking about doing that could possible slow down, let alone reverse, the growth of carbon emissions on this planet? (I can actually think of a workable option: nuke the Chinese and bring on nuclear winter. That will stop the warming!)
In any event, I’m going to keep an open mind on the subject, but I’m leaning against your position at this minute.
My position is that we don't know enough to be on one side or another. Your position is to do something, you don't know what, at some price in human misery you have not calculated, to prevent an imaginary harm that you can't even describe. I don't know what basis you have for disagreement. Apparently you believe the nonsense you read in every Washington Post story on this subject, in the grotesque distortions they print. If you decide you are interested in the science, I have a half dozen books by qualified scientists on this subject who ravage and ridicule the true believers. The latter have published no rebuttals.
Meanwhile, if you actually read the powerpoint slides with any care, ask yourself the following question: is there a single scientist in the world who can dispute what you saw? If so, what is his name? What is his counter evidence? And what data does he have on all those dreadful things that happened to Bangladesh or the polar bears or whomever the last ten times we entered a global warming cycle?
BTW, did you know that the oceans have risen 400 feet in the last 12,000 years. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Human used to walk across the English channel and the Bering Straits. Just what awful thing will happen if the oceans rise another foot in the next hundred years? If the January temperatures in the arctic rise on average from minus 40 to minus 30, but are unchanged in the continental USA? Until someone can describe with some particularity the harm, the consequences, the alternative, and its consequences, this is all rubbish.
Walt responding to Bill. Just pass this along in your blog or whereever.
The issue here is not science, but irrational religious fears of armageddon and apocalyse by true believers. There is actually nothing to discuss except what causes their peculiar mental state, and whether or why it may or may not be different than the mentality of the Salem witch trials or the people who fled hearing the Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" martian invasion radio show. By all means pass this one.
---------------------------------------------------
That's it.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Walt is in the corner of the debunkers of global warming and Bill is kind of half way between an agnostic and a follower of the consensus. We invite your comments to brennan01@cox.net and WaltonJF@aol.com.
As usual, this round began with Walt’s flinging of a take no prisoners gauntlet to his large mailing list. Naturally, I couldn’t resist commenting. And Walt could not restrain himself from a point by point refutation of the pearls. Since it’s my blog that he invited me to use, naturally, I won the debate, but I leave it to our readers, known and unknown, to judge if the sky is truly falling.
The first item is the gauntlet; the second the response and, finally, the refutation. It began with this from Walt:
Friends:
For your amusement and edification, I pass this along.
Sparked by an article in this morning's NYTimes science section, quoting the scientific disagreement with the "chicken little" global warming "apocalypse coming real soon" crowd, I googled one of the quoted scientists, "Don J Easterbrook", a distinguished climatology expert with more credentials on this subject than the entire Board of Directors and President of the AAAS combined.
He's done a superb Power Point slide show on the science and facts on this topic, which I hereby append. Or you can simply go to the following URL: gsa.confex.com/gsa/viewHandout.cgi?uploadid=215
After you've watched it, which will take only five or ten minutes, see if you don't agree with me that we have more to fear from an ice age than from CO2-driven global warming.
A couple of days ago the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, a distinguished economist, issued an attack on "ideological environmentalism" after the European Union leaders struck a deal to cut carbon emissions in Europe that would create economic havoc in the Czech Republic. "Mr Kaus said the global warming movement was just the latest environmental scare campaign, following on the short-lived fears of a population explosion in the 1970s and the expanding ozone hole in the 1980s." "They keep shooting at a moving target," he said (Wash Times article. The Post doesn't cover global warming "deniers".)
Too bad that the Bush Administration isn't more careful on this topic. They're wasting billions on climate research that could better be spent elsewhere. But I guess all politicians have to follow the latest fad scare, until it is forgotten and replaced by another fad.
Walt "Keep Pumping that Carbon" Francis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt,
As laymen involved in the political process, we’ve got to decide between dueling scientific scenarios. The possibilities for the planet include: the earth is warming; the earth is cooling; the earth is warming and the engine is man’s degradation of the environment by various means; the earth is cooling but that trend is being overridden by man’s activity; the earth is warming and one of the (major) factors is man’s use of fossil fuels, etc. There may well be other options that I haven’t thought of but these will do for my points.
Based on what I’ve read and the number and qualifications of the vast majority of scientists who seem to be on that side, I’ve pretty much made up my mind that man is having an adverse impact on global warming. I do note, however, that in addition to the many crackpots who have taken it upon themselves to debunk the role of man in what is happening there are a number of highly qualified scientists and engineers who have participated in the process and have examined the data and do not agree with the majority. The latter group may be right, but none of this will mean anything in my lifetime or in the several decades that follow.
