A Nobel Laureate’s Views on Global Warming

(Snow at Schloss Bodissey – click to enlarge)

The other day I posted about the nor’easter we were expecting. Dubbed “Winter Storm Jonas” by the show-biz folks at the National Weather Service Weather Channel on television, it was going to leave us buried, while sparing the Northeast, after which ‘nor’easters’ are named since the majority of those monsters end up there. Except when they get stuck in Baltimore.

Well, the snow here totalled fourteen inches (37cm) or so, but its more Armageddon aspects moved north where they belonged, thus making a genuine traditional “lizzard”[That’s the term New York’s Department of Transportation — DOT — inadvertently posted on an electronic highway sign as our commenter, Babs, pointed out. “Lizzard” is somehow more descriptive of a phenomenon which winds its way up the coast, primal and destructive. [Tangentially, to see how far down the bureaucracy language destruction goes, look at the hundreds of New York State’s acronyms. How many man-hours did that cost New York tax-payers?]

On that nor’easter post the first commenter out of the gate wasn’t interested in the storm. He just showed up to fight about “idiots” who don’t believe in anthropogenic global cooling, warming, umm… “climate change”. The fact that I’d mentioned (in passing) being a skeptic caused him to call our “whole site into question”. Bless Chuck’s little heart: he vanished into the ether once a repeated attempt at name-calling was redacted. In other words, his True Belief (he never presented any proposition to prove his point) wasn’t going to be argued so he picked up his marble and left.

Another commenter posted a link to a video about this subject, fraught as it is. This contribution to the discussion is/was Dr. Ivar Giaever’s speech to his fellow scientists at the 2015 Lindau Laureate Meeting. [Ah, the things one learns in the course of doing a post.]

This Lindau Meeting is held every year in order that the Nobel winners in the sciences may, as the site says:

meet the next generation of leading scientists: undergraduates, PhD students, and post-doc researchers from all over the world. The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings foster the exchange among scientists of different generations, cultures, and disciplines.

Sad to say the larger Nobel Laureate “club” is infected with the usual p.c. doctrine and dogma. The women who’ve won the Nobel Peace Prize (or perhaps this represents only some of them? One can hope…) have voluntarily segregated themselves into something called “The Nobel Women’s Initiative — for Peace, Justice and Equality”.


Why would they set themselves apart like this? Because WOMEN. Or wymyn. They are sure male Laureates can’t be trusted with lofty notions — or teddy bears and candles, either. The obvious and ugly inference is that men already run “The Initative for War, Prejudice, and Disparity”. If anyone were to make these Nobelettes segregate themselves in such a manner you’d be able to hear them screeching even now about being marginalized. But self-marginalization? Female ghettoes? Just fine, thank you very much.

Bless their hearts. These mindless twits have established (drum roll, please) #WomenRefugeesWelcome, complete with its own hashtag and a multiplicity of micro-aggressions against anyone who doesn’t agree with them [my emphases]:

The women Nobel laureates act as role models, as, through their cooperation, they demonstrate how it is possible to work together for a better world — despite all cultural and religious differences. In concrete terms, they also act as mentors for young activists. As they report, one of the highlights of last year was their cooperation with Neesa Medina from Honduras, Htet Htet Aung from Burma and Riya William from South Sudan. Last but not least, the work of the women Nobel Laureates serves to protect the safety of women activists throughout the world, lending visibility to the activists’ work and thereby making it more difficult to persecute them. A conference on this topic, “Defending the Defenders!”, was held in 2015. Its aim was to help develop networks and strategies that would serve the international community to provide better support and help to women human rights activists.

Obviously one can infer they mean that male activists can form their own damned group. In other words, our very own person-of-color-community-organizer-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Poobah-President isn’t eligible for their group. “Take that, you smelly men!”

Even sadder than this feminist black comedy (oops! WAYCIST!) is the page devoted to the Paris Climate Meetings. It predictably regurgitates the United Nations-IPCC dogma, that tediously predictable and deliberately distracting “Henny Penny The Sky is Falling” dystopia being pushed as another form of wealth destruction green utopia.

In the abstract accompanying Dr. Giaever’s speech on the Laureate site (I wonder how many dared attend his talk?) there is a quote from him:

Because of the following statement from the American Physical Society:

”The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Fo[u]rth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?

Dr. Giaever’s tour of reality is inspiring. Don’t you hope you’re doing this well at eighty-five??

