Another Climate Change Diatribe

I'm posting this, in its entirety, today. It'll probably take most folks all weekend to read it, anyway. Have a great weekend, folks!

* * *
Okay, like I said previously, I've owed Chazza a response to a long blog post that she wrote back in January. The more I read through her post, the more I think that this will probably take me far too long... But here goes.

For starters, Chazza made extensive mention of a NASA physicist named Dr. James Hansen, who's a devoted climate change advocate. There was apparently an investigation that determined that Hansen's views, and the views of other climate change whistle blowers in NASA, were "censored". I have two points to make regarding Dr. Hansen.

First, in his role as the administrator of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, he is overstepping his bounds to try and inject himself into politics in the way that he's done, and as far as I'm concerned, his seniors were right to prevent him from publishing his views. That's what they are: his views. In his role with NASA, he is a civil servant in the Executive Branch, and essentially serves at the will of the President of the United States. In this capacity, he has no business making political statements - in fact, there are federal regulations that expressly forbid civil servants from making political statements. I know, because I work for the government, alongside federal employees, and I've had to read the regulations on the matter that they have to follow. At any rate, you may agree with what he has to say, but just because you agree with him doesn't make him some kind of martyr for global warming. If anything, Dr. Hansen should have been either dismissed or fined for these statements he's made from NASA's podium.

Second, and more importantly: no matter how much you may agree with him, and respect him, Dr. Hansen is not a dispassionate, unbiased source. One need look no further than his Wikipedia entry to see that he's Al Gore's science advisor, for crying out loud. He may have a doctorate in physics, but at the end of the day, he's interpreting data. As respected as he may be, there are numerous scientists who disagree with his interpretation. Am I supposed to pay special attention to him, solely because he happens to have found himself heading an federal installation? Should I find him more, or less credible, given that he's used his position as an unauthorized soap box in order to air his political views? Should I be more outraged by his alleged victimization at the hands of NASA administrators, or at the very real persecution suffered by someone like Bjørn Lomborg?

While I appreciate your citation of Dr. Hansen, Chazza, it's really just one more drop in the bucket. Even if James Hansen wasn't a combination scientist-politician, and was really just a dispassionate, neutral interpreter of the data, there are still hundreds or thousands of other scientists who strongly disagree with his interpretation of the data, and they're every bit as credible and nowhere near as politically motivated/connected as he is. As Michael Crichton points out in his outstanding lecture, Aliens Cause Global Warming:

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

I don't want you to think, Chazza, that I'm dismissing Dr. Hansen out of hand; he could very well be right. However, at this point in time, the science is disputed, and despite his political position, he's no more or less qualified to judge the data than the dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of other scientists who disagree with him. As a result, I have no choice but to view him as one scientist/politician, tied to unreliable and controversial former Vice President Gore (which does nothing for Hansen's credibility), who thinks that climate change is occurring. Great, that's his opinion, duly noted. Further, the "facts versus money" line is completely asinine, and it's below you as an educated and sophisticated scholar, to have used it. Dr. Hansen is no more or less committed to facts than any of the highly reputable scientists who disagree with his interpretation of the data. I expect better from you, Chazza.

You mentioned Ozone, and the Ozone layer. I'd just like to point out that the Ozone issue is one that, I think, harms the climate change rhetoric, as opposed to helping it. I was about nine when I first learned about "global warming" in school, and I was told that global warming was caused by a hole in the Ozone layer, which was caused by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in things like aerosol cans, refrigerators, and car air conditioners. Since the early 1990's, America and other Western nations have essentially eliminated their CFC usage altogether; and from what I understand, the Ozone layer is pretty much good now. Even so, we're still lectured on wearing sunscreen (because obviously, the billions of people who lived in previous centuries were always in danger of skin cancer prior to the invention of sunscreen), and we still hear all of the same rhetoric about global warming or, as it's now called, "climate change". Sorry, that doesn't really help the credibility of the environmentalist cause.