Let us assume that only two of the possibilities are correct: first, man is not having an adverse impact, and second, that he is. Let us further assume one of the implications in your note to us: that in fact the globe may be cooling and we’re merely part of a long cycle. If the earth is cooling, my question would be what’s the harm of man cutting the use of fossil fuels and limiting green house gas emissions? If we’re in such a cycle and man isn’t impacting the process, then cutting back would not harm the environment or adversely impact human and animal health and well being. This not to say there is no economic impact, but that would have to be considered in the light of all other plusses and minuses on health and well being.
I think the cleaning up of the environment would not have a very great adverse impact on the world economy, assuming the very difficult prospect that all of the world’s great economies participate, including North American countries, Brazil, Argentina, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc.
In the scenario in which the fears of the vast majority of scientists now seem to agree - that man is adversely impacting the climate – let us suppose they are correct and the world’s governments cannot agree on a program and we do little or nothing to mitigate the problem. The results would almost certainly be tragic. Even assuming that the rate of the impacts is only a fraction of those stated by the `Chicken Littles’, clearly the ocean levels would rise when the ice caps retreat and the warming water expands. This alone would adversely impact the highly populated Bangladesh and some of the small island nations. I think it is not challengeable that hurricanes (cyclones) would do considerably more damage to these low lying areas and others such as the Gulf Coast and Florida in the U.S. In this latter point, I’m going to ignore the `Chicken Littles’ who say that that storms would be more common and more severe; my basic point is if the water level is higher coastal areas will be more adversely damaged even if storms are not more frequent or numerous.
My basic bottom line is that I’m going to go along with the vast majority of the scientists in this case. They may not be correct, but I see a lot less harm in trying to hammer out a consensus of world governments on this course than doing nothing. My fear is that those on the other side may be profoundly wrong and that their obduracy will do grave damage to our planet and our species. I’d rather be wrong in my position then have you be wrong in yours. We’ll never know – those of us who are adults today, but if we’re wrong and do nothing, our grandchildren and theirs will have a lot more to curse their ancestors about than they should.
An imperfect analogy might be the tobacco fiasco. For decades the federal government, the industry and many highly qualified scientists opined that smoking was not overly harmful. Many of these people were stating honest positions. Six or eight decades later we find that they were gravely wrong and hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they believed the product was not harmful. Had a more conservative position been taken by the government, a lot of folks now pushing up daisies would still be among us.
In any event, I’m going to keep an open mind on the subject, but I’m leaning against your position at this minute.
Bill
----------------------------------------------------
The rebuttal (alternatly, my comments then Walt's):
Walt,
As laymen involved in the political process, we’ve got to decide between dueling scientific scenarios. The possibilities for the planet include: the earth is warming; the earth is cooling; the earth is warming and the engine is man’s degradation of the environment by various means; the earth is cooling but that trend is being overridden by man’s activity; the earth is warming and one of the (major) factors is man’s use of fossil fuels, etc. There may well be other options that I haven’t thought of but these will do for my points.
Based on what I’ve read and the number and qualifications of the vast majority of scientists who seem to be on that side,
Bill, I believe that of the qualified scientists, normally called climatologists, the majority are on the "we don't know enough to reach any conclusions, but there are likely other causes of this minor blip" side. The messianic believers include dogcatchers and sociologists and biologists and chemists and other unqualified folk to pad their totals. Regardless, science is not about consensus, but truth. A lot of people used to believe the earth was flat, and still others in phlogiston, etc.
I’ve pretty much made up my mind that man is having an adverse impact on global warming. I do note, however, that in addition to the many crackpots who have taken it upon themselves to debunk the role of man in what is happening there are a number of highly qualified scientists and engineers who have participated in the process and have examined the data and do not agree with the majority. The latter group may be right, but none of this will mean anything in my lifetime or in the several decades that follow.
You are correct that nothing of import wll happen in our lifetimes, or our childrens'. Sure seems like a good strategy to engage in watchful waiting.
Let us assume that only two of the possibilities are correct: first, man is not having an adverse impact, and second, that he is.
Pardon me, but what oracle decided that global warming was "adverse"? Best as I can tell from the actual literature (not news stories) it will have mostly positive impacts on both humans and critters.
Let us further assume one of the implications in your note to us: that in fact the globe may be cooling and we’re merely part of a long cycle. If the earth is cooling, my question would be what’s the harm of man cutting the use of fossil fuels and limiting green house gas emissions?