Below the fold is information from his Wiki page, including his Norwegian roots:

Ivar Giaever […] born April 5, 1929 is a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson “for their discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in solids”. Giaever’s share of the prize was specifically for his “experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors”. Giaever is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a professor-at-large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied Biophysics.


Giaever has said man-made global warming is a “new religion.”

In the minority report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in March 2009, Giaever said, “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

In a featured story in Norway’s largest newspaper, Aftenposten, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, “It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years.”

On 13 September 2011, Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society over APS’ official position. Th[is former] American Physical Society Fellow noted: ”In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”[my emphases — D]

As part of the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, Giaever referred to agreement with the evidence of climate change as a “religion” and commented on the significance of the apparent rise in temperature when he stated, “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees [Kelvin/Celsius]? Probably nothing.” Referring to the selection of evidence in his presentation, Giaever stated “I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker (Mario Molina) picked and chose when he gave his talk.” Giaever concluded his presentation with a pronouncement: “Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”

You may have noticed in the video Dr. Giaever’s recommended reading. Here’s the book he thinks would provide a corrective to the current gloom-and-doom zeitgeist:

The Rational Optimist (P.S.) Kindle Edition

One of Amazon’s editorial reviews says about the book:[with my emphases — D]

Ideas have sex, in Ridley’s schema; they follow a process of natural selection of their own, and as long as they continue to do so, there is reason to retire apocalyptic pessimism about the future of our species.

Erstwhile zoologist, conservationist, and journalist, Ridley (“The Red Queen”) posits that as long as civilization engages in exchange and specialization, we will be able to reinvent ourselves and responsibly use earthly resources ad infinitum. Humanity’s collective intelligence will save the day, just as it has over the centuries. Ridley puts current perceptions about violence, wealth, and the environment into historical perspective, reaching back thousands of years to advocate global free trade, smaller government, and the use of fossil fuels. He confidently takes on the experts, from modern sociologists who fret over the current level of violence in the world to environmentalists who disdain genetically modified crops. An ambitious and sunny paean to human ingenuity, this is an argument for why ambitious optimism is morally mandatory.

“Ambitious optimism” is morally mandatory? He could probably talk me into that proposition but GMO foods? Not so much. I don’t think we have enough information about the Unintended Consequences to decide whether or not mucking about in the DNA of plant life is mostly benign. It is the same principle as the one backing the idea of avoiding Consensus in any scientific endeavor: test hypotheses. Test them again and again.

Whatever. Both these men are telling us that the world is getting better. If it weren’t for the regressively incessant perturbations of bloody Islam, I’d agree. But I do wonder what either of them would have to say about this 1400 year-old scourge, currently waxing instead of waning. The present danger is due to the need for fossil fuels combined with the machinations of world leaders to operate from a sense of scarcity. The latter are, for the most part, delusional leftists who see their welfare state economics as the perfect snare. Again, the true believers in socialism as a solution are truly delusional — e.g., our own Bernie Sanders. As so many of them, he’s never held a real job in his life. He, and the rest, fail to take human failings seriously. What they insist on seeing as a fixable bug is actually an inherent feature of the human condition. That’s why we must always trust AND verify. That’s the Realist Two-Step: the Dance of Authentic Reality with a twirl of compassion.

The current wide-spread push-back against the sharp edges of this nightmare delusion is only just beginning. I remain optimistic that it will prevail. Just as it took a long time for Soviet Russia to implode, so will the western version of socialism come to be seen as ultimately empty promises. Utopias can never exist, nor should they. When we seek to “improve things” it is far safer to limit the application of solutions strictly to local problems. That way we can correct more easily when unforeseen problems arise.

Meanwhile in the short term, as another commenter is fond of saying, “lock and load”. Yes, his exhortation makes me cringe a bit, but for the moment it’s the sanest suggestion… for those who have weapons.

Robert Hunter, a principal lyricist for the Grateful Dead, put it another way in his song One Thing To Try:



But if you’re in a hurry, and really got to go
If you’re in a hurry, might have to find out slow
That it’s one thing to try and another to fly
You get there quicker just a step at a time
It’s one thing to bark, another to bite
The show ain’t over till you pack up at night

Out of ninety-nine people all running around
Not one in a hundred got his feet on the ground
You find one in a thousand holding some in reserve
For when the real true action comes around the curve

Take care of your people, get some of them fed
Hide the ones in trouble out under your bed
Keep an eye to the future, an ear to the past
After thinking it over, notice nothing much lasts


Don’t ever let it get the best of you
Plan what you can, and let the rest shine through
Just so many angles you can possibly see
Figure on those, let the other ones be

Don’t be out collecting more than you need
Got a lot of things growing but keep watching those seeds
Got to share in December what you planted in May
If the harvest is empty, find some other good way


NOTA BENE: Edited 10:36 p.m. for clarification re the naming of winter storms. That was not initiated by the National Weather Service. Instead, it was begun by The Weather Channel. [Since we don’t have a television we don’t see The Weather Channel. Were we viewers we’d have known this.]