You mentioned rising sea levels, and claimed that it would eliminate places like "San Francisco, New York, Shanghai, Sydney, etc."; as far as I can tell, you're ignoring two things. First, Western Civilization has known since at least the third century BC, thanks to Archimedes, that a body displaces its own mass in water; thus, if the polar ice caps actually did completely melt, the possibility of a catastrophic rise in the level of the Earth's oceans is next to nil because they're currently displacing the amount of water that they would release. Second, if you'd care to fill up a plastic bottle with water, all the way to the top, and then put it in the nearest freezer, you'll find that water actually expands when frozen. This isn't advanced stuff, this is basic fluid mechanics. Yes, I realize that some of the ice is above the surface of the ocean, but I'm less than convinced that a great catastrophe is looming; and from everything I've heard, the most realistic data speaks of the possibility of the world's sea level rising by a matter of inches, if that. Something tells me that the entire world could be ninety degrees Fahrenheit, and San Francisco, New York, Shanghai, Sydney, and yes, even Orkney, would be just fine - miserable, but still there, dry as a university physics lecture.

You made mention of disappearing plants and animals, and how every little delicate piece has a crucial effect on the ecosystem in which it resides. What about all of the species that died without any impact from humans? We don't have dinosaurs, or trilobites, or smilodons, or North American lions, or thousands of other species around anymore, but here we are, and the ecosystem always adjusted. I'm certainly not advocating for the forced extinction of any species; but according to the generally accepted theories regarding biological evolution, species supposedly come and go all the time. As such, isn't it safe to believe that some species will continue to die out, with or without the involvement of humans? Why shouldn't I believe that some species will die out through no fault of human beings?

A number of my life experiences, and a lot of what I know about biology, comes from my experiences as a hunter. When I took Hunter Safety instruction, I learned about a concept called carrying capacity. Contrary to you description of prey animals running amuck in the absence of predators, each given ecosystem has only enough resources to support a given amount of plants and animals. Don't believe me? I have one question for you: what kind of shift in the deer, elk, and antelope populations occurred when wolves were reintroduced to Wyoming and Montana a few years back? Not much, which means that, save for Chronic Wasting Disease, they were doing just fine before the wolves were reintroduced in 1995. That's another debate for another time, but the point is that these claims of chaos over the elimination of one species are nothing more than plain and simple scare-mongering, often using attractive animals like the majestic gray wolf, or the polar bear to garner emotional sympathy in lieu of hard facts to support the environmentalist position. If we're going to be using these issues to set policy, they have to be based on facts, not on emotions. Hence, it doesn't matter if polar bears are or aren't "awesome". I can also list the example of the Miller Lake Lamprey in Oregon, a species that was intentionally destroyed in the 1950's before it was realized that they were a unique species. Within the majority of their native habitat, the MLL was
completely obliterated, not to be rediscovered until the 1990's
. Did their destruction have a catastrophic ripple effect on the ecosystem? No, it did not. There are many examples of this, both from natural and man-made extinction. I'm not advocating the destruction of animals or whole species, I am merely pointing out that the talking points about ecological chaos from one or two disappeared species is both anachronistic and inaccurate. It isn't based upon facts.

Speaking of which, I'd like to address your highly emotional paragraph about polar bears, in abbreviated form.

Take the Polar Bear[...] This awesome animal is now listed as threatened.

I actually heard a radio show about this recently, and it's my understanding that moving the polar bear into the "threatened" category was a largely political move, the result of years of incessant lobbying. There are actually areas in the Arctic in which polar bear populations are growing, and the growth appears to be comparable in scope to the areas in which bear populations appear to be in decline. I'll agree that they're now listed as "threatened", which is a fact; I won't allow you to claim that it wasn't a decision that was influenced largely by environmentalist lobbying.

It is expected that the population of these animals will decrease by 30% over the next 45 years.

By whom? You have to provide more evidence than that, Chazza. This is where the credibility issue comes in yet again. Environmentalists, claiming to be dispassionate scientists, have been making outlandish claims such as these for so long now that I can't possibly take a simple statement like this seriously without some hard evidence, of which you've provided none.