What's the harm? You jest. However, the Francis plan is to make it illegal for anyone believing in global warming to use any electric power, natural gas, or gasoline. We will distribute polar bear rugs to you folks in the "consensus". That will not "cut the use" of fossil fuels, but will reduce the rate of increase slightly. What is your plan for cutting the use? A $100 a gallon tax on gas? A $1 a kilowatt hour tax on electrictiy? You won't do a damn thing except impoverish Americans. Are we going to enforce those taxes on the Chinese? The Africans? I am unaware of any sane proposal to change energy utilization that would do anything more than reduce slightly the rate of growth. An all out nuclear program, which I support on national security grounds, with 500 new nuclear plants in the USA in the next 50 years, would not reduce the use of carbon. Get real! (I trust you know enough to understand that solar and wind power are jokes in this context, advocated only by the scientifically and economically illiterate.)
If we’re in such a cycle and man isn’t impacting the process, then cutting back would not harm the environment or adversely impact human and animal health and well being. This not to say there is no economic impact, but that would have to be considered in the light of all other plusses and minuses on health and well being.
There are no consequential minuses. No one has shown any adverse impact of global warming, if that is real, worth talking about. I hope you don't believe any of the nonsense about 20 foot increases in ocean level, or the polar bears being wiped out, or Malaria wiping us out (did you know that Malaria was endemic in the USA until we wiped it out a hundred years ago, during the little ice age?) that you read in the religious sermons on this issue. Not one reputable scientist in the world agrees with that crazy fearmongering stuff. Only reporters and newscasters repeat it.
As to "cutting back", that is, in a word impossible. There aren't enough machine guns in the world to make any nation impoverish its citizens in the name of this religious cause, based on the phony "consensus" of unqualified "scientists" speaking on subjects of which they are ignorant.
I think the cleaning up of the environment would not have a very great adverse impact on the world economy, assuming the very difficult prospect that all of the world’s great economies participate, including North American countries, Brazil, Argentina, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc.
Not one, not one single one of them, will "participate." You had better plan to relax and enjoy it. As to "not have a very great adverse impact" that is right up there with the tooth fairy. Just try and find one single study, by competent economists, that asserts we can reduce carbon use with no adverse impact that is not ten times greater than the great depression. P.S. I have a great book on the "solar power scam" that debunks that nonsense.
In the scenario in which the fears of the vast majority of scientists now seem to agree -
The "great majority" of scientists are not competent to render an opinion on any subject, let alone this one. They specialize, and the cosmic ray guys don't have a whole lot to say about the fruit fly guys, or vice versa. Where on earth did you get the idea that the "great majority" agreed on anything except the chicken little theory of the apocalypse, a religous rather than scientific belief?
that man is adversely impacting the climate – let us suppose they are correct and the world’s governments cannot agree on a program and we do little or nothing to mitigate the problem.
Well la de da. Who said the "world's government's" would consider, let along implement, the economic destruction of their own countries. The EU just voted to reduce carbon emissions below 1990 levels 20 years from now. That is what they agreed in Kyoto. In total, they are 10 percent above those levels after 10 years of lip service. The latest proposal, according to the papers, is to impose speed limits on the German autobahns. The Germans are enraged. But if the EU bureaucrats get their way, that little move will increase, not decrease, carbon emissions. I leave it to you to work out why.
The results would almost certainly be tragic. Even assuming that the rate of the impacts is only a fraction of those stated by the `Chicken Littles’, clearly the ocean levels would rise when the ice caps retreat and the warming water expands.
I beg your pardon! The global warming scam IPCC says sea level in the next century will rise one foot, six inches above the natural level of increase as we come out of the last ice age. Al Gore says 20 feet. Guess who doesn't agree with the alleged scientific consensus? As to Bangladesh, even in the Al Gore scenario they can do what the Dutch did. It is a no brainer. Of course, they can't do what the Dutch did if we reduce them to the stone age by banning coal and petroleum.
BTW, under global warming the ice caps grow, not decrease. They are growing today. True, the arctic ice is shrinking but that is not an ice cap and if that trivial amount of ice melts completely, which it won't, the oceans will not rise one tenth of an inch. Meanwhile, the real ice caps in Antartica and Greenland grow rapidly, fed by increased precipitation from warming, freezing that increased precipitation, and thereby reducing the ocean levels. I think you've been reading too many scare headlines by Washington Post envirofreaks, and not enough of the actual literature on the subject.
This alone would adversely impact the highly populated Bangladesh and some of the small island nations. I think it is not challengeable that hurricanes (cyclones) would do considerably more damage to these low lying areas and others such as the Gulf Coast and Florida in the U.S. In this latter point, I’m going to ignore the `Chicken Littles’ who say that that storms would be more common and more severe; my basic point is if the water level is higher coastal areas will be more adversely damaged even if storms are not more frequent or numerous.
