Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
Pay no attention to the Wikileaks cables showing your State Department at work arranging the much-ballyhooed political “consensus” in favor of reducing carbon dioxide emissions through Soviet-style industrial policy. Look past last year’s Climategate emails revealing the “settled science” of manmade global warming as a fiction cooked up by self-dealing scientists eager for social transformation, greater prestige and more funding.
You can still be a force for good, but only if you act fast.
Fortunately, for any of you concerned about Al Gore’s opulent lifestyle and crestfallen by the possibility that EPA won’t quite squeeze cap-and-trade through the back door, carbon offsets can be purchased at my local airport. Buy some before you jet off for that environmental conference in Cancun! Strangely, however, CO2 is no longer positioned alongside polar bears drowning in glacier melt. Now the harmless gas you exhale is erroneously pegged as another filthy, sky-obscuring pollutant. The cold truth: anthropogenic global warming has passed its sell-by date.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
That reminds me of one Evelyn Waugh novel, in which a petty con-man, having relieved a mark of his pittance, goes away merrily gloating, "Met a mutt today!"
Aug '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
A nonsensical slogan for a nonsensical activity promoting a nonsensical cause. Can you imagine anyone other than a crackpot purchasing these indulgences?
Update: Climate Passport seems to be the brainchild of the folks in charge of the San Francisco Airport, so my question is answered. The "carbon offsets" are "sourced" from something called the Garcia River Forest Project. On their website, the Climate Passport people put a prospective passport purchaser's mind at ease by asserting that "The Garcia River Forest Project is verified against the Climate Action Reserve 1 rigorous and comprehensive forestry protocol. The protocol provides a standardized method to accurately account for changes in carbon levels in forest projects ensuring that emissions are reduced." Ah, doesn't that make you feel better?
Edited on Dec 7, 2010 at 4:13pmAug '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
Kenneth Sure nice to think of Waugh instead of Mencken. Since we miss Steyn, we would need Waugh to accurately depict the level of false religion and flimflammery that has taken place . Imagine his portrayal of Gore, Doerr and Co as the winners of the game . And then ManBearPig shows up and demands his paycheck from the trio as they sup at Villa Taverna. Too rich . Now if we can move the UN to the Presidio.....
Jul '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
"No thank you.... I own trees."
Oct '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
Excellent argument against the LIES OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING
1) Give it the edge of conspiracy (back room government deals, climategate emails)
2) Play the Al Gore card
3) Point out ridiculous lefty statist solutions
4) Comment on elites at conferences in expensive resorts
Slam dunk for anyone who does not want to bother with addressing the actual science of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
What is proven in this argument? What part of it shows that the observations that have led to the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming are false? Not a single part and that is exactly what is wrong with Conservative criticism of Global Warming. Nearly every written word on the matter focuses on some combination of Global Warming policy, corruption, or unpopular advocates. Rarely does it delve into the science itself and when it does, its usually pretty laughable.
Jul '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
chadn737:
Slam dunk for anyone who does not want to bother with addressing the actual science of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Let's see: an international cabal of scientists, academics, politicians, socialists and polemicists, frustrated by the slowness of their piecemeal approach towards creating the new Green utopia, finally stumbles upon the One Big Idea - AGW.
Said scientists and academics, richly, richly funded by said politicians, labor mightily to generate a unified theory that once and for all will prove that humans are the worst threat to the planet - and to ourselves - and must be reigned in by the power not only of national governments, but of mighty global organs, accountable to nobody.
Then comes the Climate-Gate debacle and numerous other revelations of doctored "science". The climate hysterics, on their heels, simply dig in and throw invective at anyone who - quite reasonably - doubts the validity of their opaque data.
So the rest of us, who have simply been going about our business, are, in your opinion, to be vilified because we doubt?
You see, we don't need your green religion. Most of us already have one of our own.
Aug '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
Reminds me of the brief Benny Hill clip, in which he comes upon a vending machine with a sign saying 5p and an arrow pointing to a slot. He puts in his five pence, and the machine displays a sign saying "Thank you!". I'd feel about as silly being relieved of ten bucks at a kiosk in San Francisco, and getting precisely nothing in return.
Oct '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
Kenneth
So the rest of us, who have simply been going about our business, are, in your opinion, to be vilified because we doubt?
You see, we don't need your green religion. Most of us already have one of our own.
Completely missed the point.
Doubt all you want, but its shoddy logic to claim that anthropogenic global warming is a false for the reasons I listed when there is a body of sound scientific evidence that supports it. Look at the form of arguments you are using. Most of them are fallacious, consisting of a collection of ad homs, red herrings, and so on.
My point is not that its wrong to doubt, but that its wrong to doubt because Al Gore makes a movie. If you are going to doubt the science, do so because your basis is on criticisms of the science, not the people or solutions.
And for the record. I do not support the "green religion." I can distinguish between the statements "anthropogenic global warming is real" and "carbon credits will solve our problems." I don't lump the two together and deny the one because I disagree with the other.
May '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
AGW is an imaginary problem. It doesn't exist. If government can tax us and cripple industries over imaginary problems, then we are truly slaves.
Oct '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
On what basis do you say its an imaginary problem?
Jul '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
chadn737
Completely missed the point.
Doubt all you want, but its shoddy logic to claim that anthropogenic global warming is a false for the reasons I listed when there is a body of sound scientific evidence that supports it.
I didn't miss your point at all. Your point is that "...a body of sound scientific evidence supports it."
Says you.
And says a raft of "scientists" whose provender depends upon manufacturing data at the behest of their masters.