Without a predator, an animal will overpopulate and decimate the ecosystem where they live, causing the same sort of ripple effect. The environment requires a steady balance, and all of this happening too fast to maintain that balance.

I've mentioned the concept of carrying capacity in an earlier paragraph, so I reject the claim about ripple effects and overpopulation outright. It's just plain fear-mongering. And with respect to the speed at which the balance is supposedly being disturbed - this is a brand new academic field! The researchers who are peddling these theories - I hesitate to even call them "scientists" - have almost no volume of research on which to base these claims. You need to do better than this, Chazza, and so do the activitsts - that's what they are - who are trying to get the entire world to change its policies over this one issue.

Two or three degrees is a big deal. Every 10th of a degree has an impact. And, the degree of warming has been greatly increased in the past few decades in contrast to the years before.

Two or three degrees is not a big deal, and every tenth of a degree does not have a major impact. These differences in temperature are negligible; also, the evidence that humans have had any impact whatsoever on this alleged warming trend is similarly negligible, not to mention disputed. Also, from what I understand, the degree of warming hasn't increased in the past few decades; my understanding is that the hottest year on record was back in the thirties, and the news carried a story earlier this year that said that the world has cooled since a 1998 high. We'll broach that subject again later.

By the end of this century, the earth could warm up another 11 degrees. 11 degrees!

Based on what evidence?! No legitimate scientist that I've ever heard of is claiming that there's going to be an eleven degree rise in the Earth's atmospheric temperature by 2100.

Please tell me you're not one of those people that thinks, heck, it's a little warmer outside, how could that be a bad thing?

I hate the sun, and I wish I had a way to blot it out and live in the cold and dark. Believe me, if I thought there was sufficient evidence to back up the climate change claims, I'd be all over it. I have a vested interest in cooling the planet, but I have yet to see compelling evidence that human activity has any impact. If you ask me, that gives me credibility on the subject.

You mention Hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian Tsunami as evidence of the world "answering back" at us for our polluting ways. Hurricanes have been happening for centuries, Chazza; they are no more or less frequent than they were before, and the damage and chaos caused by Hurricane Katrina stemmed largely from the corrupt Democrat leaders in the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, and their negligence. The chaos caused by Hurricane Katrina had far less to do with the hurricane itself, and far more to do with the fact that New Orleans is a city that was built below sea level, protected by levees that had been neglected by liberal politicians for decades so that they could divert pre-allocated levee funds into social programs in order to keep getting elected. The Indonesian tsunami was caused by an earthquake, and no credible scientist will claim that earthquakes are caused by depleted ozone, excessive atmospheric carbon, methane, or any other such nonsense. Again, I expect better scholarship from you than such a statement.

We can't stop the warming, but we can slow it down and give nature and us sometime to adapt to it.

Show me evidence that we can slow the warming down. I've seen no compelling evidence of this, from you or anyone else. I've seen some circumstantial evidence that has left me unconvinced, and it's all come from people who have plenty of reasons for pushing these proposed policy changes, climate change or not. If I'm expected to dramatically slash my quality of life, I need more. The burden of proof is on those who want me to change, not on me for not wanting to change.

Even if you don't believe global warming is a result of human impact and all that, you've got to adapt to what's happening.

If I'm not even convinced that global warming is happening, let alone the "result of human impact and all that", doesn't the proper way for me to adapt to what's happening consist of either a warm jacket, or a cold beer? Both of these are a far cry from the proposed solutions of not driving, eating less, buying less, closing down airports, and the thousands of other limitations on my personal freedom that mainstream client activists and lobbyists are proposing.

Try to curb the use of fossil fuels, try to produce less waste, slow down the rate of urbanization and remember that there are places in the world that should be preserved, and conserve what resources we still have.

I have no problems with any of these things. If I can completely disagree with you about climate change, and yet completely agree with you about these things, why is it that the only way to convince others is by forcing the disputed climate change agenda on them? If good policy is good policy for it's own sake, political pressure, scare tactics, and incessant regulations shouldn't be necessary.