27 thoughts on “A Nobel Laureate’s Views on Global Warming

  1. At the vanguard of the awakening zombie left (although I wasn’t ever a leftie just someone who thought I’d tasted all the porridge and decided i preferred solitude) when I was confronted with the Spector of climate change denial I took a deep breath and earnestly waded into the swamp to sort matters out for myself. Which proved impossible. I’m not a scientist and the labyrith of funders and counter funders confounded bested even my nose for news. Certainty the energy industry has muddied the waters and just as certainly there are plenty of polar bears on plenty of ice. So be it.

    I also watched lunatics saying south Africa’s population would riddled with aids and that never materialized either so I’m no stranger to grand hoaxes.

    I am perfectly content to red flag the fracking industry on its record of bribing officials, gagging doctors, poisoning cows and people and covering it up while screwing people on contracts. So it’s interesting to see the Saudis destroying this last little outcrop of American growth as I fill up on a dime and consider their the promise to destroy our miserable house from within.

    I must back up. At one stage I had 350. Org and half a dozen of their ilk chocking my inbox and as with all leftie media I would feel drained and confused after trying to read whatever they were upset about today and I got rid of the lot on instinct. I didn’t understand why they didn’t just invest, buy, sell, market alternatives instead of making a fuss and marching around and demanding my money.

    I quite like those windmills in Denmark and they boast of incredible output so while they quietly and hypocritically sell their north sea concessions to pay for the Muslims it’s nice to have options.

    I also noticed that the left hasn’t been as vociferous in its opposition to Monsanto whose share price is slipping away because no one wants their round up ready lunch. Personally I’m all for genetic engineering if it’s done by moral innovators looking to help humanity not poison us glyphosate. It’s undeniable that this gets less traction on the radical left where the evil machine strategises and this is because it turns out no one wants to eat poison not even lefties.

    Since I believe the evil strategists know much more about climate science than me because the are are very smart and I trust their evil implicitly it’s safe to Say climate isn’t an issue. Which doesn’t mean tarsands isn’t a blight on the land and shameful. It is.

    That’s what I love about Islam too. Knowing it is sonar for evil it’s proving useful to clear up all manner of tricky questions like a negative. For example I couldn’t miss the sentence in the Muslim brotherhood explanatory memo that once the United States is polarised, half for us and half against, we have won and it is only a matter of time. What does this mean? It means we have to find something the left is afraid of being poisoned with.

    Apparently none of the tenets of sharia suffice so what is the Monsanto of islam?

      • Sally, an excellent question! I look forward to our doughty strategists here offering their suggestions. 🙂

        • sadly Vera, I later came to the conclusion that while people on the right are more than happy to go with the flow when it comes to glysophate/GMO consumption and support their friends on the left in calling for GMO labelling in the interests of potential mutual non-poisoning, we cannot expect similar magnanimity on any issue at all from the left. Not until they are personally threatened anyway. That’s just how it works.

  2. Just a brief aside in re: Jonas and the NWS. The National Weather Service refuses to name any storms other than Hurricane-strength storms during hurricane season. The naming of winter storms is a Weather Channel creation, because they have consistently seen ratings go up when there is a “named” storm. So please don’t blame it on the NWS.

    • When I wrote about the naming of winter storms, I made a mental note to check that, to see where the naming business started. I apologize for carelessness. If I don’t jot down my ‘to-look-up’ it gets lost in the – in my – confusion. That post got started while it was still snowing here but a bout of fatigue slammed into me; it was a struggle to finish. The Baron was kind enough to do the html links for me or it would still be in “Drafts”…

      • 1. The “Lizzard” highway sign is running through facebook.

        2. In addition to the U.S. Weather Service and the Weather Channel, there are also WeatherBug if someone wants variety. For some reason I can’t generate a general site link (it always come up on my location) so:


        • We don’t have access to Face Ache…the admin for “our” site there is run by an Aussie who hasn’t the time to keep it up.