The actual scientific consensus among meteorologists is that storms are NOT going to get worse, Al Gore to the contrary. I totally fail to understand your concern. Yes, countries that put their buildings on low lying shores will get pounded, with or without global warming. We call it the "New Orleans Syndrome." Yawn. Bangladesh will have no greater problem a hundred years from now than it has today, but a great deal more national income to use in building dikes. Yawn.
My basic bottom line is that I’m going to go along with the vast majority of the scientists in this case.
I prefer to go along with the vast majority of flat earthers, who certainly have more credibility than whomever you think you are believing. And just what is it they say that you believe? Suppose you believe the alleged consensus put out by the ICC, and the oceans rise a foot a hundred years from now. So what? Just what are you "going along" with? Do you think that a single one of those physical scientists, sociologists, and soothsayers has any competence whatsoever to estimate the economic impacts of any actions whatsover? Let us assume, illustratively, that biologists can "prove" that global warming will wipe out 90 percent of the frog species in the world (it turns out, in fact, that a human spread fungus is the problem. But let us ignore that inconvenient truth). Let us "go along" with them. Just what are we supposed to do? Mandatory sterilization of all women? Ban the automobile? What is their proposal and what competence do those frog scientists have even to discuss the subject? I would rather "go along" with witch doctors than biologists.
They may not be correct, but I see a lot less harm in trying to hammer out a consensus of world governments on this course than doing nothing.
There won't be a consensus to do a damn thing, let alone "this course", whatever that is. The reasons are that few climatologist believes there is a problem beyone that one foot ocean rise, and irregardless no government is going to shaft its citizens for the apocalyptic fears of the scare mongers. The United States response so far is "better" than average: we subsidize the corn farmers to produce ethanol that burns more carbon than it saves.
My fear is that those on the other side may be profoundly wrong and that their obduracy will do grave damage to our planet and our species. I’d rather be wrong in my position then have you be wrong in yours. We’ll never know – those of us who are adults today, but if we’re wrong and do nothing, our grandchildren and theirs will have a lot more to curse their ancestors about than they should.
Some of us think that the coming ice age is a bigger problem, and we should burn more carbon to prevent it. About half the climatologists are on that side. Suppose I agree with you that no price is too high: which side of the qualified scientists do I beleive? And why would I believe any of them when the science on this subject is not even in its infancy? Some would think being cursed for doing the wrong thing out of irrational fear is a lot worse than being calm, cool, and watchful.
An imperfect analogy might be the tobacco fiasco. For decades the federal government, the industry and many highly qualified scientists opined that smoking was not overly harmful. Many of these people were stating honest positions. Six or eight decades later we find that they were gravely wrong and hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they believed the product was not harmful. Had a more conservative position been taken by the government, a lot of folks now pushing up daisies would still be among us.
A "conservative" government position is to ban anything someone thinks, correctly or incorrectly, kills people? We tried that once before, and the "ban it completely" crowd was right: alcohol kills. Are we going to ban gasoline? Ban home heating oil? Ban automobiles? What on earth are you talking about doing that could possible slow down, let alone reverse, the growth of carbon emissions on this planet? (I can actually think of a workable option: nuke the Chinese and bring on nuclear winter. That will stop the warming!)
In any event, I’m going to keep an open mind on the subject, but I’m leaning against your position at this minute.
My position is that we don't know enough to be on one side or another. Your position is to do something, you don't know what, at some price in human misery you have not calculated, to prevent an imaginary harm that you can't even describe. I don't know what basis you have for disagreement. Apparently you believe the nonsense you read in every Washington Post story on this subject, in the grotesque distortions they print. If you decide you are interested in the science, I have a half dozen books by qualified scientists on this subject who ravage and ridicule the true believers. The latter have published no rebuttals.
Meanwhile, if you actually read the powerpoint slides with any care, ask yourself the following question: is there a single scientist in the world who can dispute what you saw? If so, what is his name? What is his counter evidence? And what data does he have on all those dreadful things that happened to Bangladesh or the polar bears or whomever the last ten times we entered a global warming cycle?
BTW, did you know that the oceans have risen 400 feet in the last 12,000 years. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Human used to walk across the English channel and the Bering Straits. Just what awful thing will happen if the oceans rise another foot in the next hundred years? If the January temperatures in the arctic rise on average from minus 40 to minus 30, but are unchanged in the continental USA? Until someone can describe with some particularity the harm, the consequences, the alternative, and its consequences, this is all rubbish.
Walt responding to Bill. Just pass this along in your blog or whereever.
The issue here is not science, but irrational religious fears of armageddon and apocalyse by true believers. There is actually nothing to discuss except what causes their peculiar mental state, and whether or why it may or may not be different than the mentality of the Salem witch trials or the people who fled hearing the Orson Wells "War of the Worlds" martian invasion radio show. By all means pass this one.
---------------------------------------------------
That's it.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)