I think of it this way. I drive less, I use less gas, I help the environment. You think of it this way. I drive less, I save money. Me: I recycle, less things end up in a landfill, I help the environment. You: I recycle, I save money (by taking your recyclables and getting money back). Or, I recycle, why not? Me: I buy less or buy locally-produced items, less transportation costs and emissions to get the item to me, less waste to produce the item, I help the environment. You: I buy less or buy locally, I save money. Me: I live in a smaller house or apartment to reduce the amount of land that has to be urbanized for me to live on, I help the environment. You: I live in a smaller house or apartment, I save money. Me: I use CFL's in my house, I help the environment. You: I use CFL's in my house, I save money (up to 20%, plus they last longer!).

I have a few immediate issues with this train of thought, primarily because it implies that conservatives, capitalists, and other people who disagree with you are more concerned with money than they are about the environment - I don't believe that's true at all, particularly given that many conservatives love outdoor recreation, to include responsible hunting (which requires sustainable natural areas). My second problem is the implication that people are somehow bad if they don't drastically cut their driving and other travel, recycle incessantly, buy locally-produced items, and live in little shoebox houses and apartments.

The next thing you know, you'll be telling people to either have few children, or no children at all. After all, if people have much smaller families, they'll be able to drive a Prius instead of those big, gas-guzzling minivans. And without all of those kids running around, they could live in tiny shoebox apartments, where they could huddle together for warmth in the winter (due to the absence of electric or natural gas heating), and then just suffer in the summer like all of the poor starving masses in all of those developing countries that don't have air conditioning. Sound ridiculous yet? That's because it is; the more reasonable among the climate change folks just haven't thought the suggestions through yet. This is the eco-socialism that I've been warning folks on my blog about lately.

I also take issue with CFLs, beyond the fact that they cast an uncomfortable, unnatural light into a room. They are only made in China, a strategic competitor of the United States, which means that forced conversion to CFLs is forced support for a regime that continues to become a bigger and bigger foreign policy nightmare with each passing year. Also, they not only contain mercury, which is a toxic chemical; but China's environmental controls with regard to manufacturing are horrible, which means that claiming that CFLs are a "green technology" is about like saying that you never engage in domestic violence because you get your cousin to beat your wife for you. Contrary to popular belief, goofy fluorescent light bulbs do nothing to help the environment, and everything to shrink American freedom and security, as evidenced in the video attached to this post from June.

Chazza mentioned a couple of other items. She noted that Al Gore and James Hansen have certainly endured criticism; to which I say that they haven't endured the kind of criticism and attacks that the skeptics have. Not by a long shot. Al Gore received an undeserved and completely political Nobel Peace Prize, and an Academy Award for his "documentary" (which includes footage from a Hollywood movie that's passed off as natural footage, as well as misleading and fabricated data). Bjørn Lomborg basically can't even publish anymore, because the rabid cult of global warming fanatics have labeled him a heretic. This isn't facts versus money, because the facts (along with the "facts") are inconclusive. I'll get back to this later.

It might damage Big Oil's profits, and they just can't have that. I respect the fact that you've got to help out your interests, but in this case, it is the money guys that are not allowing the free flow of discourse.

You're wrong. You have no proof to back this up, because the proof doesn't exist. It's not being stifled, it's just plain not there. As I will demonstrate shortly, the so-called "money guys" are trying to adjust to the market so that they can continue making money through the potential of the new market, which is demanding green technologies - they see it as an opportunity. The free flow of discourse is being stifled by environmentalists.

Honestly, I would just rather look at it as humans are having a big impact on the earth and maybe it's time to tone it down a little. Give the developing countries a break, give the animals a break, give the planet a break. Whether warming is happening or whatever, there's no disputing that there's overconsumption, overpollution, and a complete disregard for the natural world. Wouldn't everyone like a prettier earth, one that's cleaner, one where no animals are in danger of extinction, one where there's more equality for everyone? You're right, this doesn't have to be about global warming, this should be about giving ourselves a better place to leave by cleaning up a little and consuming a little less.