          Since we’re not enamored of the whole enterprise, anything “running through Facebook” wouldn’t run through here. So in our little ghetto here, our commenter gets the credit.

  3. Sally –

    You raise a number of interesting points. This one –

    I also watched lunatics saying south Africa’s population would riddled with aids and that never materialized either so I’m no stranger to grand hoaxes.

    – reminded me of an incident from the ’90s: an acquaintance had attended a Grand Rounds lecture at the university on the coming spectre of AIDS among heterosexual young men. The lecturer, a credentialed bigwig in epidemiology, said with great certainty that the coming AIDS epidemic would kill off many young males in the coming decades. My acquaintance was most upset, tears flowing. I tried to explain to her the risk group was largely confined to homosexuals, drug abusers who used needles, and those in the “sex workers” industry. In other words, her sons were safe as long as she and her husband explained the risks.

    My reassurances did little good. What did I know compared to the famous pooh bah?? I let it go, figuring time would either erase this catastrophic fear as time proved the fellow wrong, or one of the boys could go seriously off the tracks and she’d then have something to worry about.

    The former happened. She forgot that specific fear and has since moved on to a half-dozen new ones…the boys are fine and among her academic Muslim friends not a word of dissent or concern is ever heard…I tiptoed away.

    • It was a really bizarre situation for a while in the late 90s. Mbeki was in denial mode and being hammered by the leftie aids brigade pushing pharma … and the statisticians at the banks were predicting a 40% population decline within a decade, sending the actuaries into a tailspin. Instead of the subtext being about the promiscuity of gays it was about the Africans being sex-crazed and immoral, and everyone wondered … and judged. At the end we did/do have aids and I saw people here dying of the same symptoms as I saw gay men dying of in Honolulu a few years earlier, and pharma certainly did save the day. But there was so much money pouring in and hype that a strange psychosomatic effect also took hold among rural people and many got sick after becoming convinced they had aids. They had none of the classic symptoms but wasted away anyway.

  4. In my opinion it’s irrelevant whether climate change/global warming has anthropogenic origins or not. The point is that the use of oil props up countless Islamic countries and gives them the wherewithal to fund both Islamic propaganda and terrorism.

    • “the use of oil props up countless Islamic countries..”

      This is a somewhat misleading declaration, as you’re not going to do with the use of oil in the foreseeable future. The fact is, any large-scale attempt to use sun or wind power (other than marginal but successful niches) almost inevitably takes more energy than it provides…the difference being made up in petroleum products.

      Oil reservoirs are so common, it is simply not a strategic commodity anymore. Western economies and Western armies can easily get along without Middle Eastern oil, although the SJW (social justice warriors) would protest the higher prices…especially if key technologies such as pipelines, fracking, and offshore drilling are not hampered by the religion of conservation.

      The real danger of the Middle East is the oceans of money available to the mullahs and princes of Islam. They can always squeeze their people and find the money to fund madrasas, Western universities, and terrorists. The US should make laws with real teeth against any foreign funding of houses of worship, universities, communications, and especially political influence.

  5. I don’t accept AGW either. Not being prone to knee jerk quasi religious reactions to natural phenomena I tend to look at the long term picture. For example in the 11th century Vikings were growing crops in Iceland where there is now an ice sheet. And, later, during the the Maunder minimum Londoners were able to roast oxen on the ice that covered the Thames.

    Yet, as far as I am aware, there weren’t any 4 x 4’s, Power Stations or for that matter any useless, subsidised Windmills, Polar Bears’ suffering from heat exhaustion (a.k.a. St. Gore’s Syndrome) around then nor were there any fiddled ‘hockey stick’ graphs produced to justify iniquitous carbon taxes either.

    Odd, that, but it might be pertinent that mother Sun was pretty certain to have been around as usual and, as she is now, going about her everyday business of 200/11 year thermal and other radiation emission cycles.

    P.S. Nor do I live in a politically and environmentally sheltered Metropolitan bubble or have a need for Academic funding in order to pursue some ideological research that has a pre-ordained outcome designed to serve the objectives of those supplying that funding.

    I am of and live in the country and over seven decades of an observant life I have lived through and experienced all of those quaint, old fashioned circumstances known specifically as seasons and generally as weather. There are always variables year on year, decade on decade and hemisphere to hemisphere but they all level out in the end.