Your argument here is a called an appeal to authority, which any reasonably-well-educated person can tell you is a weak argument, indeed.
Oct '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
Kenneth
Says you.
And says a raft of "scientists" whose provender depends upon manufacturing data at the behest of their masters.
Your argument here is a called an appeal to authority, which any reasonably-well-educated person can tell you is a weak argument, indeed.
An appeal to authority would take the form of "Because scientists say that global warming is real, it is."
That is not what I said. I said "a body of sound scientific evidence supports it."
I am appealing to the facts, the actual data. If it is fallacious to appeal to such evidence, then logic is useless. You are falsely accusing me of a fallacy I have not committed.
Furthermore you are guilty of appealing to motive, which is fallacious. Regardless of the motives of those proposing the argument, if the facts are right, they are right. You may argue that the facts are wrong, but that would require one to actually point out how the data, methodology, etc is flawed. Far easier to simply criticize the messenger rather than take the hard road and examine the evidence, which is exactly what you are doing.
Edited on Dec 7, 2010 at 7:24pmJul '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
chadn737
Kenneth
Says you.
And says a raft of "scientists" whose provender depends upon manufacturing data at the behest of their masters.
Your argument here is a called an appeal to authority, which any reasonably-well-educated person can tell you is a weak argument, indeed.
An appeal to authority would take the form of "Because scientists say that global warming is real, it is."
That is not what I said. I said "a body of sound scientific evidence supports it."
I am appealing to the facts, the actual data.
You haven't provided a smidgeon of data, pal. Zip. Zero. Nada.
You've merely claimed that you have a body of sound scientific evidence on your side.
In any case, I'm done with you. All you care to do is to disparage those who don't believe in your delusions.
That's boring. For me. And for the rest of the Ricochet community.
Edited on Dec 7, 2010 at 8:10pmMay '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
The earth is always getting warmer or colder. If you claim one or the other you have a 50% chance of being right.
Oct '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
Kenneth
You haven't provided a smidgeon of data, pal. Zip. Zero. Nada.
You've merely claimed that you have a body of sound scientific evidence on your side.
In any case, I'm done with you. All you care to do is to disparage those who don't believe in your delusions.
That's boring. For me. And for the rest of the Ricochet community.
Wow man, calm down. You haven't bothered to provide evidence either, all you've done is get upset because I criticize the arguments used. I thought Ricochet was a place where one could have a discussion, and dissenting views could be presented. I failed to realize that we had to toe the line and that anyone disagreeing with the Ricochet consensus is someone to be ignored.
I would be happy to start providing evidence. Are you willing to deal with it, rather than disparage the people who did the work or resort to other such fallacious arguments?
I'll start with my next comment. Lets see where that takes us.
Edited on Dec 7, 2010 at 8:28pmOct '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
1) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has data on Global Surface Temperatures dating back to 1880 There is an undeniable increase in these temperatures in this 130 year period. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/global-jan-dec-error-bar.gif
2) Solar radiation has remained fairly constant while warming has occurred in lower levels of the atmosphere, rather than throughout as increased solar radiation would cause. So the cause is not due to the sun.
3) What has change in this period has been CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which has steadily risen since 1960 when the NOAA started recording CO2 at Mauna Lao http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose effects have been known since 1896 thanks to the work of Svante Arrhenius. There are no known natural causes for the increased temperatures. The only plausible suspect is the increased levels of greenhouse gases.
I know what I present here is the very basics, but I'll keep it simple. You wanted me to start breaking out the facts, so I will.
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
chadn737 is asking about data, and of course that's where it all starts for me. The problem is that a fair reading of the science cannot support the proposed remedies, which is why the scientists resort to lying (Climategate) and the politicians resort to bribery (Wikileaks) in an attempt to get their way. Since I've concluded that the non-disprovable hypothesis of catastrophic AGW serves primarily as a convenient vector for socialist economic control, it's simpler to focus on the latter.
But back to the science itself. My favorite place to start for an overview is Avery and Singer's Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. Then are many good web sources for in depth criticism of the goings-on in the church of climate change. Watts Up With That is one I read regularly. Here's a summary of a a peer reviewed article criticizing computer climate model performance against reality, which would be the point if we were talking science instead of transformative politics. And another debunking the hardy perennial that the current year is the Warmest Ever. Science is about evidence, and there's plenty to criticize about the AGW hypothesis itself.
Oct '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
Fair enough. I agree that the science cannot support the proposed remedies, even though many simply assume that this is my position without digging further because I believe AGW to be a fact.
And I thank you for acknowledging that I am not critical of skepticism, just criticism that does not have a starting point with the data.
However, while some scientists did lie, I feel this often is generalized to all researchers who study climate change which is an unfair assumption. I'm not assuming you have, but it is done.
Aug '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
No offense, but there is nothing quite as tedious as a message-board AGW debate. It is exceedingly difficult to prove or disprove, and there are so many bad faith arguments on both sides. Let's look at it from this angle: What exactly are the ill effects that we are suffering from today as a result of AGW? Forget about the supposed ill effects in the future because they may never come to pass. Human history is full of episodes of mass hysteria, and I fear this may be the latest. Let's take the problems, if any, as they come, and don't tell me that BY THEN IT WILL BE TOO LATE, because it's not possible to know that's true, and it just makes you sound like a wacko carrying a sign saying THE END IS NEAR.
Oct '10
Re: Carbon Credits: The Next Collectible
I have no desire to debate AGW in this format and frankly I'm not worried about the effects. The only point I had any interest in making was regarding the logic and use of certain arguments made against AGW. I only went further because someone was angry that I dared challenge these arguments.