With the exception of the blatantly socialist undertones of the statements about developing countries and perceived equality for everyone, I have no disagreement with this statement. This is part of my overwhelming problem with the climate change fanatics: their case for cleaning up the planet is strong of its own accord. Why force everyone to believe this climate change nonsense? It's completely unnecessary. It's pure and simple fear-mongering, and that's completely unacceptable.

But, for some, the reality of global warming is like a call to action. It gets people moving. It's a problem, and people want to fix it.

The English language has a word for that: it's called brainwashing, and it's something that cults do. It's a way of getting people to do what you want them to do, even if there's no inherent reason to do so. The fact that you're okay with this absolutely boggles my mind, Chazza.

So, let them.

I have more integrity than that. It's the same reason why I don't want people to vote for Senator McCain just because of a false belief that Senator Obama is a secret Muslim. (I want them to vote for Senator McCain because he's much better qualified than Senator Obama, and because Senator Obama's proposed policies, incoherent positions, and inconsistent personal history narratives are all bad for the country.) I think that such a lack of integrity is one of the things that is fundamentally wrong with our nation and our world. In fact, I think that a lack of integrity in the world is far more dangerous than global warming, particularly since it ties directly into the hysteria.

If you don't believe all the evidence is there, good. Be skeptical, find out for yourself. But, don't use what you believe to be the unreality of global warming as an excuse for continuing to treat the planet in the same way that you always have. (Now, that isn't really for you Fly. I know you're a minimalist and you have no desire to despoil the whole earth with your frugal ways. You get an A in my book.)

And I love you dearly, and have not ruled out the remote possibility that we may one day be happily and fruitfully married, saving the world together as man and wife.

* * *
Okay, although I've answered many of Chazza's specific points, I have a few things I'd like to add. Surprising, huh?

I'm really starting to get concerned with the direction that the climate change rhetoric is going. As I've mentioned previously, I have very little problem with a number of the things that the global warming fanatics are actually advocating. Less pollution is a good thing. More efficient factories, automobiles, and assorted machines would be a good thing, too. Replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy (like nuclear) over the next couple of decades would be an absolutely brilliant development, although I've noted before, and I'll note again, that we will never be clear of oil as long as it remains crucial to industrial processes (like the production of plastic, or as a lubricant).

Chazza mentioned the greenhouse effect; but equally impressive sources claim that the Greenhouse Effect is grossly overstated. Climate change advocates claim that the Earth is fragile and prone to devastating ripple effects; but with developments like oceanic algae clearing pollution from the atmosphere at a much faster rate than was expected (AFP, Guardian), it seems to me that the environment is far more resilient and versatile than the environmentalists seem to give it credit for. The activists claim that humans are having a negative impact on the temperature of the globe; but undisputed evidence indicates that the Sun is burning hotter than it has in a millennium, and all of the other planets are warming, too - Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, all of them. I know that humans haven't polluted Mars or Jupiter enough to cause climate shifts, and we haven't dropped jack on Pluto yet, nor have we ever jettisoned anything into the Sun. And despite claims that the entire planet is heating up, it snowed in Tehran, Baghdad, and throughout the rest of the Middle East this past winter - the Middle East! Yeah, that Middle East, the one that's almost always hot enough to melt the rubber in the soles of your shoe! Skeptical climate researchers have even published books on the subject of past natural warming trends, to include this one that I listened to an interview about on the radio as I was driving from Zoo Station to [Hometown] in the closing days of 2006, and they say the whole process, if it's occurring currently, is completely natural!

Does any of this sound like indisputable evidence of human-caused global warming to you folks?

Meanwhile, the rhetoric continues to heat up, if you'll excuse the pun. I've seen two stinging and well-written editorials this week that jumped out at me, and both of them are definitely worth reading.