    • When one stays in a place for a long time, especially a rural habitation, the ability to observe changes seems to become heightened over time. Especially if one is married to a landscape painter; they *notice* every leaf.

      When we moved here many years ago, that first Spring and Summer were to be markedly different from what would follow. It was the coldest May, followed by the most inhumanely hot summer I’ve endured before or since. We had no air conditioning so a summer evening distraction was to drive to the river and ‘swim’ in its bathtub-temperature waters…

      …yet last May looked so much like that first one…the summer, though, was mercifully far more rainy and never approached the inferno at our beginnings here.

      ….little did we know how our lives would be marked by river events over time. The floods – several so-called “100-year floods” just a few years apart – showed us very clearly what a “flood plain” was, while the dry spells made us wonder how this by-now shallowed-out run could qualify as a mighty river. Even as we knew intellectually that down river a ways, below the “falls” its flow and speed would pick up till it emptied into the bay.

      A few years ago we noticed that some land shark had marked out “lots” of several acres each to be sold for ‘development’. People come and go here, especially retired government workers looking for cheap acreage on which to put a house. But this was ALL flood plain land, just as pretty and green as could be…and suitable for grasses to be harvested several times a year. But the only house safe enough over the long haul would be Noah’s ark. I never did figure out how the unknowing were warned off, but no one ever bought one of those “plots” and eventually the signs disappeared.

      I remember the oldest people of my childhood talking about the weather events of *their* childhoods and how easy we had it compared to their enduring the Florida heat and hurricanes. Even they had been too young for the Galveston hurricane of 1900, but they sure talked about it:


      It was the worst “weather event” we’ve experienced to date. With Ma Nature, one never says “never”…

      We Americans were imperial even then: we ignored the warnings from the Belen Observatory in Cuba, which had been studying hurricanes for a generation. Those in charge took care of the contrarian forecasts by simply shutting off the telegraph messages from Cuba, even though they turned out to be right. But the Belen Jesuits’ observations didn’t fit our climatologists’ theories.

      Kind of like our climatologists today, who ignore the tenets of chaos theory, stochastic processes, and the strange but inherent variabilities of the weather next week, never mind their grand theories about the coming decade. How many of those “climatologists” (now there’s a muddle in hubris) have a sound foundation in mathematics or statistics or physics??

  6. Fact of the matter is, we need global warming. without a warmer globe the condensate cycle that produces rain is interrupted as it is too cold for moisture to condense. As for CO2, a minimum of 350ppm is needed for continued plant growth and by extension, food production. The whole glow-ball warming hoax would have me as an appraiser thrown in jail if I had done to the statistics what Dr. Mann had done in order to advance his predetermined agenda. There were droughts in the American Southwest during the Maunder Minimum (1050-1430) and thousands of native Americans died of starvation that we know of. America could have been colonized by the Norwegian and Dane and thus spared Europe the travails that followed.
    It is beginning to seem to me that the glowball warming agenda is another facet of the elite’s efforts in population control and hoarding everything to themselves so that they are comfortable regardless of the fate and circumstances of others. Sending the PC police after anyone who dares challenge their dogma is further evidence of this. I have the same that is mentioned in the article. I have performed a cursory regression study and have come away with the conclusion that the results were altered to fit a predetermined conclusion. It is no wonder that Dr. Mann refused to submit his statistics and regression analysis to peer review, even though some of the best mathematicians in the country are professors at the same university that he teaches.
    So, all hail global warming and give the plants the warmth and rain and CO2 they need to grow so they can provide food for us!

  7. A vast majority of people around the world have agreed that climate change is caused by human activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

    We should certainly agree that human activity has made wide-spread chemical changes to the earth? All the land we have modified, all the barrels of chemicals we’ve made, all the plastic floating in the oceans all the hydrocarbons we burn has had little or no effect? It takes a lot of imagination to find an excuse to burry one’s head in the sand, even conjuring up some washed up “scientist” who can barely use a projector remote is here to tell us its all a conspiracy.

    • Well, Chuck, you must have dug deep into your enormous intellectual reservoir in order to have the confidence to describe a Nobel Laureate in physics and Professor Emeritus at the oldest and most highly renowned research university in the English speaking world as a “washed up scientist”.

      Pray tell why we haven’t we heard of the reclusive but so erudite Professor Chuck and his huge array of contributions to the physical sciences before now – have you been hiding your brilliant light under a bushel?