The Guardian: Greens are the enemies of liberty

Family Security Matters: Climate Hysteria? Why Andrew Bolt Is Right

In fact, data released a few months ago would seem to dispell most of the climate change hysteria. As fate would have it, the planet has cooled since 1998. Now, one would think that such a development could be counted as a good thing, right? And since it's hard data, there's no chance that it could be disputed by biased activists for political purposes, right? Please note that I used the appropriate article from The Telegraph. Why didn't I use the corresponding BBC article, as I'm prone to do? Well, just have a look at this.



Pressuring journalists to change their articles with threats of attacking their credibility? That doesn't sound like a legitimate method of political and scientific discourse. Meanwhile, Chazza mentions Dr. James Hansen, and holds him up as a moderate and reasonable advocate for adjusting our society to the challenge of climate change. Well, assuming that most of you won't bother to read that "Greens are the enemies of liberty" article from the Guardian that I linked to above, let me just include a pertinent chunk that just happens to feature Dr. Hansen:

Environmentalists are innately hostile to freedom of speech. Last month James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate change scientists, said the CEOs of oil companies should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature. They have been "putting out misinformation", he said, and "I think that's a crime". This follows green writer Mark Lynas's insistence that there should be "international criminal tribunals" for climate change deniers, who will be "partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths". They will "have to answer for their crimes", he says. The American eco-magazine Grist recently published an article on deniers that called for "war crimes trials for these bastards… some sort of climate Nuremberg."

Trying the CEOs of oil companies for crimes against humanity and nature? International criminal tribunals for climate change deniers? A "climate Nuremberg" for global warming skeptics? Is this really evidence that, as Chazza said, "the money guys that are not allowing the free flow of discourse"? Or is it evidence that the mainstream climate change activists are unwilling to discuss the hard facts for one reason or another? These strike me as the statements of individuals who follow this climate change ideology in the way that many people follow a fundamentalist religious faith. They don't seem willing to consider anyone else's opinion on the issues but their own. As with other forms of socialism, I believe that a great deal of eco-socialism stems from the secularist, humanist belief that mankind is the ultimate power in the universe, capable of and responsible for solving each and every problem. I believe that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of man's innate weakness and fallibility. Furthermore, I believe that it represents a fundamental and tragic misunderstanding of both the nature and utility of governments. If this situation is really the mess that environmentalist activists claim that it is, it would be far more effective to harness both human nature (selfishness) and the free market and solve the issue that way. The fact that the activists don't understand this is troubling, and raises grave questions about both their intellectual credibility and their competence.

Don't believe me that this climate change hysteria is truly getting out of hand? Well, don't take it from me. Back in early June, I mentioned a BBC News podcast that I'd heard, in which the BBC interviewed Czech President Václav Klaus. I've taken the liberty of transcribing that interview. If there's anyone who knows about the illegitimate and brutal suppression of discourse for purely political reasons, without any other justification whatsoever, it's a leader who spent most of his life in communist Czechoslovakia. Don't believe me? Read this.

Rebecca Kesby: Are the challenges of tackling climate change also driving us into a new era of totalitarianism, a climate of fear, an atmosphere of control? According to the Czech Republic's president, Vaclav Klaus, they are. He's just written a book, called Blue Planet, Green Shackles, and in it he argues that environmentalism could be as dangerous as communism was. He believes humanity runs the risk of losing civil liberties, and perhaps ultimately freedom, as politicians bring in more taxes, regulations, and laws aimed at saving the planet. The World Today's Richard Howells asked him to expand on his idea.

Vaclav Klaus: The title of the book is, I think, important; but, on the other hand the subtitle of the book, in my understanding, is even more important. The subtitle is: What Is Endangered, Climate or Freedoms? So for me this is the real question of this global warming, global climate change debate, and the real danger is that this ideology, I call it - environmentalism is trying simply to destroy our freedom, by means of threatening us with this incredible consequences of potential global warming, so that's my worry, and this worry stems from my very strong sensitivity, or maybe oversensitivity, which comes from my past, from the communist era I lived most of my life in. So, so I feel, I am very sensitive to all issues where our freedom can be endangered.