      Come now, do not hold back Sir, tell us from whence you come, what you have accomplished and how these staggering achievements have added to the sum of human knowledge and our understanding of the dynamics of our terrestrial environment.

      And please, I beg you, don’t be shy or hold back; I for one am all ears and perhaps the Nobel Committee may be as well.

      Your Humble Servant, S III.

      • Haha.

        By the way, notice all the logical fallacies:

        “A vast majority of people around the world have agreed…” That should settle the question, then.

        “We should certainly agree that human activity has made wide-spread chemical changes to the earth?..” Well, as with the activity a aerobic bacteria, anaerobic bacteria, grass, trees, honey bees, … and, oh, yes….those evil destroyers without which all the other destruction could not have taken place…earthworms.

        “All the land we have modified…” Kind of difficult to see you happy with anything but a thorough nuking of the earth’s surface. I guess the second-best solution would be the spread of Islam, which is linked to the rampant destruction of agricultural improvements, architectural achievements, and the scientific advances which seem to bother you so much.

  8. Taking into considration the dynamics of the universe, would there be any reason the temperatures as well as the climate on this single planet should stay close to static in our short time here?

  9. “A vast majority of people around the world agree that climate change is caused by human activity”.
    A majority of those ‘enlightened’ people voted in the present leaders of USA and Canada, need I say more?
    In Germany (land of the ‘grope’) over half the enlightened people still come out to scream down and jeer at Pegida….
    I could go on, but you think the vast majority of people are enlightened?

    Climate change is ALL about money, vast amounts of it, going into the wrong pockets. Just ask Al Gore and David Suzuki, among others.

  10. Scientists know how to cool the earth using geoengineering. The fact that there is no interest in doing this proves that there is no impending doom. The dishonest scientific community knows this.

    Usually the objection to geoengineering is that there might be unknown risks. Well, if someone is dying and needs surgery, there are risks to surgery. Yet the risk of death from lack of treatment outweighs the risks of surgery so the surgery is performed anyway. If a person is told that they shouldn’t have surgery, chemotherapy, etc because of the minor routine risks associated with surgery, but should instead buy vitamin supplements that cost half of their income, they should very reasonably be suspicious of the claim that they have cancer.

  11. Global warming in the right amount is good: without CO2 and methane Earth would be a ball of ice. Too much CO2 and methane causes too much global warming. We are doing this with oil, coal and cows. A few degrees warmer (GLOBAL AVERAGE) may not feel important, but you’d be dead wrong. Also: civilisation will crash anyway if we don’t switch to sustainable energy before oil runs out. However: if the Western lands are given to islam, than there is no reason for Westerners to do anything about these problems.

    • Well, thanks for the reference.

      It seems to me there is a chain of logic:

      1) Earth is warming.

      2) It is discretionary human activity (unlike, say breathing) that causes the bulk of the warming.

      3) The warming and other side effects are harmful and worthy of governmental and international actions to curb them, at the expense of the local economy.

      4) The only way to ensure avoiding that outlier governments like China simply don’t ignore mandatory limits is to invest international bodies like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice with enforcement powers agreed to by signatories.

      Dana Nuccitelli’s website makes a strong case, in my opinion, against Ivar Giaever’s claim that the arguments for global warming are unproven, or that it is statistically insignificant.

      This may not be the most important battleground anyway. I notice Dana’s website doesn’t address Giaever’s claims that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually aids the production of crops and land cover. This is not evidence that Giaever’s claims are correct (or incorrect), but just illustrates that perhaps conservatives are correct to be skeptical, maybe not so much of the warming claims, as of the draconian solutions proposed. The solutions always seem to be associated with more international control of national territories.

      For example, the massive carbon trading exchange seems, on the face of it, a way for non-productive power brokers and manipulators such as George Soros, to accumulate vast wealth, power, and influence, without contributing anything at all to actual productivity.

      Let me throw an alternative idea into the ring: the assertion of CO2 increases and global warming may be a rationale for the strengthening of national borders and the limitation of migration by strong borders. Just briefly, a small, middle-class population of up-to-date technology users in western countries is likely to have a far smaller impact on global changes than allowing masses of third-world, low-intelligence migrants who negatively impact any attempt by an advanced country to attempt to not fowl its own nest.

      This is a case in point: emissions tests in most states encourage the regular replacement of autos so as to conform to increasing standards of air protection. The more immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, the more ways there will be to bypass such controls, and the weaker the actual enforcement will be.

Comments are closed.