Richard Howells: So why do you think people's freedom is so at risk from the environmentalist argument about the current threat to planet Earth?

Vaclav Klaus: It's very simple, because the ambitious politicians who want to mastermind the world and mankind and everything, you and me, they are permanently searching for a good argument why to do it, and in the past it was in the name of socialism, in the name of the masses, in the name of the proletariat. Now, it's in the name of the, of the destruction of the planet and how to avoid it, so that's for them a perfect way how to push various forms of government controls, intervention, regulation, prohibiting one thing or another. So that's a perfect excuse, and I am very sorry to see this excuse, it's really very good for them.

Richard Howells: Isn't there, though, the argument that the, the challenge of climate change, the risks that are, if you like, addiction to a carbon economy, isn't there the, the argument, though, that there could be an opportunity in this, in the way that, you know, giving up smoking is good for you, giving up oil could be very good for us, and we could change the way that we produce power in, in new and environmentally less damaging ways? It, it could be an enormous opportunity for everybody.

Vaclav Klaus: No, there are many which that would be good for us, but to be environmentally concerned is one issue; we should be, and I really am, but the current environmentalism is really something else, this is not the taking care of the, of the environment, and when you say 'the carbon economy', it's nonsense. There are many nonsenses, because I, I think that ten years ago the fashionable idea was the knowledge economy, and I protested as an economist that is a non-description and non-definition of the economy. Now, carbon economy, just a fashionable, empty phrase, which a serious person should never dare to use, and to express, so there's no carbon economy, non-carbon economy, as an economist I have never heard anything like, like that, I've never seen anything like that in a serious economic, economic study.

Richard Howells: But won't future prosperity and freedom be inhibited if action isn't taken to reduce the issue of global warming? Because, you know, in a free society, the poorest won't be able to make themselves richer because their local environments will have been destroyed or damaged by the effects of global warming.

Vaclav Klaus: Which is the upside-down argument, because the current environmental ideologies are taking much more the poor people in developing countries than the rich countries, the rich people in Great Britain and the United States. On the contrary, the current environmentalism is a radical attack on poor people all over the world.

Rebecca Kesby: Czech president, Vaclav Klaus.

I reiterate my previous points, both from this post and from the first and second posts, as follows:

In the absence of incontrovertible evidence of global warming, and the similar absence of incontrovertible evidence of human involvement in global warming (if it's happening at all), it's irresponsible to make sweeping policy changes in an effort to combat a phenomenon that we can neither prove the existence of, nor yet fully understand.

The burden of proof in this matter lies on the environmentalist activists, who propose radical and sweeping changes to all areas of our lives, draconian restrictions on personal and economic freedoms, and a near-total shut-down of global commerce, industry, and economic systems. If they want measures like the ill-conceived Kyoto Protocol to be enacted, they need to produce conclusive, incontrovertible evidence that proves their case beyond the shadow of a doubt. "Concensus" doesn't count.

Given that many (if not most) of the policies proposed by environmentalists regarding sustainable industrial and consumer practices are reasonable of their own accord, the hostile emphasis on restricting freedoms for the sake of unproven global warming theories is unacceptable, as are the fear-mongering, propaganda, brainwashing, academic and political assassinations, and various other tactics and strategies employed by the activists. These practices harm their cause, rather than helping the United States and the world unite in an effort to improve the way we treat the planet.

If policy is going to be changed, it needs to be changed (or maintained, or reversed) based on facts, not on emotions. Pictures of polar bears and shaky data about them being ambiguously "threatened" don't cut it.

I think there was some more, but you get the idea, and this post is eight pages long in Wordpad, which means that it was probably three or four pages that I could have written into one of my novels.

As a consolation to Chazza, I would like to propose the following compromise, in the interest of fairness, continuing dialogue, and common sense solutions to legitimate security and environmental challenges: let's just agree to ban NASCAR. It wastes fuel, it's boring as hell, and it amounts to little more than a hillbilly procreation scheme. Agreed?